query_id
stringlengths 32
32
| query
stringlengths 6
5.38k
| positive_passages
listlengths 1
22
| negative_passages
listlengths 9
100
| subset
stringclasses 7
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
776e449152d9a8562cbf47ebe3ac7d6d
|
Do personal checks expire? [US]
|
[
{
"docid": "6c24c583fc638d7dff126ea15ba17c3a",
"text": "\"It depends on the bank. According to the Uniform Commercial Code, a bank is not obliged to pay a cheque after six months, but may do so if it wants to. § 4-404. BANK NOT OBLIGED TO PAY CHECK MORE THAN SIX MONTHS OLD. A bank is under no obligation to a customer having a checking account to pay a check, other than a certified check, which is presented more than six months after its date, but it may charge its customer's account for a payment made thereafter in good faith. Official link to UCC 4-404 As for your second question, if you stamp \"\"void after 60 days\"\" on your cheque; I don't have a specific answer for that part (yet). Update: I can find no specific rules about someone putting an arbitrary \"\"void after xxx days\"\" on their personal check. Businesess are alllowed to, but again the overriding rule seems to be that after six months it's the bank's choice, and you certainly couldn't make a cheque expire before six months, so I don't think that putting a stamp would make any difference. It's still up to the bank in the end.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "43e11b61c582bfaf936b78eedc373fcc",
"text": "When I last asked a certain large bank in the US (in 2011 or 2012), they didn't offer expiring personal checks. (I think they did offer something like that for business customers.) They also told me that, even if the payee cashes the check a year later and the check bounces, even if it's because I have closed the respective account, he will be able to go to the police and file a report against me for non-payment. (This is what the customer service rep told me on the phone after a bit of prodding, but someone else feel free to improve this answer and fix details or disagree; it's hard to believe and quite outrageous if true.)",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "2661232f0ca4b7cb6063bd231cb62f70",
"text": "In the United States, post-dating a check, on its own, has no valid use. It can be cashed at any time at the discretion of the bank. You would need to send a notice of postdating to your bank describing the check. This doesn't prevent the recipient of cashing the check, but it does prevent your bank from charging your account until the date you specify NOTE: This may be considered a form of stop payment, and you may be subject to the fees noted by your institution. Source: [Uniform Commercial Code - Article 4A § 4-401] (c) A bank may charge against the account of a customer a check that is otherwise properly payable from the account, even though payment was made before the date of the check, unless the customer has given notice to the bank of the postdating describing the check with reasonable certainty. [...] If a bank charges against the account of a customer a check before the date stated in the notice of postdating, the bank is liable for damages for the loss resulting from its act. The loss may include damages for dishonor of subsequent items under Section 4-402.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3456a85395de96c97129e11da329be13",
"text": "\"The traditional E-mini S&P500 options (introduced on 09/09/97) already expire on the 3rd Friday, so there's no need for another \"\"weekly\"\" option that expires at the same time.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1954c05331040b02cb1ab7f1ada311a5",
"text": "In general, currency has no expiration date. Specifically, in Canada, the Bank of Canada has been issuing banknotes since 1935, and these are still considered legal tender, even though they don't look much like the modern banknotes. Before that, Canadian chartered banks issued currency, and these also still have value. However, there are a few things to note. First of all, with currency of that age, it often has more value as a collector's item than the face value. So spending it at a store would be foolish. Second, store clerks are not experts in old currency, and will not accept a bill that they do not recognize. If you want the face value of your old currency, you may need to exchange it for modern currency at a bank. Having said all that, there are certainly cases where currency does expire. Generally this happens when a country changes currency. For example, when the Euro was introduced, the old currencies were discontinued. After a window of exchange, the old currency in many cases lost its value. So if you have some old French Franc notes, for example, they can no longer be exchanged for Euros. These types of events cannot be predicted in the future, of course, so it is impossible to say when, if ever, the Canadian currency you have today will lose its spending value in Canada.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5ee8c8550decc2affbf4a6d32464e470",
"text": "Several options: Banks - ask in the branches near to you if any of them would do that. They generally only service their account members, but if you smile and talk nicely to the tellers they might do that for you. It may involve some nominal commission. Check cashing places - they're everywhere, and they carry large denomination bills. They will probably do that, but will likely charge a commission. Money orders - if you don't want to give a personal check, buy a money order at the post office, and dump the cash on them. It costs a nominal fee ($1.60 at USPS).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "59fe505bfb67584052eb8f6565a634ac",
"text": "With a check, there are limits on cashing the stale check, but that is set by the banks involved. With a debit card transaction, it will be up the the debit card company and your bank. Imagine a situation where a person finds an old check and tries to cash it at their bank. If the bank considers the check stale, they might reject it, or put a longer hold on the check. When the check writers bank gets the transaction, they will also decide what to do. If they reject it, the first bank will reverse the transaction. You can't count on a 90 day, or 180 day limit; most banks will ask you to put a stop payment on an old check that you don't want cashed. This is especially important step if you write a replacement check. Because there is no check number to put a stop payment on, in fact the temporary hold will fall off after a few days. There doesn't appear to be a way to stop an old transaction. Be careful if you do contact the restaurant, you could end up double paying for the meal if they swipe your card again. Your best option may be just to keep the transaction as pending.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c01a70db78b356422e72671b7b7ed0da",
"text": "If it is more convenient for you - sure, go ahead and create another account. Generally, when you give someone a check - the money is no longer yours. So according to the constructive receipt doctrine, you've paid, whether the check was cashed or not. The QB is reflecting the correct matter of things. It doesn't matter that you're cash-based, the money still laying on your account because you gave someone a check that hasn't been cashed - is not your money and shouldn't be reflected in your books as such.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d74533e56f134e2a3190e46d682d061c",
"text": "I have no choice but to write a few checks a month. That's the only way the recipient will allow me to pay them. It's annoying af but I have no alternative. I suspect that's the same for many people. It's not us who wants to retain checks, it's stupid corporations and government agencies who will only accept checks or who charge extra for paying with a debit or credit card.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7a1e6c5dee1dc728561808bbff5abb42",
"text": "\"The answer probably varies with local law, and you haven't said where you're located. In most or all US states, it appears that after some statutory length of time, the bank would transfer the money to the state government, where it would be held indefinitely as \"\"unclaimed property\"\" in the name of the recipient (technically, the payee, the person to whom the check is made payable). This process is called escheatment. Most states publish a list of all unclaimed property, so at some later date the payee could find their name on this list, and realize they were entitled to the funds. There would then be a process by which the payee could claim the funds from the state. Usually the state keeps any interest earned on the money. As far as I know, there typically wouldn't be any way for you, the person who originated the payment, to collect the money after escheatment. (Before escheatment, if you have the uncashed check in your possession, you can usually return it to the bank and have it refunded to you.) I had trouble finding an authoritative source explaining this, but a number of informal sources (found by Googling \"\"cashier check escheatment\"\") seem to agree that this is generally how it works. Here is the web site for a law firm, saying that in California an uncashed cashier's check escheats to the state after 3 years. Until escheatment occurs, the recipient can cash the check at any time. I don't think that cashier's checks become \"\"stale\"\" like personal checks do, and there isn't any situation in which the funds would automatically revert to you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2fb158ab050f2b28ac72475487eec324",
"text": "Banks may still honor the check, depending on state law. Your obligation to pay has not been fulfilled. To get your money back, you need to wait a specified period of time and file a document reporting the check lost. There is probably a fee for this service.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e9c208288e2ae4dce6fd7a0d67a0ccdf",
"text": "\"Well, it's directly depositing money in your account, but Direct Deposit is something completely different: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_deposit Direct deposits are most commonly made by businesses in the payment of salaries and wages and for the payment of suppliers' accounts, but the facility can be used for payments for any purpose, such as payment of bills, taxes, and other government charges. Direct deposits are most commonly made by means of electronic funds transfers effected using online, mobile, and telephone banking systems but can also be effected by the physical deposit of money into the payee's bank account. Thus, since the purpose of DD is to eliminate checks, I'd say, \"\"no\"\", depositing cash directly into your account does not count as the requirement for one Direct Deposit within 90 days.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "990c695c06f83b04293bc55ff1980a6d",
"text": "I suspect @SpehroPefhany is correct and that your bank will cash a check from the US Department of the Treasury. Especially since they're the same ones who guarantee the U.S. Dollar. They may hold the funds until the check clears, but I think you'll have good luck going through your bank. Of course, fees and exchange rate are a factor. Consider browsing the IRS and US Treasury Department websites for suggestions/FAQs. I suggest you line up a way to cash it, and make sure there's enough left after fees and exchange rate and postage to get the check that the whole process is worth it, all before you ask it to be shipped to you. If there's no way to do it through your bank, through a money exchange business (those at the airport come to mind) or through your government (postal bank?), and the check is enough that you're willing to go through some trouble, then you should look into assigning power of attorney for this purpose. I don't know if it is possible, but it might be worth looking into. Look for US based banks in your area.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8287deab56f34b7c3f331d8e74600458",
"text": "I am in the United States. There is no need to keep the statements in any form forever. Once the bank gives you a 1099 stating how much interest you have earned, you don't need to keep them. If you only have them in electronic form, that is good enough for the IRS. When you do need to show a bank statement, such as when applying for a loan, the loan company will be keeping a copy. It doesn't matter if it was a scan from the original, from a printed PDF, or if you printed it from your archives. In the US they used send the original check back to the person who wrote it, so they could keep it for their records. Then many banks went to carbons, but if you paid extra they would send you the original. Now the bank that cashes the check scans the check and destroys the original. If you want a copy for your records it only exists as a scanned image.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "52723561ae6945cbce68bd27b38fb019",
"text": "It allows companies a time after which they can count the vouchers as part of profit in order to balance their books and also minimize internal fraud that could happen using the vouchers. If they didn't have an expiry date it becomes impossible to reconcile the voucher account as they can still possibly be used in future or may not be used. What do you count that as? If they have an expiry date, when the date passes you can count them as money coming in because they have been paid for though have not been used.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7317fb4f46b375b628a969a195c49b5f",
"text": "\"At least in the US, a Cashier's Check is just like a regular personal check - only it's guaranteed by the bank itself, so the person accepting it can be pretty certain the check won't be returned for insufficient funds...if the check is genuine! Most banks therefore have a policy for cashier's checks that is very similar to their policies on regular checks and money orders: if you are a member with an account in good standing, they'll make all or part of the money available to you according to their fund availability policy, which is usually anywhere from \"\"immediately\"\" to 7-10 days. With amounts over $5,000, banks will tend to put a hold on the funds to ensure it clears and they get their money. If you are not a member then many banks will refuse to cash the check at all, unless the cashier's check is drawn on on that brand of bank. So if the cashier's check is issued by, say, Chase Bank, Chase banks will usually be willing to cash out the entire check to you immediately (with properly provided ID). Because the bank is guaranteed by them they are able to check their system and ensure the check is real and can clear the check instantly. This policy isn't just up to individual banks entirely, as it is defined by United States federal banking policies and federal regulations on availability of funds. If you really must cash the check without a holding period and won't/can't have a bank account of your own to perform this, then you will generally need to go into a branch of the bank that is guaranteeing the check to be able to cash it out fully right away. Note that since the check might be issued by a bank with no branch near you, you should have a back-up plan. Generally banks will allow you to setup a special/limited savings-only account to deposit your check, even if you don't have a checking account, so if no other option works you might try that as well. The funds availability policies are the same, but at least you'll be able to cash it generally in 10 days time (and then close the account and withdraw your money).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e6322e2300547799bdd4f0a0aa7076f2",
"text": "\"Checks (in the US, anyway) are only good for six months after they have been written. After that. under the US Uniform Commerical Code they are considered \"\"stale checks\"\" and banks need not accept them. My experience is that they generally won't -- but you probably shouldn't count on that, either when figuring out whether to try depositing an old check or figuring out how much cash you need to keep in your checking account to cover recent stale checks. The check you now hold is certainly a statement of intent to pay you and thus is a useful document to supplement other evidence that they still owe you the money -- but since checks can be cancelled and/or a replacement check may have been issued, its value for that purpose may be limited. You can try depositing it and see what happens. If that doesn't work (or you don't want to bother trying it) you can contact the retirement plan, point out that this check went uncashed, and ask them to send you a replacement. If they haven't already done so (you might want to check your own records for that), there shouldn't be any problem with this. (Note: Many business checks have a statement printed on them that they're only good for 90 days or so. If yours does, you can skip trying to cash it; just contact the retirement plan offices.)\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
aa32d760838cdd423ab9bb131667c314
|
How to properly do background check for future tenant in my own house?
|
[
{
"docid": "8b35e3d4c7fd82ef6e3ecfe25533e072",
"text": "I am a realtor. For our rental business, we use a service that offers a background check. It costs us about $25, and it is passed along in the form of an application fee. I suggest you contact a local real estate agent who you know does rentals. Have a conversation about what you are doing, and see if they will help process the application for you, for a fee of course. If you are truly concerned about your safety (The text you wrote can either read as true concern or sarcasm. Maybe we are really in a wild country?) It's worth even a couple hundred bucks to screen out a potential bad roommate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0a4c5b8578830ea9dfae6c50ebb28187",
"text": "If you can find a tenant by networking -- co-worker, friend of a friend, etc. -- rather than openly advertising, that often gives you a better pool. Side advice: Check what local housing laws apply to renting a room rather than having a housemate. Once you start advertising this you may be subject to fair housing laws, additional code requirements, and so on.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "9410aac2831c33bba5318245fae862a3",
"text": "\"As a person who has had several part time assistants in the past I will offer you a simple piece of advise that should apply regardless of what country the assistant is located. If you have an assistant, personal or business, virtual or otherwise, and you don't trust that person with this type of information, get a different assistant. An assistant is someone who is supposed to make your life easier by off loading work. Modifying your records before sending them every month sounds like you are creating more work for yourself not less. Either take the leap of faith to trust your assistant or go somewhere else. An assistant that you feel you have to edit crucial information from is less than useful. That being said, there is no fundamental reason to believe that an operation in the Philippines or anywhere else is any more or less trustworthy than an operation in your native country. However, what is at issue is the legal framework around your relationship and in particular your recourse if something goes wrong. If you and your virtual assistant are both located in the US you would have an easier time collecting damages should something go wrong. I suggest you evaluate your level of comfort for risk vs. cost. If you feel that the risk is too high to use an overseas service versus the savings, then find someone in the states to do this work. Depending on your needs and comfort you might want to seek out a CPA or other licensed/bonded professional. Yes the cost might be higher however you might find that it is worth it for your own piece of mind. As a side note you might even consider finding a local part-time assistant. This can often be more useful than a virtual assistant and may not cost as much as you think. If you can live without someone being bonded. (or are willing to pay for the bonding fee) yourself, depending on your market and needs you may be able to find an existing highly qualified EA or other person that wants some after hours work. If you are in a college town, finance, accounting or legal majors make great assistants. They will usually work a couple hours a week for \"\"beer money\"\", they have flexible schedules and are glad to have something pertinent to their degree to put on their resume when they graduate. Just be prepared to replace them every few years as they move on to real jobs.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a2b55a5b15ae9da01086b439d1e60e2",
"text": "This may not be entirely scientific, but as a landlord my usual approach is just to do a search for rental properties on Craigslist for comparable homes in the neighborhood. There are all kinds of formulas professional property managers use, but in the end these listings are the ones you are going to be competing with for tenants. Also, it isn't super accurate, but online services like Zillow.com can give you some numbers for rental houses that include those that aren't currently advertising.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d33cfed182d3f8615b0308ee695e4067",
"text": "As a landlord for 14 years with 10 properties, I can give a few pointers: be able and skilled enough to perform the majority of maintenance because this is your biggest expense otherwise. it will shock you how much maintenance rental units require. don't invest in real estate where the locality/state favors the tenant (e.g., New York City) in disputes. A great state is Florida where you can have someone evicted very quickly. require a minimum credit score of 620 for all tenants over 21. This seems to be the magic number that keeps most of the nightmare tenants out makes sure they have a job nearby that pays at least three times their annual rent every renewal, adjust your tenant's rent to be approximately 5% less than going rates in your area. Use Zillow as a guide. Keeping just below market rates keeps tenants from moving to cheaper options. do not rent to anyone under 30 and single. Trust me trust me trust me. you can't legally do this officially, but do it while offering another acceptable reason for rejection; there's always something you could say that's legitimate (bad credit, or chose another tenant, etc.) charge a 5% late fee starting 10 days after the rent is due. 20 days late, file for eviction to let the tenant know you mean business. Don't sink yourself too much in debt, put enough money down so that you start profitable. I made the mistake of burying myself and I haven't barely been able to breathe for the entire 14 years. It's just now finally coming into profitability. Don't get adjustable rate or balloon loans under any circumstances. Fixed 30 only. You can pay it down in 20 years and get the same benefits as if you got a fixed 20, but you will want the option of paying less some months so get the 30 and treat it like a 20. don't even try to find your own tenants. Use a realtor and take the 10% cost hit. They actually save you money because they can show your place to a lot more prospective tenants and it will be rented much sooner. Empty place = empty wallet. Also, block out the part of the realtor's agreement-to-lease where it states they keep getting the 10% every year thereafter. Most realtors will go along with this just to get the first year, but if they don't, find another realtor. buy all in the same community if you can, then you can use the same vendor list, the same lease agreement, the same realtor, the same documentation, spreadsheets, etc. Much much easier to have everything a clone. They say don't put all your eggs in one basket, but the reality is, running a bunch of properties is a lot of work, and the more similar they are, the more you can duplicate your work for free. That's worth a lot more day-to-day than the remote chance your entire community goes up in flames",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "e27bc823c5084e8b773ad79e47adfc0e",
"text": "\"You need to get the current tax software, the 2013 filing software is out already, even though it needs to update itself before filing, as the final forms aren't ready yet. Then you will look carefully at Schedule E to understand what gets written off. I see you are looking at the $2200 rent vs your own rent of $2100, but of course, the tax form doesn't care about your rent. You offset the expenses of that house against the income. The expenses are the usual suspects, mortgage interest, property tax, repairs, etc. But there's one big thing new landlords are prone to forgetting. Depreciation. It's not optional. Say the house cost you $400K. This is your basis. You need to separate the value of land which is not depreciated. For a condo with no land it can be as little as 10%, when we bought our house, for insurance purposes, the land was nearly 40% of the full value. Say you do the research and decide 30% (for land), then 70% = $280K. Depreciation is taken each year over a 27.5 year period, or just over $10,000 per year. (Note, the forms will help you get your year 1 number, as you didn't have a full year.) This depreciation helps with your cash flow during the year (as you should do the math, and if you keep the house, adjust your W4 withholdings for 2014, that lump sum you'll get in April won't pay the bills each month) but is 'recaptured' on sale. At some point in the future, you may save enough to buy a house where you wish to live, but need to sell the rental. Consider a 1031 Exchange. It's a way to sell a rental and buy a new one without triggering a taxable event. What I don't know is how long the new house must be a rental before the IRS would then allow you to move in. The same way you turned your home into a rental, a rental can be turned back to a primary residence. I just doubt you can do it right after the purchase. As fellow member @littleadv would advise, \"\"get professional advice.\"\" And he's right. I've just offered what you might consider. The first year tax return with that Schedule E is the toughest as it's brand new. The next year is simple in comparison. The question of selling immediately is tough. Only you can decide whether the risk of keeping it is too great. You're saying you don't have the money to cover two month's vacancy. That scares me. I'd focus on beefing up the emergency account. And securing a credit line. You mentioned the tax savings. My opinion is that for any investment,the tax tail should never wag the investing dog. Buy or sell a stock based on the stock, not the potential tax bill for the sale. In your situation, the rent and expenses will cancel each other, and the depreciation is a short term loan, from a tax perspective. If you sold today, what do you net? If you analyzed the numbers now, what is your true income from the property each year? Is that return worth it? A good property will provide cash flow, principal reduction each year, and normal increase in value. This takes a bit of careful looking at the numbers. You might feel you're just breaking even, but if the principal is $12K less after a year, that's something you shouldn't ignore. On the other hand, an exact 'break-even' with little equity at stake offered you a leveraged property where any gains are a magnified percentage of what you have at risk. Last - welcome to Money.SE - consider adding some more details to your profile.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c23291f43a3a38e92ac0768438aab031",
"text": "Also, bear in mind, you need to pay a deposit which is around the same price as a monthly payment. They will also need to do a credit history check on you and since you are a foreigner you won't have any. There are some renters who care less but mostly serious renters will require it. Some can require an employment confirmation or even a bank account details. It is very complicated and difficult for a foreigner. As in comments mentioned, a contract is minimum 1 year. The deposit is returned when you leave and the place is left in good condition. I would not expect the full amount returned as many renters require a professional cleaning or some even repainting the walls. You can do it yourself and give them a receipt but you end up paying for it. What I would suggest is some type of a sharing house where people share rooms in one house. But that option has negatives. Another option is hostels where you even share a room. It all depends on where you want to live. It is very different if you are in a big city like New York or somewhere in suburbs. The prices also vary. It's good to have friends in the USA that can help you especially if you aren't planning on staying too long.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b50f43e5a7eefb771bcd826a71b5627",
"text": "Heres what you need to know: This can be prevented by what a previous renter did to us. This is a smart, kind of a jerky way to do it but its VERY SMART, as long as your property is worth it, raise the rent higher. You must have a very nice, clean, everything working, house. You must be willing to have anything fixed. this is all to make up the high rent. You don't want the rent way out of proportion but just a bit higher. This is because, more than likely, people who are going to pay for a higher rent don't usually leave a mess, (higher class families vs lower class people living alone..) What might also help from the risk of damage is create a fee (also what my renter did) of any painting needed done like finger prints on the wall, nails in the wall, carpet stains, etc when the tenant is ready to move out. I would suggest a required professional carpet cleaning as well when lease is up. My renter was very nice, but very strict and did all these things. He has a few properties that are very nice middle class houses. Your home sounds like it could easily pass for this kind of business depending on where you live. If the tenant leaves before his lease is up you could charge a 1-2 month's rent to be able to find a new tenant. Be proactive on finding a tenant before the lease is up. This would be a bit of work to first set up and usually maintain, but its a good thing to think about.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "822a8864099bd87a4e80929300b3d7b7",
"text": "\"Just brainstorming here, but my gut feeling is it should be possible to sell your home to yourself with the sole purpose of resetting your basis. Taken at face value it feels illegal, but since I think we all would agree that you could sell your house to a third party and purchase the identical house next door for the same price (thus resetting your basis), why can't you purchase the same home right back? If one is legal, it seems odd for the other not to be. That being said, I have no idea how to legally do it. Perhaps you truly need a third party to step in which you sell it to, and then buy it back from them sometime in the future. Or perhaps you could start an LLC and have it purchase your home from you. Either way, I highly suggest finding an expert real estate attorney/accountant before attempting this, and don't be surprised if you get multiple opposite opinions. I suspect this is a gray area which will highly depend on how tax \"\"aggressive\"\" you are willing to be.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7708521d8b2ccc71304644999bfe7428",
"text": "Dude, don’t worry what people are saying. Get the books, statements, or a lawyer. You have every right to the books as the other owners do. As the saying goes, if they have nothing to hide why are they afraid of you looking at the books. You can also demand a 3rd party audit, trying to come up with a business solutions with out knowing the finances what fixes you can afford, etc etc. come on man, MBA teach you it’s all about the money, and the stats. If you don’t know the money knowing the stats don’t help much ;)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8fbab1cfcd794289936e20efb54c2f83",
"text": "I would like to establish credit history - have heard it's useful to gain employment and makes it easy to rent an apartment? Higher credit scores will make it easier with landlords, that's true. As to employment - they do background checks, which means that they usually won't like bad things, but won't care about the good things or no things (they'll know you're a foreigner anyway). Is it safe to assume that this implies I have no history whatsoever? Probably, but you can verify pulling through AnnualCreditReport, don't go around giving your personal information everywhere. Is taking out a secured loan the only way for me? No, but it's one of the easiest. Better would be getting a secured Credit Card, not loan. For loan you'll have to pay interest, for a credit card (assuming you pay off all your purchases immediately) you will only pay the credit card fees (for secured credit cards they charge ~$20-100 yearly fees, so do shop around, the prices vary a lot!). If you're using it wisely, after a year it will be converted to a regular credit card and the collateral will be returned to you with interest (which is actually very competitive, last I heard it was around 2%, twice as much as the online savings accounts). As to a secured loan - you'll be paying 4% to CU for your own money. Doesn't make any sense at all for me. For credit cards you'll at least get some value for your money - convenience, additional fraud protection, etc. The end result will be the same. Usually the credit starts to build up after ~6-12 months (that's why after a year your secured CC will be converted to a regular one). Make sure to have the statement balance in the range of 10-30% of your credit limit, to get the best results. Would it make much better sense to wait till I get a job (then I would have a fixed monthly salary and can apply for a regular CC directly) You can apply, but you'll probably be rejected. As I mentioned in another answer elsewhere, the system in the US is such that you're unable to get credit if you don't already have credit. Which is kindof a magic circle, which you can break with the secured credit card as the least costly solution.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a0e307477870f8f3bb1dbe9eead58366",
"text": "\"This can be done, and there have been many good suggestions on things to do and watch out for. But to my shock I don't see anyone offering any words of caution about property managers! Whatever you do, don't assume they have your best interests at heart. Do not assume that \"\"no news is good news\"\" and that if you aren't hearing of problems and are just collecting rent checks, everything must be fine. You can easily end up with tenants you would never have allowed yourself, or tenants with pets that you would not have allowed, etc. Especially if the manager doesn't want you to have a vacancy and potentially lose you as a client, they may very well lower their standards just to get the place occupied. And a year or two or three later, you may find yourself looking at a very large repair bill and wonder how on earth it could have happened when you supposedly had someone looking out for your property! There are quality, ethical property managers out there. They are not all bad to be certain. But whatever you do, check up on them. And with multiple properties - especially if in multiple areas/states etc. - this can be nearly a full time job in itself. As the saying goes, \"\"Trust, but verify\"\". I have never found this to apply more than with rental properties and property management. Don't leave anything significant to them 100%. You can't even assume that a rule like \"\"all expenses over $50 must be cleared by me first\"\", as that can simply mean that they don't bother to come to you for certain kinds of repairs that would cost more than that, or that they just get them \"\"taken care of\"\" by their own person (done poorly, illegally, etc.) and never tell you. Never trust their choice of tenants blindly. Visit the place yourself at least every few months - a quick driveby at a minimum or better if you can, arrange a reason to walk through the house personally. Check the back yard, never assume that the front yard is indicative of anything else. Never assume that a \"\"no pets\"\" rule will be followed, or that tenants wouldn't lie to the management about having pets. Never assume that the tenants won't move additional people into the property as well. Always expect a bare minimum of 1 month vacancy every year, and an additional minimum of 1 month's rental revenue in unexpected maintenance/repairs every year. This is at a minimum! You might do much better than this, and have a high quality tenant in place for years who costs next to nothing in extra maintenance. But do not count on it. Rental real estate investing looks so simple on paper, where it's just numbers. But reality has a very rude habit of surprising you when you least expect it. After all, no one expects the Spanish Inquisition! Good luck!\"",
"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": "d3e86d6a25a06bf114fedd27ca20791d",
"text": "Collection agencies will eventually find you if you work for an employer that uses the credit bureaus for pre-employment screening, or you sign up for utilities or services that check your credit, or you enter into public record any other way (getting arrested, buying land, etc.). Such inquiries will put you on the grid where the collection agencies can find you and/or sue you. Two years out is about the point where they're looking for blood. The next time your friend applies for an apartment, utilities or cell phone service, she's going to get some calls.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4e5c747746142c0d25d8674c0f3044c0",
"text": "\"They are basically asking for the name of the legal entity that they should write on the check. You, as a person, are a legal entity, and so you can have them pay you directly, by name. This is in effect a \"\"sole proprietorship\"\" arrangement and it is the situation of most independent contractors; you're working for yourself, and you get all the money, but you also have all the responsibility. You can also set up a legal alias, or a \"\"Doing Business As\"\" (DBA) name. The only thing that changes versus using your own name is... well... that you aren't using your own name, to be honest. You pay some trivial fee for the paperwork to the county clerk or other office of record, and you're now not only John Doe, you're \"\"Zolani Enterprises\"\", and your business checks can be written out to that name and the bank (who will want a copy of the DBA paperwork to file when you set the name up as a payable entity on the account) will cash them for you. An LLC, since it was mentioned, is a \"\"Limited Liability Company\"\". It is a legal entity, incorporeal, that is your \"\"avatar\"\" in the business world. It, not you, is the entity that primarily faces anyone else in that world. You become, for legal purposes, an agent of that company, authorized to make decisions on its behalf. You can do all the same things, make all the same money, but if things go pear-shaped, the company is the one liable, not you. Sounds great, right? Well, there's a downside, and that's taxes and the increased complexity thereof. Depending on the exact structure of the company, the IRS will treat the LLC either as a corporation, a partnership, or as a \"\"disregarded entity\"\". Most one-man LLCs are typically \"\"disregarded\"\", meaning that for tax purposes, all the money the company makes is treated as if it were made by you as a sole proprietor, as in the above cases (and with the associated increased FICA and lack of tax deductions that an \"\"employee\"\" would get). Nothing can be \"\"retained\"\" by the company, because as far as the IRS is concerned it doesn't exist, so whether the money from the profits of the company actually made it into your personal checking account or not, it has to be reported by you on the Schedule C. You can elect, if you wish, to have the LLC treated as a corporation; this allows the corporation to retain earnings (and thus to \"\"own\"\" liquid assets like cash, as opposed to only fixed assets like land, cars etc). It also allows you to be an \"\"employee\"\" of your own company, and pay yourself a true \"\"salary\"\", with all the applicable tax rules including pre-tax healthcare, employer-paid FICA, etc. However, the downside here is that some money is subject to double taxation; any monies \"\"retained\"\" by the company, or paid out to members as \"\"dividends\"\", is \"\"profit\"\" of the company for which the company is taxed at the corporate rate. Then, the money from that dividend you receive from the company is taxed again at the capital gains rate on your own 1040 return. This also means that you have to file taxes twice; once for the corporation, once for you as the individual. You can't, of course, have it both ways with an LLC; you can't pay yourself a true \"\"salary\"\" and get the associated tax breaks, then receive leftover profits as a \"\"distribution\"\" and avoid double taxation. It takes multiple \"\"members\"\" (owners) to have the LLC treated like a partnership, and there are specific types of LLCs set up to handle investments, where some of what I've said above doesn't apply. I won't get into that because the question inferred a single-owner situation, but the tax rules in these additional situations are again different.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "077fddb4e4e0666c457f5f65bdaf1150",
"text": "It depends on how much you save, how much your savings earns each year. You can model it with a very simple spreadsheet: Formula view: You can change this simple model with any other assumptions you wish to make and model. This spreadsheet presumes that you only make $50,000/year, never get a raise, that your savings earns 6% per year and that the market never has a crash like 2008. The article never states the assumptions that the author has made, and therefore we can't honestly determine how truthful the author is. I recommend the book Engineering Your Retirement as it has more detailed models and goes into more details about what you should expect. I wrote a slightly more detailed post that showed a spreadsheet that is basically what I use at home to track my retirement savings.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
390bd8e5297f7548c7f792bd607b6aeb
|
renter's insurance for causing property damage
|
[
{
"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": "15c73bd272efaeeb6eb5ac9ddf6df9f1",
"text": "You need to get some thing called landlord insurance, tenants only covers his belongings. Any property damage caused deliberately or unknowingly is not covered in this, its upon the owner to get landlord insurance.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "fd689b6def8ac021d8eadf33bbcd8b36",
"text": "Remember this when you rent. You may get 1,600 back - however, you have to provide insurance on the house still, 10% of that rent goes into a repair fund for things that break. You don't get compensated for months without a renter. You still pay property tax and income tax. If you have someone manage the house, you have to pay their fee (10%+ usually). Lots of variables when renting (I looked into doing the same thing)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "669e68311bbc565174483b8e4fc5519f",
"text": "\"I'd say your tenant is out $750, not you. How you handle it is totally personal preference. If you want to be the super-nice landlord and eat the loss this one time, then you might gain some karma and hopefully they'll be awesome tenants for the remainder of their stay. Are they the kind of tenants you want to be nice to because they deserve it? You (and she) have no way to prove she ever actually tried to pay you. Sound like she is learning a $750 lesson. \"\"Don't leave cash in a mailbox, and always get a receipt for rent paid.\"\" Your insurance company would likely not pay out as it'd be below a typical deductible and you can't really prove the money ever existed. You'd be better off just taking the loss. Think about it this way: How would you expect a bank or utility company to respond to this situation? \"\"Yeah, I left my mortgage as a cash-filled envelope on your doorstep. You didn't get it? I told you I'd do it!\"\" Guess who's paying double mortgage and a late fee? You're not stuck with option 1, you're choosing to do it. She could refuse and fight you on it, which might not be worth the headache and potential small-claims court. But you're entitled to receive the rent and she is obligated to pay it. And \"\"paying it\"\" means making sure you actually receive it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc1dcede73c8ceea3e5cbabdc536be5b",
"text": "I would not do this personally for most house items, since I really view them as consumables. I am using household items until they wear out, not placing my money in an investment that needs to retain or return value. If you have any investment-like items, or if the value represents a significant (you decide this) portion of your annual income or net worth, then track it with inventory and schedule it on an insurance policy. If your home is destroyed and you have an inaccurate inventory or no inventory at all, what does insurance provide for replacement of property? Maybe more importantly, will insurance even care about your own personal inventory? (Isn't it easy to scam, through value inflation?) For insurance, you need to start with the details of your homeowners policy. Often there will be a general blanket amount of what they will reimburse. If you have items over that amount, or need more coverage, you will need to schedule the items up-front with insurance. This way, the value of expensive items are known and agreed on by all parties before an event. It ensures a quick claim resolution, and it is the cleanest and easiest way to deal with the insurance company. You need to talk to your agent about the unique aspects of your policy. You need to make sure the policy will cover your liabilities.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0a0ad0deb270b252db9bdeb58f22d331",
"text": "\"Title insurance protects you from losing rights to your property in case of a court decision. Let's look at an example I recently found in local newspapers. One old woman sold her apartment to person A. The deed was attested by a notary public who verified that indeed in was that old woman putting her signature on the deed. Then person A sold the apartment to person B, etc, then after several deals some unfortunate Buyer bought that apartment. The deal looked allright, so he's got a mortgage to pay for the apartment. Later it turned out that the old lady died three months before she \"\"sold\"\" the apartment and the notary public was corrupt. Old lady's heirs filed a lawsuit and the deal was void. So the ultimate Buyer lost all rights to the apartment although he purchased it legally. This is the case when title insurance kicks in. You need one if there's a chance for a deal to be deemed void.\"",
"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": "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": "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": "3b2684744c9a4f150f9725871ea78493",
"text": "\"Ok sure, your homeowners insurance now includes all those things. Floods, hurricanes, terrorism... its also now twice the price. You're on /r/finance, not /r/politics. You should understand that you pay a premium for every risk that you off-lay. It is well known that basic homeowners insurance does not cover floods. If you want it, you can get it. Most people in a non flood-prone area will say, \"\"I'm willing to take that risk, I'll save $500/yr and not get it\"\". Would you rather the government just force you to get it? You just complained about Auto Insurance \"\"forcing\"\" you to get uninsured driving insurance. You can't have it both ways.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"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": "999cb9e4cd0645d699addfa3c3838517",
"text": "How are home insurance companies going to pay for all the damage from the hurricanes? Are Allstate/Farmers/Etc. required to keep enough money liquid to pay 100+ billion in claims? Google results are littered with angry articles related to healthcare companies, I'm struggling to find a legitimate answer on home insurance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f6175b7471ef574c8884ec620a6fda1b",
"text": "Can you afford to replace your home if it suffers major damage in a fire or earthquake? Is your home at risk of flooding? In the United States, one can purchase insurance for each of these risks, but the customer has to ask about each of them. (Most default American homeowners policies cover fire and wind damage, but not earthquake or flooding. I am not sure about hurricane or tornado damage.) Your most cost-effective insurance against fire, earthquake, or flood damage is to prevent or minimize such damage. Practical measures cannot completely eliminate these risks, so homeowners' insurance is still a good idea (unless you are so rich you can easily afford to replace your home). But you can do things like: Your most cost-effective health insurance is to have clean water, wash your hands before handling food, eat healthily (including enough protein, vitamins, and minerals), exercise regularly, and not smoke. Your medical insurance can cover some of the inevitable large medical expenses, but cannot make you healthy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b4b8a11090f24d11251af51477b9283",
"text": "\"At fault doesn't mean negligent... If a driver were doing 150 on the wrong side of the street and gets in an accident, no insurer is paying that out. Likewise a credit agency not properly handling sensitive info and not giving proper disclosures of a breach won't lead to an insurance policy giving them a dime. I'd say google \"\"does insurance cover negligence,\"\" but you should probably Google the definition of negligence first. What your saying and the links you've provided clearly shows you don't even know what that word means.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "23713c3502af568fc0edf27614897b19",
"text": "The company provides the best motorbike services center in Florida. While protection is an aggregate misfortune protection strategy, that will pay the distinction of the sum your cruise insurance agency pay's you for an aggregate misfortune on your bike and the estimation of your bike credit. Is it true that you are acquiring a utilized cruiser or Henderson motorcycles? On the off chance that so there is presumably impossible for you to buy hole protection on the grounds that most hole protection strategies are just great on fresh out of the box new motorcycle.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "15d1ca497dfc22d7af0ebe893732281e",
"text": "\"There is a term for this. If you google \"\"House Hacking\"\" you will get lots of articles and advice. Some of it will pertain to multifamily properties but a good amount should be owner occupied and renting bedrooms. I would play with a mortgage calculator like Whats My Payment. Include Principle, interest, taxes and insurance see how much it will cost. At 110k your monthly fixed payments will depend on a number of factors (down payment, interest, real estate tax rate and insurance cost) but $700-$1000 would be a decent guess in my area. Going off that with two roommates willing to pay $500 a month you would have no living expenses except any maintenance or utilities. With your income I would expect you could make the payment alone if needed (and it may be needed) so it seems fairly low risk from my perspective. You need somewhere to live you are used to roommates and you can pay the entire cost yourself in a worst case. Some more things to consider.. Insurance will be more expensive, you want to ensure you as the landlord you are covered if anything happens. If a tenant burns down your house or trips and falls and decides to sue you insurance will protect you. Capital Expenses (CapEx) replacing things as they wear out. On a home the roof, siding, flooring and all mechanicals(furnace, water heater, etc.) have a lifespan and will need to be replaced. On rental properties a portion of rent should be set aside to replace these things in the future. If a roof lasts 20yrs,costs $8,000 and your roof is 10years old you should be setting aside $70 a month so in the future when this know expense comes up it is not a hardship. Taxes Yes there is a special way to report income from an arrangement like this. You will fill out a Schedule E form in addition to your regular tax documents. You will also be able to write off a percent of housing expenses and depreciation on the home. I have been told it is not a simple tax situation and to consult a CPA that specializes in real estate.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2447d62ff04c16cf8ef4f21ba6dfaf57",
"text": "\"You have to realize that you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You want to do things \"\"unofficially\"\" by not reporting the accident (to insurance companies and/or police), but you want to do it \"\"officially\"\" in that you want to have legal recourse if they try to hit you up for more money. The only way to have it both ways is to trust the other person. From a financial perspective, ultimately you need to decide if the monetary cost of your raised insurance premiums, etc., outweighs the cost of whatever money the other party in the accident will try to squeeze out of you (factoring in the likelihood that they will do so). You also would need to factor in the likelihood that, rather than trying to scam you, they'll pursue legal action against you. In short, from a purely monetary perspective, if the legitimate cost of repairs is $700 and the cost to you of doing it by the book via insurance is $2000, you should be willing to be scammed for up to $1300, because you'll still come out ahead. Of course, there are psychological considerations, like whether someone unscrupulous enough to scam you will stop at $1300. But those numbers are the baseline for whatever outcome calculations you want to do. On the more qualitative side of things, it is possible they're trying to scam you, but also possible they're just trying to hustle you into doing everything quickly without thinking about it. They may not be trying to gouge you monetarily, they just want to pressure you so they get their money. I agree with other answerers here that the ideal way would be for them to send you an actual bill after repairs are complete. However, you could ask them to send you a written copy of the repair shop estimate, along with a written letter in which they state that they will consider payment of that amount to resolve the issue and won't pursue you further. The legal strength of that is dubious, but at least you have some documentation that you didn't just try to stiff them. If they won't give you some form of written documentation, I would read that as a red flag, bite the bullet, and contact your insurance company.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
2dc1640730c69025c742f4a5f8dc2b4b
|
How do you write a check with cents?
|
[
{
"docid": "d2acf99226ed0dfb29bdfd1c8bfa6d16",
"text": "\"In the US, Section 3.114 of the Uniform Commercial Code sets the rules for how any confusion in checks or other business transactions is handled: “If an instrument contains contradictory terms, typewritten terms prevail over printed terms, handwritten terms prevail over both, and words prevail over numbers.” If there was any ambiguity in the way you wrote out the amount, the institution will compare the two fields (the written words and the courtesy box (digits)) to see if the ambiguity can be resolved. The reality is that the busy tellers and ATM operators typically are going to look at the numeric digits first. So even if they happen to notice the traditional \"\"and...\"\" missing, it seems highly unlikely that such an omission would cause enough ambiguity between these the two fields to reject the payment. Common sense dictates here. I wouldn't worry about it.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "58654a927a52b3436e6c0ccfaf535765",
"text": "Avoid talking to a person: Just use an automated system, such as an ATM or a cellphone app. Automated systems will ONLY scan for the RTN # and Account number at the bottom of the check (the funny looking blocky numbers). The automated system will not care who the check is made out to, or who is present, so long as you have an account to credit the money into, and the account number on the check can get the money debited properly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "636702411ab0de17d342fc29a006e2d7",
"text": "\"1.Why is there no \"\"United States Treasury\"\" endorsement? Why should there be, and what do you think it would look like? Some person at Treasury sitting at a desk all day signing \"\"Uncle Sam\"\"? At most you would expect to see some stamp, because it's clear that no person is going to sign all of these checks. 2.Can I have the check returned for proper endorsement? No, this is none of your business unless you have some serious reason to believe that someone other than the treasury cashed your check. (If that were really your concern, then you'd have a bigger issue than the endorsement.) 3.If I am required to endorse checks made out to me, why isn't the US Treasury? As others have noted, an endorsement is often not required as long as the name on the check matches a name on the account to which it is deposited. Individual banks may have stricter rules, but that's between you and your bank.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5ee3001cd34c55627e3909d2ff7fb0f3",
"text": "Just take it to a bank that will count it and give you cash or put it in your account. Don't bother counting it and rolling it. They will just break the rolls and throw it into a change counting machine. I did that once and never will again after I saw that years ago. The local bank I used for this offered it as a free service. You could also use those coinstar machines found in many grocery stores and various outlets, but they take like 8 or 9%. Unless time/hassle is of concern, why do that when there are possible free options?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b9b2c1bc7a5f523ec9cf5c6bc72ecf44",
"text": "If you are off by coins, how can you be sure that you only made a typo and didn't miss a transaction? To start off, I would strongly you find a way to be precise. It doesn't matter so much in the accounting, but the habit of doing a thorough job will pay off in other dividends down the line. Basically, do the pennies now. Tryout some free online software to save the headache of data entry. But........ Since my primary goal is to get you to do the budgeting, and if you really hate the coins, just be consistent in how you fudge the debits and the credits. Always round down to the nearest whole in income, and always round up on expenses. You won't overspend this way, and your back account should have a little bit of padding because you will assume less money in and more money out. Honestly, I do tracking in both Quicken and Mint.com, so the transaction size is no big deal to me. If I did it all in Excel, I would round to whole notes. You didn't tag your question with a country, so I don't know if or similar is available to you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d75262261aaee4439569628a663c0d7",
"text": "\"That's accurate. Here is another risk with the current checking system, which many people are not aware of: Anyone who knows your checking account number can learn what your balance in that account is. (This is bank-specific, but it is possible at the major banks I've checked.) How does that work? Many banks have a phone line where you can dial up and interact with an automated voice response system, for various customer service tasks. One of the options is something like \"\"merchant check verification\"\". That option is intended to help a merchant who receives a check to verify whether the person writing the check has enough money in their account for the check to clear. If you select that option in the phone tree, it will prompt you to enter in the account number on the check and the amount of the check, and then it will respond by telling you either \"\"there are currently sufficient funds in the account to cash this check\"\" or \"\"there are not sufficient funds; this check would bounce\"\". Here's how you can abuse this system to learn how much someone has in their bank account, if you know their account number. You call up and check whether they've enough money to cash a $10,000 check (note that you don't actually have to have a check for $10,000 in your hands; you just need to know the account number). If the system says \"\"nope, it'd bounce\"\", then you call again and try $5,000. If the system says \"\"yup, sufficient funds for a $5,000 check\"\", then you try $7,500. If it says \"\"nope, not enough for that\"\", you try $6,250. Etcetera. At each step, you narrow the range of possible account balances by a factor of two. Consequently, after about a dozen or so steps, you will likely know their balance to within a few dollars. (Computer scientists know this procedure by the name \"\"binary search\"\". The rest of us may recognize it as akin to a game of \"\"20 questions\"\".) If this bothers you, you may be able to protect your self by calling up your bank and asking them how to prevent it. When I talked to my bank (Bank of America), they told me they could put a fraud alert flag on your account, which would disable the merchant check verification service for my account. It does mean that I have to provide a 3-digit PIN any time I phone up my bank, but that's fine with me. I realize many folks may terribly not be concerned about revealing their bank account balance, so in the grand scheme of things, this risk may be relatively minor. However, I thought I'd document it here for others to be aware of.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "50d8baa527dda7e3d14ef76cae41eb8f",
"text": "As long as someone is willing to take it, you can write it! I personally wrote a check for a new car. The dealership didn't bat an eye.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96e8e92c38f178866e219cae79293113",
"text": "\"Yes. The US Mint has a deal where you can buy dollar coins for face value, free shipping and can charge them to your card. They come in small boxes of 10 x $25 rolls of coins. I'm sure your landlord will be happy to accept cash for the rent. Upon further reflection you spelled it \"\"cheque\"\" which means these coins are not legal tender for you. You might want to add your country to the tags. Note: This 'deal' is no longer available. It was (mis)used to get points/miles on credit cards, and the coins deposited at the bank. There's now a premium to buy the coins on line.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2011d772af8004a0cb808e5e711da8bd",
"text": "\"You are making this far more complex than it needs to be. Direct deposit your savings directly into a savings account. To track spending, invest in a small notebook, and keep a tally of what you spend every day. Also, it seems odd to me that you want to track your budget in minute detail, but coins are \"\"useless\"\" to you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc26d4a800bea172012b60ec4364dd83",
"text": "Do a monthly budget, unique to each month, before the month begins, spend all of your money on paper. Use envelopes to help you keep track of how much you have left for things you buy throughout the month. Have separate envelopes for things like groceries, restaurants, clothing, entertainment. Put the amount of money for each category in cash in the envelope. Only spend the money out of the correct envelope and don't mix and mingle between envelopes. Pay in cash, with real money. Don't use credit or debit cards, it's proven you spend more when you are not paying with cash.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ef100bc0d7e435fdc5fbb103eef4366",
"text": "\"It's a scam. The cashier's check will be forged. Craigslist has a warning about it here (item #3). What kind of payment do you think is not fakable? Or at least not likely to be used in scams? When on craigslist - deal only locally and in person. You can ask to see the person's ID if you're being paid by check When being paid by check, how can seeing his/her ID help? In case the check isn't cashable, I can find that person by keeping record of his/her ID? If you're paid by check, the payers details should be printed on the check. By checking the ID you can verify that the details match (name/address), so you can find the payer later. Of course the ID can be faked too, but there's so much you can do to protect yourself. You'll get better protection (including verified escrow service) by selling on eBay. Is being paid by cash the safest way currently, although cash can be faked too, but it is the least common thing that is faked currently? Do you recommend to first deposit the cash into a bank (so that let the bank verify if the cash is faked), before delivering the good? For Craigslist, use cash and meet locally. That rules out most scams as a seller. What payment methods do you think are relatively safe currently? Then getting checks must be the least favorite way of being paid. Do you think cash is better than money order or cashier order? You should only accept cash. If it is a large transaction, you can meet them at your bank, have them get cash, and you receive the cash from the bank. Back to the quoted scam, how will they later manipulate me? Are they interested in my stuffs on moving sale, or in my money? They will probably \"\"accidentally\"\" overpay you and ask for a refund of some portion of the overpayment. In that case you will be out the entire amount that you send back to them and possibly some fees from your bank for cashing a bad check.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4bb4c6f31eaea21b14c16f88eaab362c",
"text": "\"One easy way to monitor costs in QuickBooks is to establish sub-bank accounts. For example, you may have an asset account called \"\"State Bank\"\" numbered 11100 (asset, cash and cash equivalents, bank). Convert this to a parent account for a middle school by making subaccounts such as At budget formation, transfer $800 from Operations 11110 to Family Fun Committee 11130. Then write all checks for Family Fun from the Family Fun 11130 subaccount. For fundraising, transfer $0 at budget formation to the X Grade accounts. Do deposit all grade-level receipts into the appropriate grade-level subaccounts and write all checks for the grades from the grade-level subaccounts. The downside to the above is that reconciling the check book each month is slightly more complicated because you will be reconciling one monthly paper bank statement to multiple virtual subaccounts. Also, you must remember to never write a check from the parent \"\"State Bank\"\" 11100, and instead write the checks from the appropriate subaccounts.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b526fac64b86f0d375209d228854e1b",
"text": "I use paycheckcity.com and first punch in my paycheck and make sure it calculates within a few pennies the value of my actual paycheck. Then I fiddle with withholding values, etc. to see the effect of change. It has been very effective for me over the years.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a2c8ee8ee3ef896bb3dc414204aa9de5",
"text": "Citibank just sent me a $100 check. Here's how I got it:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20f1faf11e9fc76bc2216ed86c83a0e7",
"text": "\"I know this an old thread, but one that caught my interest as I just moved to the USA from Australia. As per the OP I had never written a check in my whole life, and upon arriving in the US I was surprised as to their proliference. In Australia pretty much all bills you receive can be paid in a number of ways: For small amounts between friends cash is probably used most, but for larger amounts direct transfer is popular. Your friend/landlord will give you their bank account number and BSB number, which identifies their bank, and then you transfer the money in. We don't have a SSN like some other countries. Cheques are still used by some however, esp by the older generations. Now that I'm in the US initially I had tried to set up direct transfer to pay my rent however the bank has a $1000 daily transfer limit. I contacted the bank to get this increased however I was informed that this limit applies to ALL accounts at the bank. I asked how do people pay their rents with this low limit and was told that most people used cheques. (This explains the strange look I got from my landlord when I asked for their bank account details so I could pay the rent!) I now have some bills to pay here and I use online banking. You enter the biller's name and address and then the bank actually prints off a cheque and posts it to the biller on your behalf! My first couple of pays here were also cheques, which were the first actual \"\"paychecks\"\" I had ever received.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2bd9006e9a20a0e1dc3f3c9a12f58033",
"text": "Could someone please explain to me how interest rates work? I like to think of interest rates as the price of money. It is specified as a percentage paid per unit of time (for example, 3%/year). To figure out how much interest money you get (or have to pay) for a given amount and time, multiply the amount with the interest rate and then divide by the time divided by the interest rate's specified time. That sounds awfully complicated, so let's look at a simple example instead. You deposit $1,000 at a fixed interest rate of 2% per year, for two and a half years, where the interest is paid at the end of the term. This means that you earn $1,000 * 2% = $20 per year in interest. Multiply this by [2.5 years] / [year] = 2.5, and you will have received $20 * 2.5 = $50 in interest over 2.5 years. If the interest is paid yearly, this gets slightly more complicated, but the principle is the same. Now imagine that you deposit $5,000 at a fixed 3% per year, for half a year. Again, the interest is paid at the end of the term. You now earn $5,000 * 3% [per year] * [[0.5 years] / [year]] = $75 in interest over six months. Variable interest rates makes this a little more complicated, but it is exactly the same thing in principle: calculate the interest paid for each period (taking any compounding into account), then add up all periods to get the total amount of interest paid over time. It also works the same way if you take out a loan rather than depositing money. Tax effects (capitals gains taxes or interest expense deductions) may make the actual amount paid or received different, but that does not change the fundamental aspect of how to calculate interest. Do CD's make more money with higher interest rates, or is it the other way around? Usually fixed interest rate instruments such as certificates of deposit, or loans with fixed rates, pay a higher interest rate for longer terms. This is because it is harder to judge credit risk in a longer term, so whoever gives the loan usually wants a premium for the additional risk. So a 6-month CD will normally pay a smaller percentage interest per year than a five-year CD. Note that this is not always the case; the technical term for when this does not hold is inverted yield curve. Interest rates are almost always formally specified in terms of percent per year, which makes it easy to compare rates. If you buy a $100 6-month CD paying 1% (I told you these were only examples :)) and then reinvest the money at the end of the term in another 6-month CD also paying 1%, the total amount paid will be ($100 * 1 + (1% * 6/12)) = $100.50 for the first term, then ($100.50 * 1 + (1% * 6/12)) = $101.0025 at the end of the second term. As you can see, the compounding of the interest makes this return slightly more than a single $100 12-month CD ($100 * 1 + 1% = $101), but unless you are dealing with large amounts of money, the difference is small enough to be negligible. If you were to put $100 in a 2% one-year CD, you'd get back $102 at the end of the year. Put the same amount in a 5% one-year CD, and you get back $105. So yes, higher interest rates means more interest money paid, for loans as well as deposits. Keep in mind that loans and deposits really are essentially the same thing, and interest calculations work the same way for both. The interest rate of a normal certificate of deposit does not change if the variable interest rates change, but rather is locked in when the money is deposited (or the CD is bought, whichever way you prefer to look at it).",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
5ba09a2345124d744b56d39020a3ea20
|
Is equity research from large banks reliable?
|
[
{
"docid": "0da5a63664d01ab153188b5ba37b058e",
"text": "\"If by \"\"can we trust the analyst recommendations\"\" you mean \"\"are they right 100% of the time\"\" the answer is absolutely no. Analysts are human and make mistakes, some more than others. There are many stories of \"\"superstar managers\"\" that make killings for several straight years, then have a few bad years and lose it all back. However, don't take \"\"you can't trust them\"\" to mean that they are nefarious in some way. While there may be some that recommend stocks for selfish purposes, I suspect that the vast majority are just going off what information they have, and can't predict market behavior or future performance with perfect accuracy. Look at many analysts' recommendations. Do your own analysis. If you're still not comfortable buying individual stocks, then don't buy them. Buy index funds if you are satisfied with market returns, or other mutual funds if you want to invest in specific sectors. Or at the very least make sure you are sufficiently diversified so that you don't lose your entire investment by one bad decision. One rule of thumb is to not have more than 10% of your entire portfolio in any one company.\"",
"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": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "ea328edcc2ab811a9e574f093a9ab8ba",
"text": "Yes, Lending Club is the biggest of the bunch, which to date have helped originate $1B of loans. LC just raised more money (bringing total to $100M) and Mary Meeker joined the board. There's a novelty aspect to it b/c it's new but it's just the beginning of parts of the banking industry/process/institutions being disintermediated. Low vol is an easy sell, actually. If investors aren't being paid for risk, why assume it?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "98327dbb386c1a738abe97f050ef7ca7",
"text": "There are forums online (Wall Street Oasis, Poets and Quants) that cover what you need to know for a Wall Street interview. That's the most efficient way. But it's also important to research the company that you're interviewing for. Do they invest in equity or debt? Are they in a specialized industry (e.g., real estate, oil & gas)? A model for a equity research firm is going to have different priorities from a LBO model for a private equity firm or a cash flow model for a bank/lending company.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "61de25b75f779fd3addc7f1515b344a4",
"text": "\"Though you're looking to repeat this review with multiple securities and events at different times, I've taken liberty in assuming you are not looking to conduct backtests with hundreds of events. I've answered below assuming it's an ad hoc review for a single event pertaining to one security. Had the event occurred more recently, your full-service broker could often get it for you for free. Even some discount brokers will offer it so. If the stock and its options were actively traded, you can request \"\"time and sales,\"\" or \"\"TNS,\"\" data for the dates you have in mind. If not active, then request \"\"time and quotes,\"\" or \"\"TNQ\"\" data. If the event happened long ago, as seems to be the case, then your choices become much more limited and possibly costly. Below are some suggestions: Wall Street Journal and Investors' Business Daily print copies have daily stock options trading data. They are best for trading data on actively traded options. Since the event sounds like it was a major one for the company, it may have been actively traded that day and hence reported in the papers' listings. Some of the print pages have been digitized; otherwise you'll need to review the archived printed copies. Bloomberg has these data and access to them will depend on whether the account you use has that particular subscription. I've used it to get detailed equity trading data on defunct and delisted companies on specific dates and times and for and futures trading data. If you don't have personal access to Bloomberg, as many do not, you can try to request access from a public, commercial or business school library. The stock options exchanges sell their data; some strictly to resellers and others to anyone willing to pay. If you know which exchange(s) the options traded on, you can contact the exchange's market data services department and request TNS and / or TNQ data and a list of resellers, as the resellers may be cheaper for single queries.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2e4165fab77bbf06f2e73a55fff64295",
"text": "Thanks for the info. I am quite familiar with FAs and I definitely do not want to go that route. I highly doubt I can get an equity research role considering my lack of real experience. I was just trying to get an entry-level position and given my resume, I'm having a tough time doing even that :\\ It's really unfortunate, I wish I articulate my experience to a hiring manager BEFORE they looked at my resume!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d10eb268437ac3cb2c275b49b796db2d",
"text": "From Dimson, Elroy, Paul Marsh, and Mike Staunton. Triumph of the Optimists: 101 Years of Global Investment Returns. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 2002: Disappointingly, the small firm effect has not proved the road to great riches since soon after its discovery, the US size premium went into reverse. This was repeated in the United Kingdom and virtually all other markets around the world. Despite their disappointing performance in recent years, the very long-run record of small-caps remains one of outperformance in both the United States and the United Kingdom. Furthermore, mid- and small-size companies are still an important asset class. Their differential performance over long periods of history shows that there is useful scope for investors to reduce risk by diversifying across the “large” and the “small” capitalization sectors of the market. Furthermore, given the pervasiveness of the size effect across the entire size spectrum, it is important to all investors since the size tilt of any portfolio will strongly influence its short- and long-run performance. This holds true whether there is a size premium or a size discount. The size effect has certainly proved persistent and robust. What is at issue is whether we should continue to expect a size premium over the longer haul. And accompanying charts: And one chart from BlackRock:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "930967bb7a4eed75d2fd95d0ba458ea5",
"text": "I actually don't have a finance/accounting background but a much more technical background within my sector and had some general finance knowledge. However, most have finance/accounting degrees I work with, and then learn their sector. Many (a third?) straight out of school, most associates with just a few years of experience in finance/accounting related jobs, not necessarily equity research. Don't fret about not having much luck so far, keep looking for a good opening and understand that a lot of jobs in finance/accounting fields can lead you to other positions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2e985fd0802a5664343a1f2e720c11ad",
"text": "\"Sure, Yahoo Finance makes mistakes from time to time. That's the nature of free data. However, I think the issue here is that yahoo is aggregating several line items into one. Like maybe reporting cash equivalents plus total investment securities minus loans as \"\"cash equivalents.\"\" This aggregation is done by a computer program somewhere and may or may not be appropriate for a particular purpose and firm. For this reason, if you are trying to do top quality research, it's always better to go to the original SEC filings, if you can. Then you will know for sure which items you are looking at. The only mistakes will be the ones made by the accountants at the firm in question. If there's a reason you prefer to use yahoo, like if it's easier for your code to scrape, then spend a little time comparing to the SEC filing to ensure you know where the numbers really come from before using it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f7891abbef9c75a7d5c213f3d855c84",
"text": "So my Question is this, in reality is investment in equities like the stock market even remotely resemble the type of growth one would expect if investing the same money in an account with compounding interest? Generally no as there is a great deal of volatility when it comes to investing in stocks that isn't well represented by simply taking the compounded annual growth rate and assuming things always went up and never went down. This is adding in the swings that the market will take that at times may be a bit of a rude surprise to some people. Are all these prognosticators vastly underestimating how much savers need to be socking away by overstating what is realistic in terms of growth in investment markets? Possibly but not probably. Until we know definitively what the returns are from various asset classes, I'm not sure I'd want to claim that people need to save a ton more. I'll agree that the model misses how wide the swings are, not necessarily that the averages are too low or overstated.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "982c9fdf4205d7f408856b9aa63ca04d",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2017/06/09/ABBA-An-Agent-Based-Model-of-the-Banking-System-44916) reduced by 60%. (I'm a bot) ***** > The views expressed in IMF Working Papers are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the IMF, its Executive Board, or IMF management. > A thorough analysis of risks in the banking system requires incorporating banks' inherent heterogeneity and adaptive behavior in response to shocks and changes in business conditions and the regulatory environment. > ABBA is an agent-based model for analyzing risks in the banking system in which banks' business decisions drive the endogenous formation of interbank networks. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6gegcw/imfabba_an_agentbased_model_of_the_banking/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~140832 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **banks**^#1 **IMF**^#2 **risk**^#3 **view**^#4 **author(s**^#5\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6ab77689a3736559dc6bcc1147836b43",
"text": "Please use the sharing tools found via the email icon at the top of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email [email protected] to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour. https://www.ft.com/content/23ab8a02-5787-11e7-80b6-9bfa4c1f83d2?mhq5j=e1 By continuing to use this site you consent to the use of cookies on your device as described in our cookie policy unless you have disabled them. You can change your cookie settings at any time but parts of our site will not function correctly without them. Dismiss cookie message Accessibility helpSkip to navigationSkip to contentSkip to footer Financial Times MYFT HOME WORLD UK COMPANIES MARKETS OPINION WORK & CAREERS LIFE & ARTS Portfolio My Account HOME WORLD UK COMPANIES MARKETS OPINION WORK & CAREERS LIFE & ARTS MYFT Bank stress tests Add to myFT US banks pass first round of annual stress tests Clean bill of health from Federal Reserve opens door to increased shareholder payouts Read next Week in Review Week in Review, July 1 © AFP Share on Twitter (opens new window) Share on Facebook (opens new window) Share on LinkedIn (opens new window) Email4 Save JUNE 22, 2017 by: Alistair Gray and Ben McLannahan in New York and Barney Jopson in Washington US banks have big enough capital buffers to keep trading through an economic meltdown, regulators said on Thursday, in a finding that improves their chances of boosting payouts to shareholders. In the first round of this year’s stress tests, the Federal Reserve probed how 34 banks would fare in a financial and economic slump in which the unemployment rate doubles and the stock market loses half its value. The central bank calculated that the banking sector would endure $493bn in losses in the simulated downturn. Yet officials concluded that the banks would emerge from the crash “well capitalised”, with cushions of shareholder funding still above the Fed’s minimum required levels. The largely upbeat results augur well for US banks as the Fed prepares to unveil the results of the tests’ second round next week, when investors will learn how much capital they can return through dividends and share buybacks. However, the figures released on Thursday do not foretell what the Fed will say about payouts, not least because regulators can approve or block US banks’ capital plans on qualitative as well as quantitative grounds. Lex Bank stress tests: chilled The once-vital check on the industry’s health is outliving its usefulness UBS analysts estimate that the four biggest by assets — JPMorgan, Bank of America, Citigroup and Wells Fargo — will be able to return a net $59.8bn this year, rising to $72.3bn in 2018. Citi and Morgan Stanley could be among about a dozen banks that will make requests to return more than 100 per cent of their annual earnings to shareholders, according to Goldman Sachs analysts. Despite the positive stress test results, not all investors would be comfortable with such a bonanza. Bill Hines, a fixed-income investment manager at Aberdeen Asset Management in Philadelphia, said the prospect of payouts in excess of profits “does scare us a little bit”. “If the safety blanket is pulled away . . . that may come to the detriment of capital and safety.” Across-the-board passes for the stress-test are “a good thing,” he said, as it shows that banks have rebuilt capital levels substantially since the crisis. “But from a creditor’s standpoint you don’t want to see all the profits go out the door.” While banks have already told the Fed what they propose to do on dividends and buybacks, they are now able to make more conservative payout plans if, based on the first-round results, they think it will reject them in the second round. Related article Regulators back Trump on looser financial rules Officials endorse Volcker rule revamp and bank relief from burden of ‘stress tests’ The regulator’s simulated downturn lasts for nine quarters. Banks’ overall loan losses and declines in capital under the worst crisis scenario were smaller than in last year’s stress tests, Fed officials said. Still, the test found that some banks would come close to breaching regulatory minimums during the meltdown on some metrics. For instance, Morgan Stanley’s “supplementary leverage ratio” — a new measure of financial strength that takes effect in 2018 — would drop as low as 3.8 per cent compared with a required level of 3 per cent. The results also drew attention to banks’ exposure to credit card lending. The Fed found banks would suffer the biggest losses in their card portfolios in the hypothetical crisis. Fed officials said that partly reflected a rapid expansion in the size of banks’ credit card assets and rising delinquency rates in the real world. Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2017. All rights reserved. You may share using our article tools. Please don't copy articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web. Share on Twitter (opens new window) Share on Facebook (opens new window) Share on LinkedIn (opens new window) Email4 Save Latest on Bank stress tests Week in Review Week in Review, July 1 Fed stress tests give $1.6bn boost to Buffett Fed gives nod to ‘payout party time’ for banks Lex US banks: feeling special Premium Stress tests clear big US banks for $100bn payout Read latest Week in Review Week in Review, July 1 Latest on Bank stress tests Add to myFT Week in Review Week in Review, July 1 US banks pass test; Google, Takata, Fox and M&A also in the news Banks Fed stress tests give $1.6bn boost to Buffett Investor is one of the largest holders of US bank stocks and will reap big dividends Analysis Bank stress tests Fed gives nod to ‘payout party time’ for banks Buybacks and dividends set to soar after industry passes latest stress test Latest in Banks Add to myFT Central Banks BoE successfully tests new payment method ‘Interledger’ programme synchronises transactions between two central banks 3 HOURS AGO US banks US consumers set to be given power to sue banks Financial institutions express fury at CFPB proposal that could spur class actions UK banks BoE warns UK banks on accounting practices PRA chief Sam Woods says lenders should ‘expect questions’ on balance sheet trickery Follow the topics mentioned in this article JPMorgan Chase & Co. Add to myFT Companies Add to myFT Banks Add to myFT Wells Fargo Add to myFT Citigroup, Inc. Add to myFT Follow the authors of this article Barney Jopson Add to myFT Alistair Gray Add to myFT Take a tour of myFT Support View Site Tips Feedback Help Centre About Us Accessibility Legal & Privacy Terms & Conditions Privacy Cookies Copyright Slavery Statement Services FT Live Share News Tips Securely Individual Subscriptions Group Subscriptions Republishing Contracts & Tenders Analysts Research Executive Job Search Advertise with the FT Follow the FT on Twitter Ebooks UK Secondary Schools Tools Portfolio Today's Newspaper (ePaper) Alerts Hub Lexicon MBA Rankings Economic Calendar News feed Newsletters Currency Converter More from the FT Group Markets data delayed by at least 15 minutes. © THE FINANCIAL TIMES LTD 2017. FT and ‘Financial Times’ are trademarks of The Financial Times Ltd. The Financial Times and its journalism are subject to a self-regulation regime under the FT Editorial Code of Practice. CloseFinancial Times UK Edition Switch to International Edition Top sections Home World Show more World links UK Show more UK links Companies Show more Companies links Markets Show more Markets links Opinion Show more Opinion links Work & Careers Show more Work & Careers links Life & Arts Show more Life & Arts links Personal Finance Show more Personal Finance links Science Special Reports FT recommends Lex Alphaville EM Squared Lunch with the FT Video Podcasts Blogs News feed Newsletters myFT Portfolio Today's Newspaper (ePaper) Crossword Help Centre My Account Sign Out",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7db81342d09683bc6b9553f8c1048464",
"text": "\"Also here's a source for the $3.7 trillion number. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-08/u-s-municipal-bond-market-28-larger-than-estimated-federal-reserve-says.html It's not 'incorrect data'. EDIT: Furthermore, in order to know the \"\"extent\"\" of the crime (your own admission) we NEED to know the size of the entire market otherwise you can't have any perspective or determine extent. So there's no reason it shouldn't be mentioned in the article.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8fdbf339263b1065a53a294559a4d6dd",
"text": "\"There is actually a recent paper that attempted to decompose Buffett's outperformance. I've quoted the abstract below: \"\"Berkshire Hathaway has realized a Sharpe ratio of 0.76, higher than any other stock or mutual fund with a history of more than 30 years, and Berkshire has a significant alpha to traditional risk factors. However, we find that the alpha becomes insignificant when controlling for exposures to Betting-Against-Beta and Quality-Minus-Junk factors. Further, we estimate that Buffett’s leverage is about 1.6-to-1 on average. Buffett’s returns appear to be neither luck nor magic, but, rather, reward for the use of leverage combined with a focus on cheap, safe, quality stocks. Decomposing Berkshires’ portfolio into ownership in publicly traded stocks versus wholly-owned private companies, we find that the former performs the best, suggesting that Buffett’s returns are more due to stock selection than to his effect on management. These results have broad implications for market efficiency and the implementability of academic factors.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "601484dcced18e9f3d16caf02df9209b",
"text": "ETFs don't need sell-side research (yes they do, no they don't). They need to keep their fees minimal. Mutual funds need equity research and they charge beefy fees to pay for it. Look at the flows into mutual funds and the flows into ETFs and make your own mind up. However, bear in mind that there will always be *some* demand for really good research. It just probably isn't a growing field. It will be a shrinking field where the best of the best do well and everyone else is playing a game of Survivor trying not to get kicked off the island.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d789e42d59c3ecd9aa81709d72c53a26",
"text": "Buy and sell orders always include the price at which you buy/sell. That's how the market prices for stocks are determines. So if you want to place a buy order at 106, you can do that. When that order was fulfilled and you have the stock, you can place a sell order at 107. It will be processed as soon as someone places a buy order at 107. Theoretically you can even place sell orders for stocks you haven't even bought yet. That's called short selling. You do that when you expect a stock to go down in the future. But this is a very risky operation, because when you mispredict the market you might end up owing more money than you invested. No responsible banker will even discuss this with you when you can not prove you know what you are doing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "13ef7f9e39be68ec99874aa10daa9f40",
"text": "I am going to speak in general, as this has also been the case in europe. First of all QE is an increase of money supply but using non conventional measures(there might be exceptions) some examples of this measures are changing interest rates or TLTRO. As to why this hasnt transitioned into more inflation, which in the end has but years after, has been a question that people have asked a lot. One of the reasons for this is the transmission mechanism not working properly, which implies that despite the fact banks have received money, they havent been able to move it to the real economy hence not increasing prices.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
9efaae2f12eb5ddedad9ac42595369ef
|
How to prevent myself from buying things I don't want
|
[
{
"docid": "a075cc97288fb8b4f330df6bcdb88aac",
"text": "We all buy stuff from time to time that only satisfies us for a short time. I was able to locate a few expenses that fall under that category. I see a lot answers that focus on not getting these things. I'm going to tell you how to at least attempt to have your cake and eat it too. If you can get these things without paying for them, or by paying pennies on the dollar for them, you'll no longer want to buy them at full price. Begin by making a list of the items you can't stop thinking about. Go to your local library and look for relevant items that are on your list. If they are not yet available, request that the library purchase them, and reserve them for when the items come in. Yes, libraries are usually tax-supported, but to give back, if you can't afford to contribute to the Library immediately, you can still promote their fund-raising or book/media-drive efforts. If you don't mind buying things that may be second hand, thrift stores and garage or yard sales can have anything. The ones near you may have one or two items on your list of things you were looking for - for pennies on the dollar. Other items might be things you can share with friends. Borrow or swap things until you get bored of them. If you don't have a network of friends with shared interests, there may be a local freecycle or relevant meetup group you can join. The key here is to try to contribute more than you take (and you probably have things you don't need that you can start with trading), and don't keep careful score. The upshot is you'll not only save money but make friends while doing it. You can sometimes have your cake and eat it too. These recommendations can get you the short-term happiness you were looking for, without spending the money. And when the happiness is gone, you won't feel like you need to hang on to the item indefinitely - you can pass it on for others to enjoy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e90889eb5f2065484f68f1a81ab324e9",
"text": "I found the best way to do this was to make a spending plan at the beginning of the month with someone else. If you're married or in a relationship where you pool resources, then this is a natural way to sync up on your expectations. If you don't have a relationship of that nature, it's still good to have a friend that you talk to about things you are planning on buying. If I don't allow myself to buy things on a whim, if I have to take the time to justify my purchases to someone else, then I have to first think about the purchase and justify it to myself. Often the actual process of thinking it through is enough for me to talk myself out of it. Consider the tactics of car salesmen. Each time you attempt to leave the lot, to think about it overnight, they sweeten the offer to try to get you to buy before leaving. They know that if you leave the lot, you are much less likely to decide that you must have that car. You should have a policy of sleeping for one night before making any purchase over an arbitrary dollar amount say $250, or $500, or $1,000. Having that rule, and following it will save you a lot of buyers remorse. As an aside, I've had my eye on a 35mm prime lens for my camera for over a year now. I was ready to pay ~$500 for a nice lens that was discounted by $100, and I was a little sad that I missed the discount. However, I am very deliberate in my shopping, and I didn't want to buy until I read enough of the reviews to be certain about it. It turns out that the lens has a fatal flaw for landscape photography that most reviewers didn't notice because they were using it for portrait photography. I finally concluded that the lens I really wanted was an $800 lens. I looked at resale prices on my $600 lens and they are in the $350 range. So instead of missing out on a $100 discount, I missed out on a $150 loss trading up to the lens that I really want for the long term.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "51f990657b459bb34ba495a7383ccfe3",
"text": "To me the key is a budget. Each month, before it begins, decide on what to spend on each dollar that you earn. Money should be allotted for normal expenses such as housing, food, transportation, and utilities. If you have any consumer debt that should be a priority. Extra money should go to eliminate that debt. There should be money allotted to savings goals (such as retirement, home down payment, or vacation home). Also there should be money set aside for clothing and giving. Giving is an important part and often overlooked part of wealth creation. Somewhere in there you should also give yourself a bit of free money. For example one of the things I spend my free money on is coffee. I buy freshly ground coffee from a really good supplier. It is a bit expensive, but that is okay as it does not preclude me from meeting other goals. If you still have money left after all of that increase your giving some, your savings some, and your free money some. You can then spend that money without guilt. If your budget includes $100 of free money per month, and you want something that costs $1000, save up the $1,000 and then buy it. Do not borrow to buy free money stuff! Doing those sorts of things will make you weigh purchasing decisions very carefully. If you find that you cannot stick to a budget, you should enlist a friend to be your accountability partner. They have to be very good with money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7def91c35c896505b404f8a6b1aa01ac",
"text": "\"One of the most effective tools we have to keep ourselves from doing things is procrastination. Most of the time procrastination is a bad thing because we use it to avoid doing things we should be doing. But it's equally effective at keeping us from doing things that are not good for us, like overspending or overeating. How do we procrastinate things like this? Put it on a big, fat, TODO list somewhere that you seldom look at. That will get it out of your head...your subconscious will not keep bugging you about it because it's not worried about forgetting it. Save the discount code in the list so you know you will have it if you ever want it. Put other things that you are unlikely to do any time soon on that same list. Then move on with your life and enjoy your freedom from useless and expensive clutter. I use online TODO lists (also google docs) for keeping track of things I'm supposed to be doing. One of my lists, \"\"long term purchases,\"\" contains a bunch of expensive stuff that I have wanted at some point but not gotten around to purchasing. I think the list has saved me a lot of money. Stuff stays on that list a long time. Ultimately most of the items on the list either become cheap or I lose interest in them. There's a reason salesmen push you to buy NOW NOW NOW. They know if you procrastinate the decision, you are much less likely to buy.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b2f7d4e2a96e3cde245fdd90da2faa6f",
"text": "Nathan's answer was a +1 from me. The answer is not always simple. Having the money available is surely the first step. Using Pete's process aligns with this. Another thought is depending where you are in your finances, delay by a day for every $100 in cost. e.g. For a $1000 purchase, sleep on it for 10 days. Adjust the number for your circumstance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "264db385dc4d772151dcee5feed3eb34",
"text": "\"Since these are specific items that you don't really want to buy, it might help to figure out what you could spend that money on that you DO really want. It sounds like right now you are thinking \"\"Wow, I can get this widget (that I don't really want) for so cheap with this discount code!\"\" Try changing your thinking to something along the lines of \"\"This widget is pretty cool, but I could buy this doodad that I really want instead\"\" or \"\"This widget is nice, but if I don't buy it, I could have a latte every other day this month.\"\" I've found this to be a very effective technique-- and I often don't end up buying the doodads or lattes either. It's just a good way to put the cost of your purchase in perspective. The other thing I do when I want something is to write it down and revisit it a week or so later. If I still want it and I still have the budget for it (and especially if I've skipped other purchases to save up for it), then I buy it. That advice doesn't sound like it will work for you though, since it sounds like you've wanted to buy these things for a long time. So... are you REALLY sure you don't want them, or do you just not want to want them?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "11f790046399809b908728f0d9f14a7c",
"text": "I use cash exclusively. I go to the cash machine once a week and withdraw the money I want to spend in one week (so I have to plan if I want to buy something expensive). Otherwise I leave the card at home. As bonus you get anonymity, i.e. big brother cannot track you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "75e101bd1c0b946683ec4593854b1eca",
"text": "Make a deal with yourself. You can buy the things that you want, but only after you've read three books on behavioral economics. You should probably start first with Dan Ariely's Predictably Irrational, which will help you understand why the discount makes you covet the products even more than you would without it. Then find and read two more high-quality books from the same genre. If you gain self-awareness from this, you will begin to understand why you are conflicted (hint: you really don't want the things you think you do). And you probably won't purchase anything in spite of the fact that you kept the first part of the bargain.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f84fc57412f24d3e53079925b3255f9d",
"text": "There are a lot of good answers above, all of them will probably work for you in some way or another. One point to note (from the procrastination theme) is that you could invest your free money that you have currently in some investment instrument which would require you to do some paperwork etc. to get out, this way the immediate cash flow is decreased and also invested. Now from each montly budget save a small amount for the things that you would like to buy. Give this small savings some months to accumulate so that you can afford only one of the items that you want to buy or target an item that you want to buy. After the money is accumulated, if you still want to buy the item, then you probably should. One point of note is that budgeting is also important on a monthly basis, Pete has provided excellent suggestion in this regard.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "045b03d3530b3e3f6265ebefedc303b3",
"text": "\"Remember where they said \"\"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? That is the essence of this problem. You have freedom including freedom to mess up. On the practical side, it's a matter of structuring your money so it's not available to you for impulse buying, and make it automatic. Have you fully funded your key necessities? You should have an 8-month emergency fund in reserve, in a different savings account. Are you fully maxing out your 401K, 403B, Roth IRA and the like? This single act is so powerful that you're crazy not to - every $1 you save will multiply to $10-100 in retirement. I know a guy who tours the country in an RV with pop-outs and tows a Jeep. He was career Air Force, so clearly not a millionaire; he saved. Money seems so trite to the young, but Seriously. THIS. Have auto-deposits into savings or an investment account. Carry a credit card you are reluctant to use for impulse buys. Make your weekly ATM withdrawal for a fixed amount of cash, and spend only that. When your $100 has to make it through Friday, you think twice about that impulse buy. What about online purchases? Those are a nightmare to manage. If you spend $40 online, reduce your ATM cash withdrawal by $40 the next week, is the best I can think of. Keep in mind, many of these systems are designed to be hard to resist. That's what 1-click ordering is about; they want you to not think about the bill. That's what the \"\"discount codes\"\" are about; those are a fake artifice. Actually they have marked up the regular price so they are only \"\"discounting\"\" to the fair price. You gotta see the scam, unsubscribe and/or tune out. They are preying on you. Get angry about that! Very good people to follow regularly are Suze Orman or Dave Ramsey, depending on your tastes. As for the ontological... freedom is a hard problem. Once food and shelter needs are met, then what? How does a free person deny his own freedom to structure his activities for a loftier goal? Sadly, most people pitching solutions are scammers - churches, gurus, etc. - after your money or your mind. So anyone who is making an effort to get seen by you and promise to help you is probably not a good guy. Though, Napoleon Hill managed to pry some remarkable knowledge from Andrew Carnegie in his book \"\"Think and Grow Rich\"\". Tony Robbins is brilliant, but he lets his staff sell expensive seminars and kit, which make him look like just another shyster. Don't buy that stuff, you don't need it and he doesn't need you to buy it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b2bf07e63994720b13da84861816442",
"text": "\"To me, your question emphasizes something I've heard many times before: personal finance is as much or more about behavior than it is about mathematics or \"\"head knowledge\"\". Sure, you know you shouldn't be wasting a lot of money on something you will use very infrequently, but how do you make this behavior stick? Here are a few tricks that might help: The other aspects of your question really touch more on psychology than finance. But getting yourself into a discipline habit with money will help. And realizing the full cash price of items in relation to how much your disposable income is will help you get control of your impulses, as you review your budget monthly, and keep limit yourself using the envelope system. But honestly, everybody wants stuff they don't have, it's human nature. The key is finding ways to put physical limits and guards on yourself to keep you from obeying the self-destructive impulses.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c87643e5a6f184c6002adef2393a7600",
"text": "\"I believe that your dilemma comes from not having clearly defined consequences of buying it. On one side you want it and you can afford it, but on the other side there is nothing solid. Just some vague dislike of spending money and guilt of buying something \"\"useless\"\". You're basically guilt tripping yourself into not buying it, and guilt tripping is always bad. What you need is clear-cut consequence. Something like \"\"I can buy X but then I won't get Y and Z\"\". And for that you need a clearly laid out budget, just to know how much you can spend. Money that go into things that are absolutely required, money that go into various saving plans, etc - and after that you're left with some clear amount that should be spent on making yourself happier. Making yourself happier is not something you should feel guilty about, it's actually one of purposes of life. Making yourself happy is only bad if it's hurting other areas of your life (and even that is relative, because there is always some extent of degradation you're willing to accept or you have already accepted). There is absolutely no point in saving every single penny you can, because that will make you live long and unhappy life and die without enjoying your riches.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4c372ebe4d33144e8b380f5ce9052c02",
"text": "My approach won't work for everyone, but I keep a longer list of things I want in my head, preferably including higher value items. I then look at the cost of an item vs the amount of benefit it gets me (either enjoyment or ability to make more money or both). If I only had a few things I wanted, it would be easy to buy them even if the payback wasn't that great, but because I have a large list of things I'd like to be able to do, it's easier to play the comparison game in my head. Do I want this $50 thing now that will only give me a little bit of enjoyment and no income, or would I rather be able to get that $3000 digital cinema camera that I would enjoy having and could work on projects with and actually make money off of? (This is a RL example that I actually just bought last week after making sure I had solid leads on enough projects to pay myself back over time.) For me, it is much easier to compare with an alternative thing I'd enjoy, particularly since I enjoy hobbies that can pay for themselves, which is really the situation this strategy works best in. It might not work for everyone, but hobbies that pay for themselves can take many different forms. Mine tends to be very direct (get A/V tool, do projects that pay money), but it can also be indirect (get sports stuff, save on gym membership over time). If you can get things onto your list that can save you money in the long run, then this strategy can work pretty well, if not, you'll still have the overall saving problem, just with a longer wish list. That said, if you are good about saving already and simply want to make better use of your disposable income, then having a longer list may also work to let you seek out better deals for you. If you have funds that you know you can healthily spend on enjoyment, it is going to be difficult to choose nothing over something that gives enjoyment, even if it isn't a great return on the money. If you have alternatives that would give you better value, then it's easier to avoid the low value option.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "df1ce9c8d22bd8f023544de2677cc8c6",
"text": "\"There's a reason that you get a discount code: to make you feel like you're getting a deal. A deal is what you get when there was something that you were already going to buy, and you got it for a lower price than you were going to originally spend on it. If you learn to look at \"\"rewards\"\" as a marketing ploy that is designed only to get your business, then it's easier to ignore them. But if you really do want a thing, and is is a thing that you are going to use, then by all means, go for it! Buy it, and use those rewards and enjoy them. Otherwise you're just giving your money to someone else for no good reason. And if you want to do that, you should just give it to me. At least I'm honest about it :)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "163def80a80e57b6e03a993f56567747",
"text": "\"Long ago, a friend of mine shared with me the \"\"Lakshmi rule\"\" which can be used for managing one's spending: 1/3rd: Save, 1/3rd: Donate, 1/3rd: Survival. Survival refers to primary needs like food, clothing, shelter, medicine, family and priority needs like travel. The word \"\"Lakshmi\"\" comes from the Sanskrit language and is often used to denote money, wealth or opulence. Its etymological meaning is - to perceive, understand, objective, observe, to know etc. As per ancient thought leaders, wealth is to be used wisely and with great care. Carelessness and misuse of it means havoc not only in one's own life but also on a community level. Rather than seeing money as a source of one's own happiness, it should be used as tool for the larger good. This will give proper fulfillment in life and helps one shy away from spending on those little things which only give temporary happiness. Having a deeper perspective to our everyday actions and situations, can help develop beneficial habits that easily helps control one's impulsive urges and distractions.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "293421cc8ae7e7d0518d6fa59d3d4f18",
"text": "One approach is to control your budget more effectively. For example work out your essential living expenses things like food, rent and other bills you are committed to and compare this to your regular income. Then you can set up a regular automatic payment to a savings account so you limit the disposable income in your current account. If you keep a regular check on this balance it should make you feel like you have less 'spare' money and so less temptation to spend on impulse purchases. Similarly it may help to set a savings goal for something you really do want, even if this is itself a bit frivolous it will at least help you to discipline yourself. Equally it may be useful to set a fixed budget for luxuries, then you have a sense that when it's gone it's gone but you don't have to completely deny yourself.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "cd532c8fa8610c87b3a63444613790b2",
"text": "Budget out the amount you save and owe per month. Make sure that amount doesn't stay liquid, invest it, send it out. Make it go away. Learn to live in the rest. If you still have some left over then enjoy the impulse buying (why not). Second rule, try to payout your credit cards every month.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "267dbf368dc8cd2fc8151bd1e078accc",
"text": "I think you need to have the experience of over-consumption to realize that buying more stuff won't make you happy. And then when you see TV commercials and ads everywhere, you no longer will want the stuff. When you do that, then you slow down and start to value spending time with the people important to you, doing stuff and going places with them. It's the experiences that count, and some of the most fun and memorable stuff you can do is free or cheap.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "301bfdde2a9a2b9e9e1161c2eb7aba16",
"text": "You can't both enforce saving and have access to the money -- from what you say, it's clear that if you can access the money you will spend it. Can you find an account that allows one withdrawal every six months but no more, which should help to cut down on the impulse buys but still let you get at your money in an emergency?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd862e04a2e145e96152e31acf77ebaa",
"text": "\"First, you must prioritize what a \"\"need\"\" and what a \"\"want\"\" is. This is different for everyone but generally, I think most people will agree that impulse items are \"\"want\"\" items. Look at the item, hold it, put it back and wait 30 days. Put the money that the item costs $x into your savings account (transfer from checking, straight deposit, etc) Come back to the store and hold the item again and as \"\"did I miss the fact that I didnt get it 30 days ago?\"\". 95% of the time, the answer is no. You saved $x for 30-days, and received what is a tiny bit of interest for it. This is cause for celebration! If you repeat this for every item you THINK you \"\"need\"\" or \"\"want\"\" then you'll be amazed at what you saved. Dont waste this money on a vacation to the islands either! Keep saving. There will be plenty of rainy days when you'll have wanted to trade that island vacation (or the impulse items you bought that you used once or twice and are lost in your garage somewhere) to pay for some unexpected emergency. Trust me on this!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab2e33242dd7429fea27ae355e2ed0a4",
"text": "\"For me, it would be hard to leave all forms of money at home (cash, credit card, debit card.) There are times when you simply need to have money on hand. But, here's a simple idea I have that lets you bring your cards with you, yet still puts up a hurdle to curb impulse buying. When you're in a situation where you want to buy something, the card that's in your wallet/purse will be wrapped in your crafted \"\"reminder envelope.\"\" You'll see the reminder, which is hopefully enough. Then, in order to make a purchase you'll need to tear it open. That should get you to think twice. The one problem with the above is online purchases: If you have memorized your card information, add this rule for yourself: No online purchases without the payment card present and visible. (i.e. you also must tear open the envelope for online purchases.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b131c244e5b41d0188aca3f0f93a143c",
"text": "\"In the end, this is really not a finance question. It's about changing one's habits. (One step removed, however, since you are helping a friend and not seeking advice for yourself). I've learned a simple cause & effect question - Does someone who wants (goal here) do (this current bad habit)? For example, someone with weight to lose is about to grab the chips to sit and watch TV. They should quickly ask themselves \"\"Does a healthy, energetic person sit in front of the TV eating chips?\"\" The friend needs to make a connection between the expense he'd like to save up for and his current actions. There's a conscious decision in making the takeout purchase, he'd rather spend the money on that meal than to save .5% (or whatever percent) of the trip's cost. If he is clueless in the kitchen, that opens another discussion, one in which I'd remark that on the short list of things parents should teach their kids, cooking is up there. My wife is clueless in the kitchen, I taught our daughter how to be comfortable enough to make her own meals when she wants or when she's off on her own. If this is truly your friend's issue, you might need to be a cooking spirit guide to be successful.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "83ec63deaac1b4eddbad2daa9b6f0c13",
"text": "Apart from what others have contributed. Look at all your usual spendings. Can they be cheaper? (Telephone, Electricity, Gas, Car, Mortgage, Loans, Insurance...) Whenever you are tempted to buy anything, ask yourself: Do I need this? If the answer is 'Yes' go ahead and buy (food, basically). Otherwise, restrain yourself. Most things in life can be bought cheaper. Most things in shops are useless. For example, how many pairs of shoes do you need? You can drink water from the tab. You don't have to go to restaurants or bars, and if you do, you could budget yourself to some amount. If the restaurant is more expensive, walk. My 0,02€",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4ad08fc0ab8ad1ece6c26bf0a5529da4",
"text": "When you're selling something through a provider, like Craig's List or newspapers, the only thing that may limit your choices is the provider. They may refuse your post if it's against their rules or the law. But luckily they usually don't limit or enforce certain payment choices. These private business providers have the right to do so if they want. You don't need to be their customer. They may state their terms for using the service and even refuse service (before any payment is made). The fun part is that you may do so as well. Just remember to state your terms in your post so the prospective buyers are aware of them. I've found it best to put payment and delivery terms in separate lines so that they are easily noticeable, for example: Nice victorian handbasket with gold embroidery, only used once. Signed by the original author. Comes with a certificate of authenticity. No delivery, only cash payments.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cc42d8ae9f3c8806be1440b68ecf5bb5",
"text": "If your goal is to make it harder for you to use to make impulse purchases then YES. Having to always have cash for purchases will make you less likely to make impulse purchases you don't really need.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cebbad15de772301ffdbb5dedcc51fd7",
"text": "Perhaps you take it a step further and go cash only. Cash only will make it just another step harder to spend your cash. Also split your money into multiple accounts. Checking that auto pays bills, a savings, and an investment account. You have to want to change to change. Post a blog and public calendar with your expenses and that might make you think twice about spending your money. If you don't want to tell everybody else, maybe you don't spend it. Perhaps see a shrink too. You need help identifying patterns before you do them, and having insight into your motivations could help. I am not saying go forever, but perhaps a few sessions or a couple of months. You might be addicted to spending. Join a group and talk about it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c3a0a37a52aa731dca51d89e0f04e766",
"text": "So I am in this position with my grandmother and she is in her late 90s and wants to give us some of her things. There are some items I would want, but there are a lot of other things that I don't want. So when she wants to give me things now, I have to be delicate about it. I don't want to be inundated with everything and the things I would want now she is still using so I will happily wait.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3990625113d4d472df79a83f6d924025",
"text": "I agree with the first poster- the first step is to measure your spending and put it down into raw numbers. Once you have the raw numbers, you will feel a natural inclination to improve on those numbers. Set yourself a daily target for cash / incidental expenses. It doesnt have to be a crazy target - just something you can achieve easily. Mark a 'tick' mark next to every day on the calendar that you meet that target (or spend less than the target). Gradually the momentum from the past few 'ticks' will automatically compel you to want to tick off the next day. At the end of each week, lower the target a little. You'll find that when you start measuring your expenditure, you become more aware of how you might be wasting money. All too often we just go out and buy stuff we don't need without really thinking about it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b5c9397a24f3551e0114b3e5a9a051b1",
"text": "Yeah, fuck those hippies, making you shop at stores you don't want to and buy products you don't want to. Tip 1: grab from the back for perishables. Tip 2: pretty sure they'll do a refund or exchange on about anything for about any reason. Never tried it, though I have also been burned by early mold.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d9b9529a6b2b1abc773e9950634e8cee",
"text": "Since you ask.... How do I do it? My frugality doesn't come from budgeting or even half so much from keeping money away from myself (though mostly-one-way retirement accounts help). It's a matter of world-view. Spending and shopping for things you don't need is a vice. Limit your indulgence in it. I've also made wasteful purchases in my life. When I find myself considering buying something that I don't really need, I ask myself whether it will end up like... like the stupid eyeglass cleaner gadget from the Sharper Image that I used twice. Or the Bluetooth earpiece that spent 98% of its time lost and .02% of its time in my ear. Or the little Sony VAIO laptop which was great on the train, but probably cost 8 times as much as an EeePC and didn't do way too much more. (In my defense on that one, it was just before netbooks were really taking off... but I still felt bad about it the next year). I've also got two savings goals. The first is responsible and very big (financial stability: a year's expenses plus money for a down payment on a house. a California house. in a good neighborhood.) The second is personal and just medium-big (a large musical instrument). I've decided not to spend money on the second until I'm financially stable and I have enough money to take care of the first... so that makes me more willing to scrimp and save to pursue the first than I would be otherwise. Advice for others? Ask yourself: Why are you buying that thing? You can survive without it, can't you? You didn't need it a week ago, did you? Does the old one have holes in it or something? Or will you at least use it regularly, for years? Why aren't you buying the cheaper kind? Or buying it used?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eb3441ad32525ab242231c247a860201",
"text": "\"There is also the very simple fact that cash is a *significantly* self-limiting thing: you are limited in amount you can spend on any give day to the cash you have on hand -- this along makes you either reticent to spend it, forces you to spread your purchases (or forgo one in order to enable another), and/or requires additional planning to spend larger amounts. Conversely, most debit & credit cards while they also have some limits on them, enable far more free spending. So whether the spending of cash is a negative \"\"painful\"\" reaction, or really just an awareness that their available resource is being reduced, would be a better question. After all, similar things are seen in other things that have short-term physical limits: smokers tend to smoke cigarettes more quickly at the beginning of a new pack, and tend to space out the intervals between them as the pack empties; likewise with other resources (food, beer, soda) within a home -- if/when the supply is abundant, we tend to gorge & snack, as the available supply decreases, we cut back.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
1e4c0ae1891deba577e0405207188b9e
|
what is the likely reason that the bank have a different year end than the other companies
|
[
{
"docid": "309c5d8f79be71c3f9e7b115f736ad77",
"text": "The exact Financial calander followed is different for different regions/countires. The difference is more historical and a convinient practise that has no advantage / reason to change. Many Countries like US/Japan the Financial year can be choosen by companies and needs to be same every year. This need not be same as the Financial year followed by Government. Typically Banks would follow the Financial year followed by Government as this would have more direct impact on the business per say in terms of policy changes which are typically from the begining of new financial year for Government. If the Banks follow a different calander, there would be additional overhead of segregating transactions for reporting. Large corporates on other hand would tend to follow a Calander year as it is more convinient when operating in different geographies. There is a very good article on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_year",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "a6d66922dcd3d2189c4d20eef7cc9223",
"text": "I've had all my account with the same bank for all my life. Generally, the disadvantage is that if I want some kind of product like a credit extension or a mortgage, I have the one bank to go to and if they don't want to help me I'm out of luck. However, occasionally there are also perks like the bank spontaneously offering you increased credit or even a whole line of credit. They can do this because they have your whole history and trust you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "36a2251f0e3038728874ef6f3cf0ad31",
"text": "My grandfather owned a small business, and I asked him that very question. His answer was that year-end closeout is very time-consuming, both before and after EOY (end of year), and that they didn't want to do all that around Christmas and New Year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "29834763126125feae688d2a6584967f",
"text": "Your question is missing information. The most probable reason is that the company made a split or a dividend paid in stock and that you might be confusing your historical price (which is relevant for tax purposes) with your actual market price. It is VERY important to understand this concepts before trading stocks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c7e9fdd7c91b218a2c43b183b06dad3",
"text": "\"Great question. There are several reasons; I'm going to list the few that I can think of off the top of my head right now. First, even if institutional bank holdings in such a term account are covered by deposit insurance (this, as well as the amount covered, varies geographically), the amount covered is generally trivial when seen in the context of bank holdings. An individual might have on the order of $1,000 - $10,000 in such an account; for a bank, that's basically chump change, and you are looking more at numbers in the millions of dollars range. Sometimes a lot more than that. For a large bank, even hundreds of millions of dollars might be a relatively small portion of their holdings. The 2011 Goldman Sachs annual report (I just pulled a big bank out of thin air, here; no affiliation with them that I know of) states that as of December 2011, their excess liquidity was 171,581 million US dollars (over 170 billion dollars), with a bottom line total assets of $923,225 million (a shade under a trillion dollars) book value. Good luck finding a bank that will pay you 4% interest on even a fraction of such an amount. GS' income before tax in 2011 was a shade under 6.2 billion dollars; 4% on 170 billion dollars is 6.8 billion dollars. That is, the interest payments at such a rate on their excess liquidity alone would have cost more than they themselves made in the entire year, which is completely unsustainable. Government bonds are as guaranteed as deposit-insurance-covered bank accounts (it'll be the government that steps in and pays the guaranteed amount, quite possibly issuing bonds to cover the cost), but (assuming the country does not default on its debt, which happens from time to time) you will get back the entire amount plus interest. For a deposit-insured bank account of any kind, you are only guaranteed (to the extent that one can guarantee anything) the maximum amount in the country's bank deposit insurance; I believe in most countries, this is at best on the order of $100,000. If the bank where the money is kept goes bankrupt, for holdings on the order of what banks deal with, you would be extremely lucky to recover even a few percent of the principal. Government bonds are also generally accepted as collateral for the bank's own loans, which can make a difference when you need to raise more money in short order because a large customer decided to withdraw a big pile of cash from their account, maybe to buy stocks or bonds themselves. Government bonds are generally liquid. That is, they aren't just issued by the government, held to maturity while paying interest, and then returned (electronically, these days) in return for their face value in cash. Government bonds are bought and sold on the \"\"secondary market\"\" as well, where they are traded in very much the same way as public company stocks. If banks started simply depositing money with each other, all else aside, then what would happen? Keep in mind that the interest rate is basically the price of money. Supply-and-demand would dictate that if you get a huge inflow of capital, you can lower the interest rate paid on that capital. Banks don't pay high interest (and certainly wouldn't do so to each other) because of their intristic good will; they pay high interest because they cannot secure capital funding at lower rates. This is a large reason why the large banks will generally pay much lower interest rates than smaller niche banks; the larger banks are seen as more reliable in the bond market, so are able to get funding more cheaply by issuing bonds. Individuals will often buy bonds for the perceived safety. Depending on how much money you are dealing with (sold a large house recently?) it is quite possible even for individuals to hit the ceiling on deposit insurance, and for any of a number of reasons they might not feel comfortable putting the money in the stock market. Buying government bonds then becomes a relatively attractive option -- you get a slightly lower return than you might be able to get in a high-interest savings account, but you are virtually guaranteed return of the entire principal if the bond is held to maturity. On the other hand, it might not be the case that you will get the entire principal back if the bank paying the high interest gets into financial trouble or even bankruptcy. Some people have personal or systemic objections toward banks, limiting their willingness to deposit large amounts of money with them. And of course in some cases, such as for example retirement savings, it might not even be possible to simply stash the money in a savings account, in which case bonds of some kind is your only option if you want a purely interest-bearing investment.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "249b2108d031acf2c4a2641ff0360635",
"text": "Another reason for banks to push this is sitckyness. Once you have all of your bills setup, its more trouble to change banks. This reduces the customer turnover rate, which lowers their costs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "861fda21c9e80d4f5aa817e7f1191ab8",
"text": "Out of curiosity I went through a couple of prospectuses and all contained various clauses for the event where LIBOR is not published although the language suggests more of anticipation of brief technical difficulties. Some are rather vague and prone to manipulation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d1e4f769f70b26fe26acd9c641ce885",
"text": "Personally, I use the earlier date in Quicken so that it looks like I lose money earlier. This isn't 100% accurate, but it keeps me from thinking my accounts have more money than they would otherwise have.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f591963899eb4a32562e19cb18bcc65",
"text": "\"Why do stock markets allow these differences in reporting? The IRS allows businesses to use fiscal calendars that differ from the calendar year. There are a number of reasons a company would choose do this, from preferring to avoid an accounting rush at end of year during holiday season, to aligning with seasonality for their profits (some like to have Q4 as the strongest quarter). Smaller businesses may prefer to keep the extra stress of year end closeout to a traditionally slower time for the business, and some just start their fiscal calendar when the company starts up. You'll notice the report dates are a couple weeks after fiscal quarter end, you would read it as \"\"three months ended...,\"\" so for Agilent, three months ended October 31, 2017, so August, September, October are their Q4 months.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ead43a0afb4e63e37927a468c4bb83d3",
"text": "I work at a large bank, that isn't too unusual although a lot of banks are moving to fee-free basic accounts and upping their fees on other specific transactions. For example, my bank did away with minimum balance requirements to waive a monthly service fee, but we started charging $2/month for paper statements and upped our out-of-network ATM fee by 50 cents. Would like to point out that most financial institutions will reorder your transactions slightly for the purposes of accounting. It is much easier to run all transactions in big batches at the end of the day than individually as they come in. Required disclosures you receive upon account opening explain the exact order but most banks do all credits (money in) first and then debits (money out) like checks, debit cards, and ACH payments after. If you overdraft you can usually avoid a fee if you make a cash deposit before the end of the business day as the cash will go into your account before your purchases are debited. OCCASIONALLY this accounting-based reordering will result in additional fees but that is not the intended purpose of reordering them. And I would always refund any incurred fees that happened due to accounting-based transaction reordering. What Wells Fargo is doing has been illegal since 2008 and their continued appeals are hoping to get the ruling overturned so they won't have to pay out restitution to affected customers. It's frankly despicable.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "258fe10941770d167bff3dadc9d48eef",
"text": "\"If you're referring to times when they pay nothing (or receive a refund) at the end of the year, it's because they're paying taxes throughout the year. At the end of the year, the accountants find that they paid exactly what they needed to (or more), so they don't have to pay anything (or get money back) on their yearly forms. I don't think there's a US corporation paying \"\"almost zero tax\"\" in the US.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5ea816f8a5cdceb7b98027f7392c287e",
"text": "They changed the way trailing interest is calculated back in 2008 if I recall correctly. The idea at the time was that the interest charges to the customer were somewhat less, but it made trying to get a payoff quote a PITA. They used to take payments for more than the current balance due at that time, however. I can't provide any insight as to why they won't now, though.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f67397e8aa4882f62733d4d80aaabdf3",
"text": "They need to spread the work for all customers over the whole month, and they don't work on weekends. Combine the two, and the rule becomes clear - if months have minimum of N working days, 1/N of all customers gets set on each day. You seem to be on day 5: If the month starts with a Monday, the fifth working day is the 5. (Friday); if there is a Sat or Sun in between, it will be the 6th, and if there is both a Sat and a Sun in there, it will be the 7th. However, the statement itself is not very important at all. It is just the day where they print it on paper (or even only on a PDF). You can see your bank account activity every day 24/7 by checking online, and nothing keeps you from printing it on every 1st of the month if you want (or every day, or whenever you prefer).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5b213dd622dfb92ca43339dad0d9a256",
"text": "\"Your bank is maintaining different states for transactions, and changing the state depending on real-world events and the passage of time. withdraw €100 from my bank account on 30 September […] my bank does not process the transaction until 2 October. The bank probably have that transaction marked as “pending” on 30 September, and “cleared” on 2 October. transfer €100 from Bank A to Bank B, Bank A's statement dates the transaction on 20 September, but Bank B dates it as coming in on 22 September. Similarly, bank A will have the transaction marked as “pending” initially. Bank B won't have a corresponding transaction at all, until later; they'll have it “pending” too, until they confirm the transfer. Then (probably at different times from each other) the banks will each mark the corresponding transactions “cleared”. The bookkeeping software that I use doesn't seem to allow for this \"\"transfer time\"\" between accounts. When I enter a transfer from one account to another, they both have to have the same date. You may want to learn about different bases of accounting. The simpler option is “cash-based” accounting. The simplification comes from assuming transactions take no time to transfer from one account to another, and are instantly available after that. Your book-keeping software probably books using this simpler basis for your personal finances. The more complex “accrual-based” accounting tracks each individual transaction through multiple states – “pending”, “transfer”, “cleared”, etc. – with state changes at different times – time of trade, time of settlement, etc. – to more accurately reflect the real world agreements between parties, and different availability of the money to each party. So if your book-keeping program uses “cash basis”, you'll need to pick which inaccuracy you want: book the transfer when you did it, or book the transfer when the money is available at the other end.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5202d4de136b1e8c4e29e3b6a1b04d89",
"text": "Can someone who understands this part of the business explain what exactly happened and how they benefited? I have read a few articles, and I don't really understand. I work in a bank, and seeing how some other aspects of the financial crisis were portrayed in the news, I have a feeling the whole story isn't being told. How could this have possibly gone on undetected?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3062e18974c87a8d3bfed50bbd0edbdb",
"text": "When you want the transaction to be concluded in the current year vs an expiration in the next year.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
e0f68cdec109999770b53a541df1fe94
|
Is leveraging notoriety to raise stock prices illegal in the US?
|
[
{
"docid": "fad046047997036315d92b0a69903403",
"text": "\"There are obviously lots of complexities here, and there are rules against price or market manipulation that are somewhat interpretive due to the rules' inclusion of the manipulator's intent, but: Generally speaking, you can publicly promote the value of a company whose stock you own provided that you: Now, if you extol the value of a company publicly, and sell it immediately thereafter, \"\"pump and dump,\"\" the regulators might suggest that your actions imply that you didn't believe it was so wonderful, and were misleading the public to move the price. That said, a fair retort might be that you loved it for all the reasons you said at [lower price], but thought it had run its course once it got to [higher price]. Again, if it can be demonstrated that your reason for praising it was to push the price higher, your intent may land you in hot water. This isn't legal advice or a full analysis, but if Fitty essentially declared his honest reasons for loving a stock in which he is invested, and discloses that investment, letting others know he is biased, he's probably ok, especially if he intends to hold it long term.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "280e25c8b4f7de7a61e5be23c12503eb",
"text": "\"Yes, there are legal problems with what he did. To prevent fraud, the US government regulates who can give public investment advice and how they can do it. If you're getting paid to advise an individual, you have to pass certain examinations and maintain ongoing government certification. If you hold a position in a stock you're touting, you legally have to disclose it using particular language. And if you're a corporate insider or hold a significant position in a company, you're restricted on what you can say about the company and when you can say it. Mr. Jackson, aka 50 Cent, held a significant position in the company he tweeted about. My guess is the guys in the suits came to visit Mr. Cent, because if you go to the article the OP links to, at the bottom they mention Mr. Cent's tweet has been deleted and replaced with \"\"go talk to your investment advisor\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eb1860fb6afb16093dbe499d9c96ac6d",
"text": "pump and dump is a common Illegal practice of boiler room operations. It refers to the talking a stock up, both through word of mouth as well as selling shares to unwitting buyers. I fail to see much difference between that practice and this.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dcf4b83515651adeac5f52a7969de9cc",
"text": "\"If he didn't lie, I don't see the issue. He did not force anyone to buy anything. His opinion was stock X is good, he publicized it and it turned out to be true (at least temporary) - what's wrong with it? It is customary for people who have either fiduciary duty towards the clients or are perceived as independent analysts to disclose their interest and potential conflict of interest, lest they lose the respect of the public as independent and trustworthy sources of financial information. Jackson never had that, express or implied, and never had the duty to provide anybody with impartial financial analysis, so he can say anything he wants. He can invest into the company and promote it and make money from it - isn't it what was called \"\"business\"\" once? Why is it even being questioned?\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "45486fe21d7c69ae6d87de16426b6d89",
"text": "\"The SEC regulation on insider trading is \"\"engage in the purchase and sale of any security on the basis of material non public information\"\". The case I remember off the top of my head is Kodak developing an instant photo camera in the 1970s, and about 4 months before Kodak made this knowledge public, the CBOE had to close options trading on Polaroid because they had an excessive buildup of uncovered short positions.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "30bbc5b1ad2ed53f72ec862c7a8a56e4",
"text": "Not illegal, its called treasury stock; happens all the time. Its used to increase the equity (and in theory, stock price) for the remaining shareholders. A public company won't be a able to repurchase all of its shares unless the company has decided to go private. In that case, a person or other entity will usually purchase all of the outstanding shares of the company, usually at a premium.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "39fac01405b61176cd3e961c7a2eb120",
"text": "\"Legally ok? Sure. Friends frequently discuss financial matters, and share advice. This is quite far from taking money from them and managing it, where at some point you need to be licensed for such things. If you're concerned about giving bad advice, just stay generic. The best advice has no risk. If I offer a friend a stock tip, of course there's the chance the stock goes south, but when I tell a friend who asks about the difference between Mutual Funds and ETFs, and we discuss the expenses each might have, I'm still leaving the decision as to which ETF to him. When I offer the 'fortune cookie' soundbites like \"\"If you are going to make a large purchase, delay it a week for each $100 of value. e.g. if you really want a $1000 TV, sleep on it for a few months\"\" no one can mis-apply this. I like those two sites you mentioned, but the one-on-one is good for the friend and for you. You can always learn more, and teaching helps you hone your skills.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c5b994a25ca09a67f011ce562354c85e",
"text": "\"I'm not the OP, but I'm happy to give a brief overview. Basically, pre-JOBS act there were a lot of limits on who could make an equity investment in a non-public company (i.e. a startup or even a hedge fund). There were some loopholes, but basically you had to be an 'accredited investor'. An accredited investor was someone who either has made $200,000+ ($300,000+ for married people) for the past two years and expects to make that much again in the current year. Alternately, they could have a net worth of $1 million, excluding the value of their primary residence. There was also a limit of 500 investors for a non-public company before the company had to become public (they didn't really have to IPO, but they did have to file their financials with the SEC, so the effect was basically the same). Finally, non-public companies were prohibited from seeking investment through advertising basically. They couldn't take out an ad in a paper or event send a mass email and say, \"\"Hey, we're looking to raise a $1 million funding round, contact us if you're interested!\"\" Okay, now after the JOBS Act. The JOBS Act changed a) the number and type of investors who could make equity investments in a non-public company b) the regulation of advertising for investments. Post-JOBS private companies could have 2,000 shareholders and 500 of those could be unaccredited (e.g. regular people like you and I). The change in the number of shareholders isn't really that important because it's just shareholders of record, but that's another post for another day. There are still some requirements for unaccredited shareholder, which I don't remember off the top of my head. I think you have to have income of at least $40k. They also changed the solicitation ban, so it's possible that you might see an ad in the WSJ someday for a startup company, venture capital fund, hedge fund, etc. There are some other things it changed, but IMO those are the two most important.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e00415f5ff94621197e5f22dbca4dde",
"text": "To be flippant: it is illegal because it is against the law; there is no considered involved, it just is. To elaborate, part of the illusion of the stock exchange and other market-like entities is that of (apparent) fairness. If I think a stock will go up because it is involved in a growing industry, that is generally public information. Conversely if I have a dim view of a particular company because of its track record of product launches, that is similarly out in the open. A secret formula is something that I invented or discovered, not (presumably) something that I stole from someone else. To stretch that further: If I notice that Company X stock always moves with Company Y stock, that is indeed something that I have found, that I can try to profit from. It is secret to me, but not particularly dependent upon information not available to others, just that my interpretation is better. So trading on information in the public domain is fine, as it preserves the principal of fairness I mentioned, whereas inside knowledge breaks that principal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9be77ec1a7a6711cd9e39215f344a6e9",
"text": "\"There are situations where you can be forced to cover a position, particular when \"\"Reg SHO\"\" (\"\"regulation sho\"\") is activated. Reg SHO is intended to make naked short sellers cover their position, it is to prevent abusive failure to delivers, where someone goes short without borrowing someone else's shares. Naked shorting isn't a violation of federal securities laws but it becomes an accounting problem when multiple people have claims to the same underlying assets. (I've seen companies that had 120% of their shares sold short, too funny, FWIW the market was correct as the company was worth nothing.) You can be naked short without knowing it. So there can be times when you will be forced to cover. Other people being forced to cover can result in a short squeeze. A risk. The other downside is that you have to pay interest on your borrowings. You also have to pay the dividends to the owner of the shares, if applicable. In shorter time frames these are negligible, but in longer time frames, such as closer to a year or longer, these really add up. Let alone the costs of the market going in the opposite direction, and the commissions.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1113a65ceab6020675408bde08a986cd",
"text": "\"This probably won't be a popular answer due to the many number of disadvantaged market participants out there but: Yes, it is possible to distort the markets for securities this way. But it is more useful to understand how this works for any market (since it is illegal in securities markets where company shares are involves). Since you asked about the company Apple, you should be aware this is a form of market manipulation and is illegal... when dealing with securities. In any supply and demand market this is possible especially during periods when other market participants are not prevalent. Now the way to do this usually involves having multiple accounts you control, where you are acting as multiple market participants with different brokers etc. The most crafty ways to do with involve shell companies w/ brokerage accounts but this is usually to mask illegal behavior In the securities markets where there are consequences for manipulating the shares of securities. In other markets this is not necessary because there is no authority prohibiting this kind of trading behavior. Account B buys from Account A, account A buys from Account B, etc. The biggest issue is getting all of the accounts capitalized initially. The third issue is then actually being able to make a profit from doing this at all. Because eventually one of your accounts will have all of the shares or whatever, and there would still be no way to sell them because there are no other market participants to sell to, since you were the only one moving the price. Therefore this kind of market manipulation is coupled with \"\"promotions\"\" to attract liquidity to a financial product. (NOTE the mere fact of a promotion does not mean that illegal trading behavior is occurring, but it does usually mean that someone else is selling into the liquidity) Another way to make this kind of trading behavior profitable is via the derivatives market. Options contracts are priced solely by the trading price of the underlying asset, so even if your multiple account trading could only at best break even when you sell your final holdings (basically resetting the price to where it was because you started distorting it), this is fine because your real trade is in the options market. Lets say Apple was trading at $200 , the options contract at the $200 strike is a call trading at $1 with no intrinsic value. You can buy to open several thousand of the $200 strike without distorting the shares market at all, then in the shares market you bid up Apple to $210, now your options contract is trading at $11 with $10 of intrinsic value, so you just made 1000% gain and are able to sell to close those call options. Then you unwind the rest of your trade and sell your $210 apple shares, probably for $200 or $198 or less (because there are few market participants that actually valued the shares for that high, the real bidders are at $200 and lower). This is hardly a discreet thing to do, so like I mentioned before, this is illegal in markets where actual company shares are involved and should not be attempted in stock markets but other markets won't have the same prohibitions, this is a general inefficiency in capital markets in general and certain derivatives pricing formulas. It is important to understand these things if you plan to participate in markets that claim to be fair. There is nothing novel about this sort of thing, and it is just a problem of allocating enough capital to do so.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6ee090dbbfbf380955b2fa0d0ec45947",
"text": "sweet, a Nazi analogy. And here I thought I'd *never* see one of those on the internet! A better example would be to arrest gun manufacturers because they created guns that were used in murders. Chances are this program was created for legitimate reasons. There's nothing illegal about using software to buy stock. There is, however, rules against doing things like this to influence the market. You're equating some software developers whose software was used illegally to a group of people who committed genocide. Think about that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5d0157c5c83d2b8dbaf537a2b2574522",
"text": "\"It's not a pyramid scheme, pure pyramid schemes are illegal. \"\"Multi Level Marketing\"\" is technically legal, most stay within the legal boundaries but it's easy for a \"\"self-employed\"\" individual to step into the illegal realm by using deceptive sales tactics. When it's commission based renumeration Herbalife doesn't care who exactly makes the sale, just that someone did. That's no different than Google Adwords. Yes it is exploitative business practices and taking advantage of people who don't know better, but it doesn't appear illegal to me.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8fefe41a09a3c3baf58db957de491f60",
"text": "\"I am not a lawyer, but I can't think of a reason this is illegal (something that would be illegal would be to \"\"trade with yourself\"\" across the accounts to try to manipulate stock or option prices). I don't think you're \"\"funneling,\"\" you're doing \"\"asset location\"\" which is a standard tax planning strategy. http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=154126&t1=1303874170 discusses asset location. I'd be more concerned about whether it makes sense.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "478de65041087dc44daed1e85da6aa63",
"text": "\"One scenario described in the original question -- a non-insider who trades after informal conversations with friends, where no insiders directly benefit from any such disclosure -- might not be illegal. (IANAL -- this is just my personal interpretation of articles in the news recently.) http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-05/insider-trading-cases-imperiled-as-top-u-s-court-spurns-appeal the appeals court said prosecutors needed to show that the person disclosing the information received a clear benefit -- something more than the nurturing of a friendship ... In a 1980 case the Supreme Court rejected the idea of “a general duty between all participants in market transactions to forgo actions based on material, nonpublic information.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e3085ac5c2dcd51f5a17ac8f04f1cdb",
"text": "\"This information is clearly \"\"material\"\" (large impact) and \"\"non-public\"\" according to the statement of the problem. Also, decisions like United States v. Carpenter make it clear that you do not need to be a member of the company to do illegal insider trading on its stock. Importantly though, stackexchange is not a place for legal advice and this answer should not be construed as such. Legal/compliance at Company A would be a good place to start asking questions.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba9683a3eaa2a07d63ac4edb4a7b5fee",
"text": "The principle of demand-supply law will not work if spoofing (or layering, fake order) is implemented. However, spoofing stocks is an illegal criminal practice monitored by SEC. In stock market, aggressive buyer are willing to pay for a higher ask price pushing the price higher even if ask size is considerably larger than bid size, especially when high growth potential with time is expected. Larger bids may attract more buyers, further perpetuating a price increase (positive pile-on effect). Aggressive sellers are willing to accept a lower bid price pushing the price lower even if ask size is considerably smaller than bid size, when a negative situation is expected. Larger asks may attract more sellers, further perpetuating a price fall (negative pile-on effect). Moreover, seller and buyers considers not only price but also size of shares in their decision-making process, along with marker order and/or limit order. Unlike limit order, market order is not recorded in bid/ask size. Market order, but not limit order, immediately affects the price direction. Thus, ask/bid sizes alone do not give enough information on price direction. If stocks are being sold continuously at the bid price, this could be the beginning of a downward trend; if stocks are being sold continuously at the ask price, this could be the beginning of a upward trend. This is because ask price is always higher than bid price. In all the cases, both buyers and sellers hope to make a profit in a long-term and short-term view",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2c7eb9d5813947c272fc9a888ffca5f7",
"text": "Using inside sensitive information about corporate and using the same to deal in securities, before the exchanges are made aware of the information. Its mostly used in derivatives to get maximum returns on investmens, but Its illegal in all the exchanges",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "578003eb790b6bde3db23b654c5a00a5",
"text": "\"Perhaps mysterious in the sense that any dubious story involving a powerful and influential firm will not have their name actually mentioned? I've often found when American media runs a story like this, with no details, I can go look at London's Financial Times and they will name-names. For example CNBC or CNN might run a story \"\"top wall street firms fined\"\" and not name the actual firms. You have to look at non-American media to get actual names.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
387e897577bc7733e2e04cff118c2e3a
|
Is legal sending dollars to someone in Mexico, and sending them back for profit?
|
[
{
"docid": "2bcc8b74c04144dc676027c589f65a93",
"text": "It is certainly legal to transfer money between people, no matter how often, as long as the money is not originally from illegal sources. If you are gaining in the process, you need to pay taxes on your (net) gain, as on any income; but as always, taxed income is still income. Consider the accumulating transaction cost, the inherent risk (of your friend keeping the money), and the risk of the exchange rate going the other way; but otherwise it is a simple arbitrage business. There are thousands of people who do that all year long at stock exchanges and money markets; you might be able to do it more efficient there, and you don't need a 'friend' on the other side for that.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "518804c68cb84104740402d5c0394688",
"text": "\"No, but it's serving the same purpose, which is to hide the original origin of a sum of money. Both examples involve moving money from one source to another, when both the source and the sink are in actuality the same entity managed and run by the same people. Both involve doing it in order to hide the money from those who would otherwise have a right to a portion of it. In this case, it is those with a right on the \"\"net\"\". In Starbucks UK, it's the UK government.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4c30ad0006a1e499ae485f0a559057c3",
"text": "\"You can accept almost anything mutually agreeable to you and the other party as payment. That's the definition of \"\"barter\"\". If you agree to trade manufactured goods for livestock, as long as both parties agree on the terms, I'm not aware of any law that would prohibit it. I hedged with \"\"almost\"\" because of course you can't accept something that is explicitly illegal. Like you can't say you'll accept cocaine as payment. Less obviously, there are laws regulating the sale of guns, nuclear fuel, agricultural products, etc. You'd still have to pay taxes, and it can get complicated to determine the taxable value of the transaction. Sorry, but you can't avoid taxes by getting your income in something other than cash.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b5c208aa15db85fd959b6995ab8b9298",
"text": "In short getting funds converted outside of the Banking channel is illegal in India as Foreign Exchange is still regulated. If you show only a credit from your friend's NRE account to your NRO account [note it can't be your NRE account], it would be treated as GIFT and taxed accordingly, else you would have to show it as loan and pay back. You may show the payback in USD. But then there is a limit of Fx every individual can get converted/repatriate out of India and there is a purpose of remittance, all these complicate this further.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8872ea7a2ea65d86a4e2086ad3fcac2d",
"text": "In both the US and UK you are taxed on your income. Transferring your own money from one country to another does not count as income, so you won't be taxed on it. If it's not your money you are transferring that will be different. You may have to report transfers to comply with money laundering rules. You have to report large amounts of cash you bring with you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "71cd751d9d50bc1f90608b1e6d667ad1",
"text": "Is there a limit on how much I can send? Can I send $100K plus? No. Yes. What is the most appropriate way to send money - international wire? Is there international-wire limit restrictions I need to be aware of? Yes. No. Is there any tax obligation should I be aware of when sending money home? If you're a US tax resident (which, as a US citizen, you are), you should be aware of gift tax rules. You'll probably want to talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your state) and/or attorney, to understand the ramifications in full. If my family can return my money back in future, great, if not I really don't care, but when (if) I get my money back, will I have to pay taxes on bringing my own money back into US? No. But if you're giving it as a loan - you'll get paid interest which is taxable income to you. Is there anything else do I need to be aware of? The rules of the country which you're sending the money to.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a267f88078a1e0814649c590faee225f",
"text": "I'd be a bit concerned about someone who wanted to transact that large of a transaction in cash. Also consider what you are going to do with the funds, if you deposit it, you will need to tell the bank where it comes from. Why does the bank want to know, because most legal businesses don't transact business with large sums of currency.. What does that tell you about the likelihood the person you are about to do business with is a criminal or involved in criminal affairs? The lower bill of sale price might be more than just to dodge taxes, it could be part of money laundering.. If they can turn right around and 'sell' the boat for $10K, or trade it in on a bigger boat for the same amount, and have a bill than says $4K, then they have just come up with a legal explanation for how they made 6 grand. and you could potentially be considered an accomplice if someone is checking up on their finances. Really, is it worth the risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "97ccccec31fb0dd649a0ae28d41d3726",
"text": "There's a difference between your street level drug dealer sending you sales proceeds of $20,000 in $5,000 increments to avoid sending you $10,000 or $20,000 at once to avoid the scrutiny of a government agency that might not be thrilled with your business venture, and a tire shop paying a wholesaler $5,000 each time funds are available up to the amount owed of $20,000. The former is illegal for a few reasons, and the latter is business as usual.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a8d2b79642f69b96d682fd6049896ed9",
"text": "I won't think so. Too much trouble for the compliance and internal audit team. Unless you are moving money from Russia, Iran or those non-FATCA countries.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cda9331c5800927240653668f7334abc",
"text": "\"Wikipedia has a list of countries which ban foreign exchange use by its citizens. It's actually quite short but does include India and China. Sometimes economic collapse limits enforcement. For example, after the collapse of the Zimbabwean dollar (and its government running out of sufficient foreign exchange to buy the paper necessary to print more), the state turned a blind eye as the US dollar and South African rand became de facto exchange. Practicality will limit the availability of foreign exchange even in free-market economies. The average business can't afford to have a wide range of alternative currencies sitting around. Businesses which cater to large numbers of addled tourists sometimes offer one or two alternative currencies in the hopes of charging usurous rates of exchange. Even bureaux de change sometimes require you to order your \"\"rarer\"\" foreign exchange in advance. So, while it may be legal, it isn't always feasible.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7abe3fcd1e22f5fcc643dd8b81f6c9d4",
"text": "Age old rules about money scams: If a person A wants to send money to person B, they do the following: Person A sends money to person B. Neither of them sends money to you, and you don't send money to either of them. It doesn't make sense! If you give someone money, be prepared that you might not receive that money back. If someone gives you money, be prepared that they can get that money back. Illegal money laundering can put you in jail, even if you pretend to be a blameless victim of a scammer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "232c8e97302d52805bbf4981814ff9d3",
"text": "They made 85 billion from this fiasco....16 is a somewhat fraction of it.... Like HSBC smuggling cocaine for the cartels, they made 15 billion, got a fine of 2. Tell me what other criminal activities net you a profit once you are caught red handed doing so?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d950755a8b61ed3e9d7451cdd84b0b3",
"text": "\"Im not sure, but let me try. \"\"That person\"\" won't affect the value of currency, after two (or three) years (maybe months), agencies will report anomalies in country. Will be start the end of market. God bless FBI and NSA for prevent this. Actually, good \"\"hypothetical\"\" question.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "07a3309a18a2c1be2bdf75d191c98722",
"text": "If this is your money, and if you can - if asked - prove that you legally made it, there is no limit. You pay taxes on your income, so sending it into the world is tax free. Your citizenship is not relevant for that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c8e90732e325599af6175216e695a35f",
"text": "It would be better for you to sell yourself and pay capital gains tax than to transfer to your parents and pay the gift tax. Also, sham transfer (you transfer to your mother only so that she could sell and transfer back to you without you paying taxes) will be probably categorized as tax evasion, which is a criminal offense that could lead to your deportation. What the US should or should not claim you can take to your congressman, but the fact is that the US does claim tax on capital gains even if you bought the asset before becoming US tax resident, and that's the current law.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "abcb1b0b0dcb18fd1442e0ce54d706b1",
"text": "So your dollar never leaves America until it leaves for an investment - which would be FDI. If you sent the dollar home to Mexico, that’s a remittance current account flow. Then later, you want to use that dollar for a housing investment in Mexico, it’s just domestic investment. If you move to the US, I believe that’s another remittance flow (though it might even be a service flow because the bank is the one moving the dollar!). Then to invest in Mexico you need to go through an FDI channel.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f809139bee3f1d074f9356c036920c41
|
High credit utilization, some high interest - but credit score not overly bad. How to attack debt in this situation?
|
[
{
"docid": "6a9dd6bae4dd9b0df552ce4ddd556727",
"text": "You need to pay off the entire balance of 7450 as soon as possible. This should be your primary financial goal at this point above anything else. A basic structure that you can follow is this: Is the £1500 balance with the 39.9% interest rate the obvious starting point here? Yes, that is fine. But all the cards and overdraft debts need to be treated with the same urgency! What are the prospects for improving my credit score in say the next 6-12 months enough to get a 0% balance transfer or loan for consolidation? This should not be a primary concern of yours if you want to move on with your financial life. Debt consolidation will not help you achieve the goals you have described (home ownership, financial stability). If you follow the advice here, by the time you get to the point of being eligible, you may not see enough savings in interest to make it worth the hassle. Focus on the hard stuff and pay off the balances. Is that realistic, or am I looking at a longer term struggle? You are looking at a significant struggle. If it was easy you would not be asking this question! The length of time will be determined by your choices: how aggressively you will cut your lifestyle, take on extra jobs, and place additional payments on your debt. By being that extreme, you will actually start to see progress, which will be encouraging. If you go in half-committed, your progress will show as much and it will be demotivating. Much of your success will hinge on your mental and emotional toughness to push through the hard work of delaying pleasure and paying off these balances. That is just my personal experience, so you can take it or leave it. :) The credit score will take care of itself if you follow this method, so don't worry about it. Good Luck!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "693e8f4f219c393c142b1a7c0817c00d",
"text": "The bottom line is you have an income problem. Your car payment seems very high relative to your income and your income is very low relative to your debt. Can you work extra jobs or start a small business to get that income up? In the US it would be fairly easy to work some part time jobs to get that income up about 1000 per month. With that kind of difference you could have this all knocked out (except for the car) in about a year. Then, six months later you could be done with your car. Most of the credit repair places are ripoffs in the US and I suspect it is similar around the world.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "462cd9e75b54c801c994b441e5ba4165",
"text": "While paying off your debt quickly is obviously desirable it is simply not going to be possible. Even with tight budgeting I think you will struggle to put more than £500 or so per month towards your debt. I would keep trying to move the highest interest debt onto something cheaper, be it a loan, a balance transfer credit card ( http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/credit-cards/balance-transfer-credit-cards#nofees ) etc. It is also worth looking at your current credit cards more carefully. Sometimes you may be able to get a balance transfer deal on an existing card by talking to the card issuer, then shuffle your debt around to take advantage of it ( http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/credit-cards/cut-credit-card-interest ) Some think it's taboo but in your position I would also be seriously considering if you have any friends and family who can lend you money at a less crippling interest rate.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "ad32b8cf0dd0f9cc0e07c5649bfad92a",
"text": "In addition to the advice already given (particularly getting rid of high-interest debt), I would add the following:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4b27fe4787eb6e07ed71131bc7357766",
"text": "\"There are other good answers to the general point that the essence of what you're describing exists already, but I'd like to point out a separate flaw in your logic: Why add more complications so that \"\"should I call this principal or interest\"\" actually makes a difference? Why's the point (incentive) for this? The incentive is that using excess payments to credit payments due in the future rather than applying it to outstanding principal is more lucrative for the lender. Since it's more lucrative and there's no law against it most (all) lenders use it as the default setting.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "49136c4aa863e265570541bc1bcd0c3a",
"text": "K, welcome to Money.SE. You knew enough to add good tags to the question. Now, you should search on the dozens of questions with those tags to understand (in less than an hour) far more than that banker knows about credit and credit scores. My advice is first, never miss a payment. Ever. The advice your father passed on to you is nonsense, plain and simple. I'm just a few chapters shy of being able to write a book about the incorrect advice I'd heard bank people give their customers. The second bit of advice is that you don't need to pay interest to have credit cards show good payment history. i.e. if you choose to use credit cards, use them for the convenience, cash/rebates, tracking, and guarantees they can offer. Pay in full each bill. Last - use a free service, first, AnnualCreditReport.com to get a copy of your credit report, and then a service like Credit Karma for a simulated FICO score and advice on how to improve it. As member @Agop has commented, Discover (not just for cardholders) offers a look at your actual score, as do a number of other credit cards for members. (By the way, I wouldn't be inclined to discuss this with dad. Most people take offense that you'd believe strangers more than them. Most of the answers here are well documented with links to IRS, etc, and if not, quickly peer-reviewed. When I make a mistake, a top-rated member will correct me within a day, if not just minutes)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "370cf6f6f40a025e10e27035d077e45b",
"text": "In this example you are providing 4x more collateral than you are borrowing. Credit score shouldn't matter, regardless of how risky a borrower you are. Sure it costs time and money to go to auction, but this can be factored into your interest rate / fees. I don't see how the bank can lose.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7fa07862de504222737b3d46f2e2ed20",
"text": "\"Unless you have a history of over-using credit (i.e. you've gotten yourself into debt trouble), then I think that the banker is giving you bad advice in telling you to get your own credit limit reduced. Having more credit available to you that is left unused will make your utilization ratio lower, which is generally better for your credit score, according to this article on CreditKarma.com. The \"\"sweet spot\"\" seems to be 1-20% utilization of your total credit. (But remember, this is only one factor in your credit score, and not even the biggest-- having a long history of on-time payments counts the most.) My own personal experience seems to bear this out. I have two major credit cards that I use. One card has a high credit limit (high for me anyway) and I use it for just about everything that I buy-- groceries, gas, durable goods, services, you name it. The other card has a limit that is about 1/3 of the first, and I use it for a few recurring bills and occasional purchases where they don't take the first card. I also have a couple of department store cards that I use rather infrequently (typically 1 purchase every 3 months or so). At the end of each month, when the respective statements post, each card has a balance that is 15% or less of the credit limit on that card. I pay off the entire balance on each card each month, and the cycle repeats. I have never been late on a payment, and my credit history for all of these cards goes back 10 years. My credit score is nearly as high as it can go. If having unused credit were a detriment, I would expect my score to be much lower. So, no, having \"\"too much credit available\"\" is not going to hurt you, unless you are not using it at all, or are tempted to abuse it (use too much). The key is to use common sense. Have a small number of cards, keep them active, spend within your means so you can pay off the balance in full after the statement posts, and never be late on your payments. That's all it takes to have good credit.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d9ad3bad94c76aa6ab2e013dcbfa0c3e",
"text": "Close the account. The age doesn't outweigh the fact that you have to pay for the card. It would be one thing if the credit line was a couple thousand but showing the credit bureaus that you are staying away from the $425.00 doesn't really make them think you are any more trustworthy with your available credit. Utilization matters when you are staying away from much larger chunks of your available credit (across all cards).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc33fc6324da01017d6a9ea463b94926",
"text": "\"You really don't know how credit scoring works. Let's think about the purpose of a credit score: to assess whether you're a high default risk. A lender wants to know, in this order: Utilization factors into the solvency assessment. If you are at 100% utilization of your unsecured credit, you're insolvent -- you can't pay your bills. If you are at 0%, you're as solvent as you can be. Most people who use credit cards are somewhere in the middle. When a bank underwrites a large loan like a mortgage or car loan, they use your credit score an application information like income and employment history to figure out what kind of loan you qualify for. Credit cards are called \"\"revolving\"\" accounts for a reason -- you're supposed to use them to buy crap and pay your bill in full at the end of the month. My advice to you:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "042f8e55c75b6d2ffa8b5a61201fb7ec",
"text": "Well typically you're borrowing a shit ton of money for 30 years so yeah you're paying a lot in interest over that period. But your situation sounds especially bad, that's over a 10% constant assuming 80% LTV. What are you being quoted, like >9% interest?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "29fdf38ff4ab2c12206a69cea90ea65b",
"text": "\"good vs \"\"bad\"\" debt in the context of that post. At least in the UK this can be a good tactic to reduce the cost of credit card debt. Some things to consider\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "17959bcfa1b6b44a2e5324c302c4c977",
"text": "This works even better when you have a good credit score when you want to arbitrarily inflate it for bragging rights or lowest interest rates, I'm only pointing this out because it has nothing to do with your current score and CK's recommendation. The presence of an installment loans is 10% of your credit score, according to some credit scoring models. So theoretically someone with a solid 720 score could gain 72 points, while someone with a 480 score would only gain 48 points. But the scores are weighted so you wouldn't get that kind out outcome regardless, it will have less of an impact. You can do this, amongst other things, but if that installment loan alters your utilization of credit it will more greatly lower your score, and the hard inquiry to apply for the loan will also temporarily hurt your score and you also might not be approved. These are the things to consider (but fortunately utilization has no history). Yes you can pay the loan off with a monthly payment. The loan's interest will cost slightly more than the monthly payments, by the end of the loan term. I've done this with a 5 year $500 installment loan at a credit union. As others pointed out, you don't have to spend money to raise your credit score (unnecessary interest, in this case), but you certainly can!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c176cca5b8f22a59fff56c7453193e14",
"text": "\"If the balance on the low rate loan is very high (say, an IBR student loan at 6% that accumulates interest every year), and the balance on the high rate loan (say, a CC at 18%) is comparatively very small, then you'd want to make sure that you've at least \"\"stopped the bleeding\"\" on the high balance loan before starting to pay off the CC.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "05c918562abed0a7ee8b25b7106440c5",
"text": "One of the other things you could do to improve your score would be along the lines of what Pete said in his answer, but using the current financial climate to your advantage. I'm not sure what interest rates are available to you in the UK, but I currently have 4 lines of credit aside from my house. One is a credit card I use for every day purchases and like you pay off immediately with every statement. The other three are technically credit cards, however all three were used to make purchases with 0% financing. The one was for a TV I bought that even gave me 5% off if I pay it off within 6 months. That cash has been sitting in my savings since the day I bought it. I'm making regular payments on all three, but not having to pay any interest. My credit score dropped 25 points with the one as it was an elective medical expense (Visian eye surgery), so for the time the balance is near my credit limit. However, that will bounce back up as the balance lowers. My score was also able to take that hit and still be very high. If you don't have 0% (or very close) available, your better bet would be to follow the other suggestions about saving for a sizable down payment, or other every day expenses like a cell phone.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b7ebf0118a25197053642a73d8a221f2",
"text": "Credit Score is rather misleading, each provider of credit uses their own system to decide if they wish to lend to you. They will also not tell you how the combine all the factoring together. Closing unused account is good, as it reduced the risk of identity theft and you have less paperwork to deal with. It looks good if a company that knows you will agrees to give you more credit, as clearly they think you are a good risk. Having more total credit allowed on account is bad, as you may use it and not be able to pay all your bills. Using all your credit is bad, as it looks like you are not in control. Using a “pay day lender” is VERY bad, as only people that are out of control do so. Credit cards should be used for short term credit paying them off in full most months, but it is OK to take advantage of some interest free credit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d60297801e53a0282d1a85eb12c9a5b",
"text": "\"The simple answer is that what you are doing is an incredible waste of time. The normal process is to charge, say, in January, the bill is cut at month end, and due by the 15th of February. No interest accrues. As long as the credit line is sufficient for your monthly spending, that's it. Now, if you are watching your score closely, utilization might become an issue, if the statement amount is much over 20%, there's an impact to your score. This is easily addressed with a second monthly payment, made just before the bill is cut. Keep in mind, the phrase \"\"carrying a balance\"\" commonly means not paying the bill in full, and letting interest accumulate. I understand you didn't mean that. The way you are paying your account isn't common, and really serves no value.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "675808629f61d92d9fa2b989e67ef4c3",
"text": "\"A drop in credit score of 300 is pretty significant, right? You describe the cause of this as \"\"unfortunate circumstances\"\". Lets say you observe a mother giving a small child a ball to play with in the median of a busy interstate. Once the inevitable happens, would you also describe that as \"\"unfortunate circumstances\"\"? Because really it is the same thing. You overextended yourself and did not consider risk in the decision to borrow money. This may sound harsh, but you have proven that you cannot handle credit. So your solution is to borrow more? That makes no sense. The best thing you can do for your credit score is to reduce, then eliminate all debt.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
eacfdd1383068fd9d7ef41aa2355b7b4
|
Meanings of “price of the derivative”
|
[
{
"docid": "ff16b9f0dd72969ca788f9ce877a97c2",
"text": "@Tim - in this case, a futures contract isn't like an options contract. It's simply a method of entering into an agreement for delivery at a future date. While the speculators appear to have taken over, there are practical examples of use of the futures market. I am a gold miner and I see that my cost is $1200/oz given my quality of ore. I see the price of gold at $1600 and instead of worrying that if it goes too low, I run at a loss, I take advantage and sell contracts to match my production for the next year (or as long as the contracts go, I forget how far out gold futures are). Of course I give up the higher price if gold goes higher, but this scenarion isn't speculation, it's a business decision. The bread maker, on the other hand, might buy wheat futures to guarantee his prices for the next year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "37b135e4dca1a8ccbea2e58b9507de8c",
"text": "No, it means what it says. Prices change, hence price of the derivative can go down even if the price of the underlying doesn't change (e.g. theta decay in options).",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "643e78b1c9d9d924611f22ae25d4853d",
"text": "\"I would differentiate between pricing and valuation a bit more: Valuation is the result of investment analysis and the result of coming up with a fair value for a company and its shares; this is done usually by equity analysts. I have never heard about pricing a security in this context. Pricing would indicate that the price of a product or security is \"\"set\"\" by someone (i.e. a car manufacturer sets the prices of its new cars). The price of a security however is not set by an analyst or an institution, it is solely set by the stock market (perhaps based on the valuations of different analysts). There is only one exception to this: pricing an IPO before its shares are actually traded on an exchange. In this case the underwriting banks set the price (based on the valuation) at which the shares are distributed.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fa2aae462316eb64f23cb448a361783e",
"text": "I found the answer. It was the Stock Ticker that I was looking for. So, if I understand correctly the price at certain moment is the price of the latest sale and can be used to get a global picture of what certain stock is worth at that certain instant.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b25f5bafb3d66343aac4841d554e5e52",
"text": "The missing information is at the end of the first line: the price is from NASDAQ (most specifically Nasdaq Global Select), which is a stock exchange in the USA, so the price is in US Dollars.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c41e61f063420043ec5dd6378082c882",
"text": "\"As I understand it, Implied Volatility represents the expected gyrations of an options contract over it's lifetime. No, it represents that expected movement of the underlying stock, not the option itself. Yes, the value of the option will move roughly in the same direction the value of the stock, but that's not what IV is measuring. I even tried staring at the math behind the Options pricing model to see if that could make more sense for me but that didn't help. That formula is correct for the Black-Scholes model - and it is not possible (or at least no one has done it yet) to solve for s to create a closed-form equation for implied volatility. What most systems do to calculate implied volatility is plug in different values of s (standard deviation) until a value for the option is found that matches the quoted market value ($12.00 in this example). That's why it's called \"\"implied\"\" volatility - the value is implied from market prices, not calculated directly. The thing that sticks out to me is that the \"\"last\"\" quoted price of $12 is outside of the bid-ask spread of $9.20 to $10.40, which tells me that the underlying stock has dropped significantly since the last actual trade. If the Implied Vol is calculated based on the last executed trade, then whatever algorithm they used to solve for a volatility that match that price couldn't find a solution, which then choose to show as a 0% volatility. In reality, the volatility is somewhere between the two neighbors of 56% and 97%, but with such a short time until expiry, there should be very little chance of the stock dropping below $27.50, and the value of the option should be somewhere around its intrinsic value (strike - stock price) of $9.18.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "285a03c9ad4b1e6cab12e0675e95ec57",
"text": "If we were to observe some call price (e.g., 15), and then derived implied volatilities from the BS formula depending on different strike prices but fixed maturity (i.e, maturity = 1, and strike goes from 80 to 140??), would we then see a smile? Yes. Market prices for various strikes and a given maturity often have higher implied volatilities from the Black-Scholes model away from at-the-money. It is not accounted for in the Black-Scholes model in the fact that volatility is not a function of strike, so volatility is assumed to be constant across strikes, but the market does not price options that way. I don't know that a quantitative theory has ever been proven; I've always just assumed that people are willing to pay slightly more for options deep in or out of the money based on their strategy, but I have no evidence to base that theory on.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c48d049ed845f825d8950f5148cdde8",
"text": "It's a drive by swipe at technicals, which is fine and all, but I always thought technicals effectively provide odds of an event happening. For example, $XYZ price is a support level, therefore there are increased odds it will bounce higher from these levels, rather than an implied *guarantee* the support will hold.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1c5ff34a1c34998592e20bd71ee9096a",
"text": "In addition to all these great answers, check out the Wikipedia entry on options. The most important thing to note from their definition is that an option is a derivative (and nothing about any derivative is simple). Because it is a derivative, increases or decreases in the price of the underlying stock won't automatically result in the same amount of change in the value of the option.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e0f027712e7b1c929e772de1fe6eef24",
"text": "Well sure but derivatives valuations that you see on this chart are complete bs. Normally the derivative (future or a swap) is actually worth zero. What this chart is tallying up is the notional which is an arbitrary number only used to calculate the P&L on the derivative. Sorry but this is not really the value of the derivative, so hard to see how derivatives on this chart make any sense at all.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf6ae9f8692786d01c25dbdbbf863086",
"text": "\"When people talk about \"\"the price\"\" of a stock, they usually mean one of the following: Last price: The price at which a trade most recently took place. If someone sold (and someone else bought) shares of XYZ for $20 each, then until another trade occurs, the last price of the stock will be quoted at $20. Bid price: The highest price at which someone is currently offering to buy the stock. Ask price: The lowest price at which someone is currently offering to sell the stock. As you can see, all of these are completely determined by the people buying and selling the stock.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ebdb762ca62faa89843b89fb5db99de",
"text": "In India, in the money options get exercised automatically at the end of the day and is settled at T+1(Where T is expiry day). This means, the clearing house takes the closing price of the underlying security while calculating the amount that needs to be credited/debited to its members. Source: - http://www.nseindia.com/products/content/derivatives/equities/settlement_mechanism.htm",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f496218b7086cc2c6999a763a43ef8e7",
"text": "Hey! I've just put my take on your question: [What are Derivatives?](http://letslearnfinance.net/2012/06/08/what-are-derivatives/) Let me know of your thoughts, if you get a chance to read it. I know I haven't covered everything on Derivatives, perhaps not everything our fellow redditors have mentioned - but I kept telling myself it's an introduction to derivatives - not an explanation of everything! :P",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a52969d6de27e78057142e53b34db9c",
"text": "You're realizing the perils of using a DCF analysis. At best, you can use them to get a range of possible values and use them as a heuristic, but you'll probably find it difficult to generate a realistic estimate that is significantly different than where the price is already.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "573857d250c22ecd0a0f9a1a0cacee2e",
"text": "Serious question - I don't work in finance, but I always hear how the big finance firms only hire the best and brightest and if they don't know anything, they'll pick it up quickly. How is it possible that those who work in derivatives find it that difficult to explain them. resistite's definition of derivatives is essentially what is taught to any beginner, so I don't quite understand how anyone with a finance background would find it difficult to explain (at least at a very general level).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "71ec30d3609296f94f979a175af9cd19",
"text": "The quotes on JSE are for 100 share lots. The quotes on NYSE are for single shares. That still leaves some price difference, but much less than you calculated. (EDIT: Equivalently, the price is quoted in 1/100th of a Rand. The Reuter's listing makes this explicit since the price is listed as ZAc rather than ZAR. http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/overview?symbol=HARJ.J) As noted in the other answer currently up, NYSE is quoting American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) for this company, which is not directly its stock. The ADR in this case, if you check the prospectus, is currently 1 share of the ADR = 1 share of the stock on its home market. A US institution (in this case it looks like BNY Mellon) is holding shares of stock to back each ADR. Arbitrage is possible and does happen. It's not perfect though, because there are a variety of other cost and risk factors that need to be considered. There's a good review here: Report by JP Morgan Some summary points:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "64a03e132badfa3d034aa6372607bc69",
"text": "Creditworthiness is proven over time. The longer your track record of making payments on time, the more probable you will stick to credit agreements in future (or so the reasoning goes). Conversely, someone who has only just started applying for credit could be someone whose finances were previously stable but have now started to get into difficulty. Obviously this is not necessarily the case but it is one possible inference. This inference is strengthened when same person applies for further credit in a short space of time. Ultimately, what is considered positive is a stable credit record over a reasonable period of time, because it indicates you stick to payment schedules and don't suddenly need credit due to money problems. Credit card accounts are considered a good indicator of credit status because they imply what kind of borrower you are. Whereas many credit arrangements present a straightforward case of arrears / no arrears (e.g. think of a mobile phone account – either you pay your bill or you don't), with credit cards there is an element of flexibility in how much you borrow, and how much of that you repay. If you run up four figure monthly balances but clear them in full each month without fail, that is a good sign. If your average balance is increasing and you are paying on time but just the minimum amount, that is a potential flag. In other words, credit cards are of particular interest because they paint a more nuanced picture. Provided you use one responsibly, getting and using a credit card may improve your status with credit reference agencies.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
113a5dab7de68d60564eb078c7851f19
|
Should I exchange my Scottish pounds for English ones?
|
[
{
"docid": "1f9c939dc29ef6a5a082622ed6a03305",
"text": "Scottish banknotes are promissary notes of the banks issuing them. Their value will be paid in UK legal tender any time as long as the issuing bank is in business. So they are not going to lose value unless the issuing bank goes bakrupt. Scottish notes may be refused, outside of Scotland, at least, by merchants at their discretion. So if the vote goes the wrong way, merchants in England may refuse accepting these notes even if just to make a point. English notes (those issued by the Bank of England) are the actual UK legal tender. Wether you should change or not is up to you, I believe there's no immenent danger of them becoming worthless any time soon.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e61919cc2567f96df4868a9c4de17281",
"text": "At any instant, three currencies will have exchange rates so if I know the rate between A and B, and B to C, the A to C rate is easily calculated. You need X pounds, so at that moment, you are subject to the exchange rate right then. It's not a deal or bargain, although it may look better in hindsight if the currencies move after some time has passed. But if a currency is going to depreciate, and you have the foresight to know such things, you'd already be wealthy and not visiting here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d91a22f26eca67e948746de9b9fc394",
"text": "You might want to see this question and its answers. If it was me, I'd prefer to exchange the currency in Germany. Why? When you are in the US you will be on vacation. It does not seem fun to spend vacation time in a bank.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd10a69b01f073d534e36116efede61d",
"text": "\"I haven't used transfer wise, so can't speak to their price. Regardless of what service you use, what you should look for is whether the conversion price is greater than how much you think the currency's price will move. Example: if your bank charges ~8% on any currency exchange, you should ask yourself whether you think the pound (or whatever currency) will drop by >8% within whatever time frame you've set for yourself. If not, you're better off keeping your money in that currency. I checked out their site and it does look like transferwise is pretty inexpensive, around .9% in transaction costs. So again, ask yourself whether you think the pound will drop by 1% in your time frame. Doesn't seem like a lot, but also consider that currencies typically fluctuate by just a few tenths of a percentage per day. I know you're probably looking for an answer like \"\"pound will drop, sell it all,\"\" but I don't know enough about currencies to be giving advice there. I would definitely pay attention to Brexit negotiations though, as that will be one of the biggest influences on both currencies for quite some time.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7847578cee6631c25a5d983b43d22e33",
"text": "\"On contrary of what Mike Scott suggested, I think in case of EURO DOOM it's a lot safer if your savings were changed into another currency in advance. Beware that bringing your money into an EURO CORE country (like Finland, Austria, Germany, Nethereland) it's useful if you think those banks are safer, but totally useless to avoid the conversion of your saving from Euro into your national currency. In case of EURO CRASH, only the Central Bank will decide what happens to ALL the Euro deposited wherever, single banks, even if they are Deutsche Bank or BNP or ING, can not decide what to do on their own. ECB (European Central Bank) might decide to convert EURO into local currencies based on the account's owner nationality. Therefor if you are Greek and you moved your saving in a German bank, the ECB might decide that your Euro are converted into New Dracma even if they sit in a German bank account. The funniest thing is that if you ask to a Finland bank: \"\"In case of Euro crash, would you convert my Euro into New Dracma?\"\", they sure would answer \"\"No, we can't!\"\", which is true, they can not because it's only the ECB (Europe Central Bank) the one that decides how an ordered Euro crash has to be manged, and the ECB might decide as I explained you above. Other Central Banks (Swiss, FED, etc.) would only follow the decisions of the ECB. Moreover in case of EURO DOOM, it's highly probable that the Euro currency looses a tremendous value compared to other currencies, the loss would be huge in case the Euro Crash happens in a disordered way (i.e. a strong country like Germany and their banks decides to get out and they start printing their own money w/o listening to the ECB anymore). So even if your saving are in Euro in Germany they would loose so much value (compared to other currencies) that you will regreat forever not to have converted them into another currency when you had the time to do it. Couple of advises: 1) If you want to change you savings into another currency you don't need to bring them into another bank/country (like US), you could simply buy US Shares/Bonds at your local bank. Shares/Bonds of a US company/US gov will always be worth their value in dollars no matter in what new pathetic currency your account will be converted. 2) But is there a drawback in converting my saving into another currency (i.e. buying dollars in the form of US treasury bonds)? Unfortunately yes, the drawback is that in case this Euro drama comes finally to an happy ending and Germans decide to open their wallets for the nth time to save the currency, the Euro might suddenly increase its value compared to other currencies, therefor if you changed your saving into another currency you might loose money (i.e. US dollars looses value against the Euro).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "686c79bee148b44dfd8d5893636b200c",
"text": "Does this make sense? I'm concerned that by buying shares with post tax income, I'll have ended up being taxed twice or have increased my taxable income. ... The company will then re-reimburse me for the difference in stock price between the vesting and the purchase share price. Sure. Assuming you received a 100-share RSU for shares worth $10, and your marginal tax rate is 30% (all made up numbers), either: or So you're in the same spot either way. You paid $300 to get $1,000 worth of stock. Taxes are the same as well. The full value of the RSU will count as income either way, and you'll either pay tax on the gains of the 100 shares in your RSU our you'll pay tax on gains on the 70 shares in your RSU and the 30 shares you bought. Since they're reimbursing you for any difference the cost basis will be the same (although you might get taxed on the reimbursement, but that should be a relatively small amount). This first year I wanted to keep all of the shares, due to tax reasons and because believe the share price will go up. I don't see how this would make a difference from a tax standpoint. You're going to pay tax on the RSU either way - either in shares or in cash. how does the value of the shares going up make a difference in tax? Additionally I'm concerned that by doing this I'm going to be hit by my bank for GBP->USD exchange fees, foreign money transfer charges, broker purchase fees etc. That might be true - if that's the case then you need to decide whether to keep fighting or decide if it's worth the transaction costs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "614f000308e628a7beaebe5b18c56020",
"text": "Thanks for your reply! I presume then if I don't convert back (say I spend everything) then it's much the same. So my main consideration should be whether I think the currency will increase or decrease in my time away if I'm converting back",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b6f497d0d1f37a618b3d6ef7938703e3",
"text": "Wire transfers are the best method. Costs can vary from $10 to $100 or more, depending on the banks and countries involved. There's rarely any saving using the same bank, although HSBC may have reduced charges if you have Premier accounts in both countries (for a one-off transaction, it may not be worth the effort to open an account). However, that cost is insignificant compared to your possible losses on the currency exchange. Assuming your money is currently in Hong Kong Dollars (HKD), it will need to be converted to US Dollars (USD). One place where it could be converted is at your Hong Kong bank. You'll get their retail rate. Make sure you are aware of the rate they will use, and any fees, in advance. Expect to pay around 2-3% from the mid-market rate (the rate you see quoted online, which doesn't fluctuate much for HKD-USD as the currencies are linked). Another place where the currency could be converted is at your US bank. You really don't get any control over that if it arrives as HKD and is then automatically converted into your USD. The rate and fees could be quite poor, especially if it is a minor US bank that has to deal with anther bank for foreign currency. For amounts of this size, it's worthwhile using a specialist currency conversion company instead. Currency Fair in Ireland is one. It's a peer-to-peer exchange that is generally the best deal (at least for the currency pairs I use). You wire the money to them, do the exchange on their site at a rate that is much closer to 0.5% from the midrate, then the money is transferred out by wire for a few dollars. Adds a few days to the process, but will possibly save you close to US$1000. Another established option is Currency Online in New Zealand. There are probably also specialist currency exchange companies in Hong Kong. The basic rule is, don't let the banks exchange currencies at rates that suit them, use a third party that offers a better rate and lower fees.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4bcf037ef9312226087b3bd30dba8e63",
"text": "There is a service TransferWise through which you can send money from UK banks to EUR bank accounts in the EU for a 1 GBP fee (much cheaper then about 25 GBP for a SWIFT transfer). You send them a UK national GBP transfer to their UK HSBC account, and they send the equivalent amount in EUR from their Irish EUR bank account to your EUR account - for example in Germany. What is best, is that they use bare mid-market ForEx exchange rates, without any markup on the GBP to EUR exchange rate, which is usually in the range of 2% to 5% in banks, so you don't lose anything on the exchange rate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2ebc7fc2fe6982e3c3c583336b0bc7fb",
"text": "There's a possibility to lose money in exchange rate shifts, but just as much chance to gain money (Efficient Market Hypothesis and all that). If you're worried about it, you should buy a stock in Canada and short sell the US version at the same time. Then journal the Canadian stock over to the US stock exchange and use it to settle your short sell. Or you can use derivatives to accomplish the same thing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "81df6a5235dad320c3fa1c7971100e9e",
"text": "\"No. Rural Scotland has exactly the same monetary system, and not the same bubble. Monaco (the other example given) doesn't even have its own monetary system but uses the Euro. Look instead to the common factor: a lot of demand for limited real estate. Turning towards the personal finance part of it, we know from experience that housing bubbles may \"\"burst\"\" and housing prices may drop suddenly by ~30%, sometimes more. This is a financial risk if you must sell. Yet on the other hand, the fundamental force that keeps prices in London higher than average isn't going away. The long-term risk often is manageable. A 30% drop isn't so bad if you own a house for 30 years.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "89e762cfa1ea779ab51e8ebebce04405",
"text": "There contracts called an FX Forwards where you can get a feel for what the market thinks an exchange rate will be in the future. Now exchange rates are notoriously uncertain, but it is worth noting that at current prices market believes your Krona will be worth only 0.0003 Euro less three years from now than it is worth now. So, if you are considering taking money out of your investments and converting it to Euro and missing out on three years of dividends and hopefully capital gains its certainly possible this may work out for you but this is unlikely. If you are at all uncertain that you will actually move this is an even worse idea as paying to convert money twice would be an additional expense on top of the missed returns. There are FX financial products (futures and forwards) where you can get exposure to FX without having to put the full amount down. This could help hedge your house value but this can be extremely expensive over time for individual investors and would almost certainly not work in your favor. Something that could help reduce your risk a bit would be to invest more heavily in European even Irish (and British?) stocks which will move along with the currency and economy. You can lose some diversification doing this, but it can help a little.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "39db91f9fd541757a56280308a6697b5",
"text": "Key point here is to remember that GBP isnt falling a lot, it has fallen a lot already. If you havent liquidated your position in pounds by now at a higher rate I would personally not bother switching to another currency right now. The pound is near its 10 year low(nearing 2008 capital 'C' Crisis levels) and despite what fear mongers may short the market for, the sun will shine after Brexit as well. Britain has a solid economy and that hasnt fundamentally changed, so even if the pound hasnt seen the absolute periodic lowest point yet(which may still come as brexit talks become more prevalent/near their end), it will eventually pull back up. In essence, you have more to lose acting in panic now than waiting to exchange for a better than today's rate at some point until the eventual Brexit(probably in March 2019) or at any point afterwards(if you wont be needing those savings when you move).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "44b8a72d907e3394b395de649fd6c6d4",
"text": "\"If you \"\"have no immediate plans for the money and will probably not return to Switzerland for a long time or at all\"\" then it might be best just to exchange the money so then you can use/invest it in the UK. Maybe keep a bill or two for memory-sake - I do that whenever I travel to a foreign country.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e1efb7090aedbe05bd825078862807e9",
"text": "It's not necessary to convert it back for the changes to affect value. Lets say you have a euro account with 1000 euro and a gbp account with 920 gbp (the accounts are equal in value given current exchange rates). You could exchange either account for ~$1180 usd. If you exchange the euro account for USD, and say the euro gets stronger against the pound and dollar (and subsequently the pound and dollar are weaker against the euro); then if you would've kept the 1000 euro it would now be worth more than 920 gbp and more than 1180 usd, and you would've been better off exchanging the gbp account for usd. Barring some cataclysmic economic event; exchange rates between well established currencies don't radically change over a few weeks trip, so I wouldn't really worry about it one way or the other.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "92a7a528eaa4f83c37ae06739846b0d0",
"text": "In international transfers there are quite a few charges that come into picture. 1. Your Bank's charges, you mentioned its GBP 20. 2. The Fx conversion margin. So your GBP 317.90 became 500 AUD 3. The Charges of St. George's. Normally it is recovered from Beneficiary. Typically it would show up as 2 entries, one credit for AUD 500 and second a debit. Typically in the range of AUD 10 to 25. However incaes of return, St George will deduct 2 charges from AUD 500; - The Original Charges for transfer that it would have recovered from Beneficiary. - Additional Return charges, again in the range of AUD 10 to 20. Thus the amount they would have sent back to your Bank would be less than AUD 500. Your Bank would have converted and possibly again charged you a return fee. Since these are cross border payments there is no regulation and Bank are free to charge as they please and at time do charge excess. What you can do is disptue with the Bank on the points that; - The Beneficiary account was not closed, and its a deficiency of service. - Request for an itemized statement as to what was the amount returned by St George.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
89020fa9e77d2dd3ca0117be6f75b15b
|
Cheapest USD to GBP transfer
|
[
{
"docid": "dbb10172a87f97e2c6bcb5de0815d6b5",
"text": "Use a remitting service such as Ria Money Transfer. Almost all these services allow you to transfer upto $2999 at a time. So, you would be able to transfer the entire amount of $4500 within 2 business days(There is a monthly limit too, but it will definitely be more than $4500). There are no fees to use these services, but they do scrape off a bit on the currency rate. As of today you are getting 624 GBP for $1000 whereas the market rate is $641.95. You still save roughly $17 and 4 transactions, which adds up to more than $100. Here is a link to Ria's website. Other services, include Xoom, Western Union, Money Dart and Money Gram.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7402ad5fe06144d975d78da88844f93d",
"text": "If you are a Russian citizen a much easier and common solution would be a USD or EUR withdrawal from your Webmoney account to your Cyprus bank account. You will need to create a Webmoney account (www.webmoney.ru), get a primary certificate in your local Webmoney office in Russia (The list is available at the website), create WMZ (for USD) and WME (for EURO) accounts in Webmoney (done online). Then you can easily top up your Webmoney WMR (Rubles) account (created automatically) with Rubles, convert the sum into USD (According to the Webmoney rate, which is only slightly different from the official central bank rate) and then withdraw the money from your USD Webmoney account to your Cyprus bank account. The money will be transfered to your Cyprus bank account from UK Webmoney dealer. The transaction description would say that this sum is transfered according to the contract of sale of securities. This method prevents any Russian regulatory authorities from seeing your transactions. And the best thig in Webmoney is that they have stable exchange rates and they use classic currencies such as USD, RUR, EUR, etc. Webmoney also has WMG accounts (Gold) and WMX accounts (Bitcoin). Non-Russian residents can also open a Webmoney accounts. You can get one even in Cyprus, by the way:)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "47ae96508ca08a01b1c2432172264fb7",
"text": "I just decided to start using GnuCash today, and I was also stuck in this position for around an hour before I figured out what to do exactly. The answer by @jldugger pointed me partially on the right track, so this answer is intended to help people waste less time in the future. (Note: All numbers have been redacted for privacy issues, but I hope the images are sufficient to allow you to understand what is going on. ) Upon successfully importing your transactions, you should be able to see your transactions in the Checking Account and Savings Account (plus additional accounts you have imported). The Imbalance account (GBP in my case) will be negative of whatever you have imported. This is due to the double-entry accounting system that GnuCash uses. Now, you will have to open your Savings Account. Note that except for a few transactions, most of them are going to Imbalance. These are marked out with the red rectangles. What you have to do, now, is to click on them individually and sort them into the correct account. Unfortunately (I do not understand why they did this), you cannot move multiple transactions at once. See also this thread. Fortunately, you only have to do this once. This is what your account should look like after it is complete. After this is done, you should not have to move any more accounts, since you can directly enter the transactions in the Transfer box. At this point, your Accounts tab should look like this: Question solved!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "90e128fedd7f4d35a22072d1b0e50533",
"text": "After doing this many times, my preferred method is: The reason being that the US banks will use every chance possible to take your money in fees. Usually the German bank website will tell you what the current exchange rate. You were correct in selecting Transfer in $ and got the exchange rate. In my experience if you transfer in Euros, the US bank at the other end, will take about 3-5%, because they can. Selecting OUR means that you only have the fee taken out by the Source bank. By doing shared, it looks like both banks took their full fee. If you chose OUR, I'm fairly certain you just would have paid the 1.50 and the 20. Chase would not have taken the 15.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f556ec1a4b3445c80dd443fbfc037af",
"text": "I prefer to use a Foreign Exchange transfer service. You will get a good exchange rate (better than from Paypal or from your bank) and it is possible to set it up with no transfer fees on both ends. You can use an ACH transfer from your US bank account to the FX's bank account and then a SEPA transfer in Europe to get the funds into your bank account. Transfers can also go in the opposite direction (Europe to USA). I've used XE's service (www.xe.com) and US Forex's service (www.usforex.com). Transferwise (www.transferwise.com) is another popular service. US Forex's service calls you to confirm each transfer. They also charge a $5 fee on transfers under $1000. XE's service is more convenient: they do not charge fees for small transfers and do not call you to confirm the tramsfer. However, they will not let you set up a free ACH transfer from US bank accounts if you set up your XE account outside the US. In both cases, the transfer takes a few business days to complete. EDIT: In my recent (Summer 2015) experience, US Forex has offered slightly better rates than XE. I've also checked out Transferwise, and for transfers from the US it seems to be a bit of a gimmick with a fee added late in the process. For reference, I just got quotes from the three sites for converting 5000 USD to EUR:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "575209e45e0e9bd0338345afba9058eb",
"text": "\"I'd recommend an online FX broker like XE Trade at xe.com. There are no fees charged by XE other than the spread on the FX conversion itself (which you'll pay anywhere). They have payment clearing facilities in several countries (including UK BACS) so provided you're dealing with a major currency it should be possible to transfer money \"\"free\"\" (of wire charges at least). The FX spread will be much better than you would get from a bank (since FX is their primary business). The additional risk you take on is settlement risk. XE will not pay the sterling amount to your UK bank account until they have received the Euro payment into their account. If XE went bankrupt before crediting your UK account, but after you've paid them your Euros - you could lose your money. XE is backed by Custom House, which is a large and established Canadian firm - so this risk is very small indeed. There are other choices out there too, UKForex is another that comes to mind - although XE's rates have been the best of those I've tried.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f83fd4e12068a3dd80172e8afb3afef",
"text": "In addition to TransferWise that @miernik answered with and that I successfully used, I found CurrencyFair which looks to be along similar lines and also supports US$.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5d5612af7d495b352eeb63110fcfde9a",
"text": "He can send you a check. This will move the burden of GBP->USD conversion to him (unless the GBP amount is preset, then you'll be the one to pay for conversion either way). You can then deposit the USD check in any Israeli bank (they'll charge commission for the deposit and the USD->ILS conversion). Another, and from my experience significantly cheaper, option would be to wire transfer directly to your account. If you have a USD account and he'll transfer USD out - it will be almost at no cost to you, if you don't have a USD account check with your bank how to open it, or pay for USD->ILS conversion.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eef52c6fb4e81d9bf9b71b4041321c19",
"text": "Probably the easiest to do is to do an international transfer via online banking. You will need to give your IBAN and BIC/SWIFT code of your bank to your friend, he should then be able to transfer the money from his bank. At least, I think they use IBAN in Israel as well. The money will be converted to the currency of your account. There are some fees, but they are not too big I think, and depending on the choice of transfer they can be paid by sender, shared, or by receiver. Contact your bank for precise details. Edit: if you really need to be paid in USD this may not be the best option though.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a6f3673e71cdfeb5998f0abfae96975d",
"text": "In general, to someone in a similar circumstance I might suggest that the lowest-risk option is to immediately convert your excess currency into the currency you will be spending. Note that 'risk' here refers only to the variance in possible outcomes. By converting to EUR now (assuming you are moving to an EU country using the EUR), you eliminate the chance that the GBP will weaken. But you also eliminate the chance that the GBP will strengthen. Thus, you have reduced the variance in possible outcomes so that you have a 'known' amount of EUR. To put money in a different currency than what you will be using is a form of investing, and it is one that can be considered high risk. Invest in a UK company while you plan on staying in the UK, and you take on the risk of stock ownership only. But invest in a German company while you plan on staying in the UK, you take on the risk of stock ownership + the risk of currency volatility. If you are prepared for this type of risk and understand it, you may want to take on this type of risk - but you really must understand what you're getting into before you do this. For most people, I think it's fair to say that fx investing is more accurately called gambling [See more comments on the risk of fx trading here: https://money.stackexchange.com/a/76482/44232]. However, this risk reduction only truly applies if you are certain that you will be moving to an EUR country. If you invest in EUR but then move to the US, you have not 'solved' your currency volatility problem, you have simply replaced your GBP risk with EUR risk. If you had your plane ticket in hand and nothing could stop you, then you know what your currency needs will be in 2 years. But if you have any doubt, then exchanging currency now may not be reducing your risk at all. What if you exchange for EUR today, and in a year you decide (for all the various reasons that circumstances in life may change) that you will stay in the UK after all. And during that time, what if the GBP strengthened again? You will have taken on risk unnecessarily. So, if you lack full confidence in your move, you may want to avoid fully trading your GBP today. Perhaps you could put away some amount every month into EUR (if you plan on moving to an EUR country), and leave some/most in GBP. This would not fully eliminate your currency risk if you move, but it would also not fully expose yourself to risk if you end up not moving. Just remember that doing this is not a guarantee that the EUR will strengthen and the GBP will weaken.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c75297b62f73553ec352cda7a9fff1b6",
"text": "\"I've done exactly what you say at one of my brokers. With the restriction that I have to deposit the money in the \"\"right\"\" way, and I don't do it too often. The broker is meant to be a trading firm and not a currency exchange house after all. I usually do the exchange the opposite of you, so I do USD -> GBP, but that shouldn't make any difference. I put \"\"right\"\" in quotes not to indicate there is anything illegal going on, but to indicate the broker does put restrictions on transferring out for some forms of deposits. So the key is to not ACH the money in, nor send a check, nor bill pay it, but rather to wire it in. A wire deposit with them has no holds and no time limits on withdrawal locations. My US bank originates a wire, I trade at spot in the opposite direction of you (USD -> GBP), wait 2 days for the trade to settle, then wire the money out to my UK bank. Commissions and fees for this process are low. All told, I pay about $20 USD per xfer and get spot rates, though it does take approx 3 trading days for the whole process (assuming you don't try to wait for a target rate but rather take market rate.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "baaa0dc7d6d940f6aa51f2bc7297996e",
"text": "I did this for a few years and the best way I found was via http://xe.com/ It uses a bank transfer from your UK bank to xe.com (no fees from bank or xe). On the Canadian side, they use EFT (Electronic Fund Transfer, no fees from bank or xe.com) They have very competitive exchange rates. To make a transfer, you log in to xe and arrange your transfer. This locks in the rate and tells you how many GBP you need to transfer in. Then, transfer your money from the UK bank into xe using the details they provide. Two or three days later the money shows up in your Canadian acount. There's a bit of paperwork they need to set it up but it's not very hard. After it's set up, everything else is online. Enjoy!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0fa6c81a8ef6708e1285d62e7d01d454",
"text": "\"The \"\"hidden\"\" fees in any transfer are usually: Foreign exchange transfer services are usually the cheapest option for sending money abroad when a conversion is involved. They tend to offer ways to get the money to or from them cheaply or for free and they typically offer low or no fees plus much better exchange rates than the alternatives. My preferred foreign exchange service is XE Trade. It looks like they support CAD to ZAR transfers so you might check them out. In my experience, they have not set a minimum on the amount I send although it does impact the exchange rate they will offer. The rate is still better than other alternatives available to me though. Note that for large enough transfers, the exchange rate difference will dominate all other costs. For example, if you transfer $10,000 and you pay $100 for the transfer plus $50 in wire fees ($150 in fees) but get a 2% better exchange rate than a \"\"free\"\" service, you would save $50 by choosing the non free service.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "56f91d84f1a43125d0d28f4dd642bb6f",
"text": "Well, one way I avoid all exchange fees is to trade currency with an individual. There's no trick, though. Just find a friend or family member on the other side of the border who wants your USD or your CAD, look up the exchange rate for the day, and hand over the money (or write each other checks). It's win-win because both sides are getting a good deal with no fees.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bfd87f95d5dc32ae3574eb5568be2f3c",
"text": "\"There isn't a single rate that works in both directions. There are two rates, one for each direction. So if $1 = 64.23 INR, you may find that 100 INR = $1.55. In fact, it's even worse than that. The \"\"rates\"\" are just the average values at which transactions occur. What happens in the real world is that someone (presumably your bank in this instance) offers to sell 100 INR for some amount, perhaps $1.56. Other traders may either accept this price or refuse to trade. If they refuse to trade, the bank may accept one of their offers, perhaps $1.55. Anyway, the answer to your question is that whomever does the actual conversion keeps the \"\"difference\"\". Of course, they may then lose that money if the value falls before they sell. More confusingly, either your bank or your friend's bank could do the conversion itself. Either or both could hold balances in various currencies so that they don't have to rely on the vagaries of the exchange market. This is called a money market account, and banks let their customers invest in them. It is a bit more likely to be your bank that gets the money than your friend's bank. Your friend's bank doesn't actually need to know that your account is in USD. They just transfer the amount in INR. It's your bank that has to convert that into USD to deposit in your account.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb9c7a2b4d3a134dcd6af5b51cad29cc",
"text": "I've been using xetrade for quite awhile, also used nzforex (associated with ozforex / canadian forex, probably ukforex as well) -- xetrade has slightly better rates than I've gotten at nzforex, so I've been using them primarily. That said, I am in the process of opening an account at CurrencyFair, because it appears that I'll be able to exchange money at better rates there. (XETrade charges me 1.5% off the rate you see at xe.com -- which is the FX conversion fee I believe -- there are no fees other than the spread charged). I think the reason CurrencyFair may be able to do better is because the exchange is based on the peer-to-peer trade, so you could theoretically get a deal better than xe.com. I'll update my answer here after I've been using CurrencyFair for awhile, and let you know. They theoretically guarantee no worse than 0.5% though (+ $4.00 / withdrawal) -- so I think it'll save me quite a bit of money.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
99227ba06575d59e45025755d8846b35
|
Contributing factors to historical increase in trading volume
|
[
{
"docid": "795e848fffc32a81e0deb6f8b682171c",
"text": "Prior to 1975, commissions for trading stock on the NYSE were fixed at 1% of the amount of the trade. In 1975, the SEC made fixed commission rates illegal, giving rise to discount brokers offering much reduced commission rates. Simultaneously, Electronic Communications Networks (ECNs) gained market share as alternative venues for executing trades. The increased competition led to further declines in commissions. Finally, as technology was widely adopted on Wall Street and human beings were largely taken out of the order execution process, commissions fell further. This had the effect of both drawing in new participants and increasing the rate of transactions of the existing participants (see Day Trading, which was largely unheard of prior to the technology revolution of the 1990s). Most recently, the exchanges themselves have shifted their business model to depend on high frequency traders, and the proportion of trades accounted for by HFT firms ballooned from under 10% in the early 2000s to over 50% today.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "096893f66144d372513ee827938fe573",
"text": "It's not primarily more people investing. In the 1980s stock exchanges went from open outcry trading floors where all trades involved actually exchanging pieces of paper to electronic trading. Once that happened, it wasn't long before most trades were executed by computer programs rather than human beings, turning stocks over rapidly for very short-term profits rather than long-term investment, greatly increasing the number of trades (and also increasing liquidity for the actual investors; it's by no means all bad).",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "9ffa2801a53684aa4778439927170236",
"text": "As others have pointed out, the value of Apple's stock and the NASDAQ are most likely highly correlated for a number of reasons, not least among them the fact that Apple is part of the NASDAQ. However, because numerous factors affect the entire market, or at least a significant subset of it, it makes sense to develop a strategy to remove all of these factors without resorting to use of an index. Using an index to remove the effect of these factors might be a good idea, but you run the risk of potentially introducing other factors that affect the index, but not Apple. I don't know what those would be, but it's a valid theoretical concern. In your question, you said you wanted to subtract them from each other, and only see an Apple curve moving around a horizontal line. The basic strategy I plan to use is similar but even simpler. Instead of graphing Apple's stock price, we can plot the difference between its stock price on business day t and business day t-1, which gives us this graph, which is essentially what you're looking for: While this is only the preliminaries, it should give you a basic idea of one procedure that's used extensively to do just what you're asking. I don't know of a website that will automatically give you such a metric, but you could download the price data and use Excel, Stata, etc. to analyze this. The reasoning behind this methodology builds heavily on time series econometrics, which for the sake of simplicity I won't go into in great detail, but I'll provide a brief explanation to satisfy the curious. In simple econometrics, most time series are approximated by a mathematical process comprised of several components: In the simplest case, the equations for a time series containing one or more of the above components are of the form that taking the first difference (the procedure I used above) will leave only the random component. However, if you want to pursue this rigorously, you would first perform a set of tests to determine if these components exist and if differencing is the best procedure to remove those that are present. Once you've reduced the series to its random component, you can use that component to examine how the process underlying the stock price has changed over the years. In my example, I highlighted Steve Jobs' death on the chart because it's one factor that may have led to the increased standard deviation/volatility of Apple's stock price. Although charts are somewhat subjective, it appears that the volatility was already increasing before his death, which could reflect other factors or the increasing expectation that he wouldn't be running the company in the near future, for whatever reason. My discussion of time series decomposition and the definitions of various components relies heavily on Walter Ender's text Applied Econometric Time Series. If you're interested, simple mathematical representations and a few relevant graphs are found on pages 1-3. Another related procedure would be to take the logarithm of the quotient of the current day's price and the previous day's price. In Apple's case, doing so yields this graph: This reduces the overall magnitude of the values and allows you to see potential outliers more clearly. This produces a similar effect to the difference taken above because the log of a quotient is the same as the difference of the logs The significant drop depicted during the year 2000 occurred between September 28th and September 29th, where the stock price dropped from 26.36 to 12.69. Apart from the general environment of the dot-com bubble bursting, I'm not sure why this occurred. Another excellent resource for time series econometrics is James Hamilton's book, Time Series Analysis. It's considered a classic in the field of econometrics, although similar to Enders' book, it's fairly advanced for most investors. I used Stata to generate the graphs above with data from Yahoo! Finance: There are a couple of nuances in this code related to how I defined the time series and the presence of weekends, but they don't affect the overall concept. For a robust analysis, I would make a few quick tweaks that would make the graphs less appealing without more work, but would allow for more accurate econometrics.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "64b54d4e4ecc2bbf9acb2240ed62c300",
"text": "Large volume just means a lot of market participants believe they know where the stock price will be (after some amount of time). The fact that the price is not moving just means that about 50% of those really confident traders think the stock will be moving up, and about 50% of those really confident traders think the stock will be moving down.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d176eb94e8783fd32d6e57b1f9aa3118",
"text": "You should not look at volume in isolation but look at it together with other indicators and/or the release of news (good or bad). When there is lower than average volume this could be an indication that the stock is in a bit of a holding pattern, possibly waiting for some company or economic news to come out (especially when accompanied by small changes in price). It could also mean that trading in a certain direction is drying up and the trend is about to end (this could be accompanied with a large move in price). When there is higher than average volume (2 to 3 times more or higher), this could be due to the release of company results, company or economic news, or the start or end of a trend (especially if accompanied by a gap). A large increase in volume accompanied by a large fall in price (usually a gap down) may also be an indication the stock has gone ex-dividend. There could be a range of reasons for variations in volume to the average volume. That is why you need to look at other indicators, company reporting and news, and economic news in combination with the volume changes to get a grasp of what is really happening.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4547c62620c5e2a6fb9f620f2a1210cc",
"text": "This would be a nice Raspberry Pi project for Mathematica, which comes bundled free on the Raspbian OS. You can program it up and leave it running. It's not expensive and doesn't use much power. A program to monitor stock prices or volume could be written as simply as :- This checks the volume of trades of Oct 2014 US crude oil futures every 30 seconds and sends an email if the volume jumps by more than 100. The financial data in this example is curated from Yahoo. If specific data is not available or not updated frequently enough, if you can find an alternative online data source it's usually possible read the data in. For example, this is apparently real-time data :- {Crude Oil, 92.79, -0.67, -0.71%} After leaving the above program running while writing this the volume of trades has risen like so :- Edit I just set this running on a Raspberry Pi. I had to use gmail for the email setup as described in this post: Configuring Mathematica to send email from a notebook. Anyway, it's working. Hope I don't get inundated with emails. ;-)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8290de06be4d6255f61a606db30404dd",
"text": "\"Both explanations are partly true. There are many investors who do not want to sell an asset at a loss. This causes \"\"resistance\"\" at prices where large amounts of the asset were previously traded by such investors. It also explains why a \"\"break-through\"\" of such a \"\"resistance\"\" is often associated with a substantial \"\"move\"\" in price. There are also many investors who have \"\"stop-loss\"\" or \"\"trailing stop-loss\"\" \"\"limit orders\"\" in effect. These investors will automatically sell out of a long position (or buy out of a short position) if the price drops (or rises) by a certain percentage (typically 8% - 10%). There are periods of time when money is flowing into an asset or asset class. This could be due to a large investor trying to quietly purchase the asset in a way that avoids raising the price earlier than necessary. Or perhaps a large investor is dollar-cost-averaging. Or perhaps a legal mandate for a category of investors has changed, and they need to rebalance their portfolios. This rebalancing is likely to take place over time. Or perhaps there is a fad where many small investors (at various times) decide to increase (or decrease) their stake in an asset class. Or perhaps (for demographic reasons) the number of investors in a particular situation is increasing, so there are more investors who want to make particular investments. All of these phenomena can be summarized by the word \"\"momentum\"\". Traders who use technical analysis (including most day traders and algorithmic speculators) are aware of these phenomena. They are therefore more likely to purchase (or sell, or short) an asset shortly after one of their \"\"buy signals\"\" or \"\"sell signals\"\" is triggered. This reinforces the phenomena. There are also poorly-understood long-term cycles that affect business fundamentals and/or the politics that constrain business activity. For example: Note that even if the markets really were a random walk, it would still be profitable (and risk-reducing) to perform dollar-cost-averaging when buying into a position, and also perform averaging when selling out of a position. But this means that recent investor behavior can be used to predict the near-future behavior of investors, which justifies technical analysis.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4fb91063f3f8bb3728c38bb13f0e6b20",
"text": "Mostly, when an equity's price rises, its statistical and implied volatilities fall and vice versa. The reason why is a mathematical phenomenon mixed with the reality that a unceasingly falling asset price will soon not exist, skewing the results with survivorship bias. Since volatility is standard deviation of price indexes, a security that changes in price by the same amount every day will have lower volatility, so a rising price will have lower implied volatility because its mostly experiencing positive daily price change while a recently falling price will have higher volatility because factored together with the positive price changes, the negative price changes will widen the standard deviation of the securities price index. Quantitatively, any change, in or out of one's favor, is a risk because change is uncertain, and any uncertainty is a risk. This quantitative interpretation while valid runs almost totally counter to the value opinion, that a lower price relative to value is a lower risk than a higher price relative to value, but both have their place in time. Over long time periods, it's best to use the value interpretation, quantitative for shorter. Using the opposite has hastily destroyed many a fund manager.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "05516c497d6f1837c83f65431ab6d7ab",
"text": "There are multiple factors at play that drive stock price movements, but one that can be visualized is that stocks can be priced relative to other (similar stocks). When one stock price goes up without fundamental changes (i.e. daily market noise/movements), it becomes slightly more expensive relative to it's peers. Opportunists will sell the now slightly more expensive stock, while others may buying the slightly cheaper (relatively) peer stock. Imagine millions of transactions like this happening throughout each hour, downward selling pressure on a stock that rises too fast in value relative to it's peers or the market, and upward buying pressure on stocks that are relatively cheaper than it's peers. It pushes two stocks towards an equilibrium that is directionally the same. Another way to think of it is lets say tomorrow there is $10B in net new dollars moved into buy orders for stocks that comes from net selling of bonds (this is also partly why bonds/stocks are generally inversely related). That money goes to buys stocks ABC, XYZ, EFG. As the price of those goes up with more buying pressure, stocks JKL, MNO, PQR are relatively a tad cheaper, so some money starts to flow into there. Repeat until you get a large majority of the stocks that buyers are willing to buy and you can see why stocks move in the same direction a lot of times.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "00e8698d18a6edb4b5965c3a58a3bfa3",
"text": "GDP growth is one of several components of nominal equity returns; the (probably not comprehensive) list includes: Real GDP/earnings growth Inflation Dividend payouts and share buybacks Multiple expansion (the market willing to pay more per dollar of earnings) Changes in interest rate expectations As other comments mention you could also see larger companies tending to deliver higher returns as for any number of reasons related to M&A, expansion into foreign markets, etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a45c4bac1eea28b1ec31818d9dbc1df1",
"text": "HFT doesn't increase correlations nor do hedge funds, If you look at the euro crisis, correlations have skyrocketed, then in late december jan and feb during the rally the correlations started subsiding and specific risk started taking over, crisis mode increases correlations.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "61324e4efa88c7fb7ec259055a046666",
"text": "\"Do not reinvent the wheel! Historical data about stock market returns and standard deviations suffer from number of issues such as past-filling and mostly survivorship bias -- that the current answers do not consider at all. I suggest to read the paper \"\"A Century of Global Stock Markets\"\" by Philippe Jorion (UC Irvine) and William Goetzmann (Yale), here. William Bernstein comments the results here, notice that rebalancing is sometimes a good option but not always, his non-obvious finding where the low SD did not favour from rebalancing: Look at the final page of the paper, \"\"geometric returns -- represent returns to a buy-and-hold strategy\"\" and the \"\"arithmetic averages -- give equal weight to each observation interval.\"\", where you can find your asked \"\"historical effect of Rebalancing on Return and Standard Deviation\"\". The paper nicely summarizes the results to this table: The results in the table are from the interval 1921-1996, it is not that long-time but even longer term data has its own drawbacks. The starting year 1921 is interesting choice because it is around the times of social-economical changes and depressing moments, historical context can be realized from books such as Grapes Of Wrath (short summary here, although fiction to some extent, it has some resonance to the history). The authors have had to ignore some years because of different reasons such as political unrest and wars. Instead of delving into marketed spam as suggested by one reply, I would look into this search here. Look at the number of references and the related papers to judge their value. P.s. I encourage people to attack my open question here, hope we can solve it!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b69d285da0ed0700b3cf059001f2f7e5",
"text": "\"There tends to be high volume around big changes in stock price. The volume of a stock does not remain constant and the term \"\"fat fingers\"\" can influence price.--> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-01/that-japanese-fat-finger-can-absolutely-happen-in-u-s-.html That being said keshlam is 99% right when it comes to a stock moving when their is no news or earnings announcements. Check out these papers. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-6803.2010.01285.x/full They do a time series analysis to try and predict future prices off of past demand during news events. They forecast using auto-regressive models. google \"\"forecasting autoregressive model\"\" and the upenn lecture will be helpful. I would post another link but I cannot because I do not have enough rep/ This is more of a quant question. Hope this helps. JL\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e231de6f5c1fe41d56d47d4a08108166",
"text": "I hovered over the label for trading volume and the following message popped up: Volume / average volume Volume is the number of shares traded on the latest trading day. The average volume is measured over 30 days.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c56ce18ddd5d3201fd1a73b21475e23f",
"text": "While volume per trade is higher at the open and to a lesser extent at the close, the overall volume is actually lower, on average. Bid ask spreads are widest at the open and to a lesser extent at the close. Generally, bid ask spreads are inversely proportional to overall volumes. Why this is the case hasn't been sufficiently clearly answered by academia yet, but some theories are that",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "be25c00709dc2f9ad36703697f9aa7c0",
"text": "The volume required to significantly move the price of a security depends completely on the orderbook for that particular security. There are a variety of different reasons and time periods that a security can be halted, this will depend a bit on which exchange you're dealing with. This link might help with the halt aspect of your question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trading_halt",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "157b067a135fcc32af63e61400d1cc93",
"text": "You can use trade volume for divergence and convergence studies",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
4f0b80784928bee1230505db0eb23a5f
|
Do mutual fund companies deliberately “censor” their portfolios/funds?
|
[
{
"docid": "eeae47327398ea15c73b93538235cb5f",
"text": "\"Do mutual funds edit/censor underperforming investments to make their returns look better, and if so, is there any way one can figure out if they are doing it? No, that's not what the quote says. What the quote says is that the funds routinely drop investments that do not bring the expected return, which is true. That's their job, that is what is called \"\"active management\"\". Obviously, if you're measuring the fund by their success/failure to beat the market, to beat the market the funds must consistently select over-performers. No-one claims that they only select over-performers, but they select enough of them (or not...) for the average returns to be appealing (or not...) for the investors.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20eaa2ce1822366372a8b6126a2f940c",
"text": "There is a survivorship bias in the mutual fund industry. It's not about individual stocks in which those funds invest. Rather, it's in which funds and fund companies/families are still around. The underperforming funds get closed or merged into other funds. Thus they are no longer reported, since they no longer exist. This makes a single company's mutual funds appear to have a better history, on average, than they actually did. Similarly, fund companies that underperform, will go out of business. This could make the mutual fund industry's overall history appear to be better than it actually was. Most companies don't do this to deliberately game the numbers. It's rational on the part of fund companies to close underperforming funds. When a fund has a below average history, investors will likely not invest in it, and will remove their existing money. The fund will shrink while the overhead remains the same, making the fund unprofitable for the company to run.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6c60b445afe0bab8264191b238caa2fe",
"text": "\"If I invest in individual stocks I will, from time to time, sell stocks that aren't performing well. If the value of my portfolio has gone up by 10%, then the value of my portfolio has gone up by 10%, regardless of whether selling those stocks is labeled as \"\"delete[ing] failures\"\". Same thing for mutual funds: selling underperforming stocks is perfectly ordinary, and calling it \"\"delete[ing] failures\"\" in order to imply some sort of dishonesty is simply dishonest.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "0f25b9fbec9ffacf7aed54f24f4be5ec",
"text": "In the absence of a country designation where the mutual fund is registered, the question cannot be fully answered. For US mutual funds, the N.A.V per share is calculated each day after the close of the stock exchanges and all purchase and redemption requests received that day are transacted at this share price. So, the price of the mutual fund shares for April 2016 is not enough information: you need to specify the date more accurately. Your calculation of what you get from the mutual fund is incorrect because in the US, declared mutual fund dividends are net of the expense ratio. If the declared dividend is US$ 0.0451 per share, you get a cash payout of US$ 0.0451 for each share that you own: the expense ratio has already been subtracted before the declared dividend is calculated. The N.A.V. price of the mutual fund also falls by the amount of the per-share dividend (assuming that the price of all the fund assets (e.g. shares of stocks, bonds etc) does not change that day). Thus. if you have opted to re-invest your dividend in the same fund, your holding has the same value as before, but you own more shares of the mutual fund (which have a lower price per share). For exchange-traded funds, the rules are slightly different. In other jurisdictions, the rules might be different too.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b7bbbba72cb8dc5b8dcf6cba5fd65700",
"text": "The S&P 500 is a market index. The P/E data you're finding for the S&P 500 is data based on the constituent list of that market index and isn't necessarily the P/E ratio of a given fund, even one that aims to track the performance of the S&P 500. I'm sure similar metrics exist for other market indexes, but unless Vanguard is publishing it's specific holdings in it's target date funds there's no market index to look at.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e09b473dcb81d2f1f51efcea3d3b24c7",
"text": "\"That's like a car dealer advertising their \"\"huge access\"\" to Chevrolet. All brokers utilize dark pools nowadays, either their own or one belonging to a larger financial institution. Why? Because that's a primary source of broker income. Example: Under current US regulations the broker is under no obligation to pass these orders to actual (a.k.a. lit) exchanges. Instead it can internalize them in its dark pool as long as it \"\"improves the price\"\". So: If a broker doesn't run its own dark pool, then it sends the orders to the dark pool run by a larger institution (JPMorgan, Credit Suisse, Getco, Knight Capital) and gets some fraction of the dark pool's profit in return. Are Mom and Pop negatively impacted by this? Not for most order types. They each even got a free penny out of the deal! But if there were no dark pools, that $1.00 difference between their trade prices would have gone half ($0.50) to Mom's counterparty and half ($0.50) to Pop's counterparty, who could be someone else's Mom and someone else's Pop. So ... that's why brokers all use dark pools, and why their advertisement of their dark pool access is silly. They're basically saying, \"\"We're going to occasionally throw you a free penny while making 49 times that much from you\"\"! (Note: Now apply the above math to a less liquid product than AAPL. Say, where the spread is not $0.01, but more like $0.05. Now Mom and Pop still might make a penny each, while the broker can make $4.98 on a 100 share trade!)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6aa7994d1eb6dfbbd1f75c1cafa06219",
"text": "A general mutual fund's exact holdings are not known on a day-to-day basis, and so technical tools must work with inexact data. Furthermore, the mutual fund shares' NAV depends on lots of different shares that it holds, and the results of the kinds of analyses that one can do for a single stock must be commingled to produce something analogous for the fund's NAV. In other words, there is plenty of shooting in the dark going on. That being said, there are plenty of people who claim to do such analyses and will gladly sell you their results (actually, Buy, Hold, Sell recommendations) for whole fund families (e.g. Vanguard) in the form of a monthly or weekly Newsletter delivered by US Mail (in the old days) or electronically (nowadays). Some people who subscribe to such newsletters swear by them, while others swear at them and don't renew their subscriptions; YMMV.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d9303a97a7532a9f39858d68b75bf2a",
"text": "Without knowing the specifics it is hard to give you a specific answer, but most likely the answer is no. If they limit the participation in the site to accredited investors, this is probably not something they are doing willingly, but rather imposed by regulators. Acredited investors have access to instruments that don't have the same level of regulatory protection & scrutiny as those offered to the general public, and are defined under Regulation D. Examples of such securities are 144A Shares, or hedgefunds.",
"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": "0d7c47268b8731b24a5cc95a73efbe03",
"text": "\"How on earth can you possibly know what is going on in individual company X? The sole exception is if it is your own company. The stock markets of the world are in fact a nest of sharks. The big sharks essentially make money out of the little sharks. Some little sharks manage not to be eaten, and grow bigger. Good luck with that. \"\"Insider trading\"\" is, when found out, a crime these days. But \"\"insider knowledge\"\", \"\"insider hints\"\", \"\"knowledge of market sentiment\"\" and indeed just rumours about a given company are the kinds of things you won't particularly get to hear of in the fog of disinformation, and don't particularly want to waste your time with for a very uncertain loss or gain at the end of the year. The thing I find annoying about mutual funds is that they can be very stupid, and I speculate that it may be the consequence of the marketing on the one hand, and the commission structure on the other. I started cashing in my funds in late 2007, following the collapse of Northern Rock here in the UK. The \"\"2008\"\" crisis was in fact the slowest economic car crash in history. But very very few mutual funds saw, or seemed to see, the way the wind was blowing, and switch massively to cash. If the punters had the courage to hang on, of course, mostly stocks bounced back in 2009 and 2010. Moral: remember you can cash your stuff in any time you want.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "40e08223ac41fd50cdae1dcf1e7cebc1",
"text": "The reason for such differences is that there's no source to get this information. The companies do not (and cannot) report who are their shareholders except for large shareholders and stakes of interest. These, in the case of GoPro, were identified during the IPO (you can look the filings up on EDGAR). You can get information from this or that publicly traded mutual fund about their larger holdings from their reports, but private investors don't provide even that. Institutional (public) investors buy and sell shares all the time and only report large investments. So there's no reliable way to get a snapshot picture you're looking for.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f69471fbc64767b814c43447c1a02d6f",
"text": "There are not necessarily large shareholders, maybe every other Joe Schmoe owns 3 or 5 shares; and many shares might be inside investment funds. If you are looking for voting rights, typically, the banks/investment companies that host the accounts of the individual shareholders/fund owners have the collective voting rights, so the Fidelity's and Vanguard's of the world will be the main and deciding voters. That is very common.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "13804378135ed6bfb6d6e7517aac9d40",
"text": "index ETF tracks indented index (if fund manager spend all money on Premium Pokemon Trading Cards someone must cover resulting losses) Most Index ETF are passively managed. ie a computer algorithm would do automatic trades. The role of fund manager is limited. There are controls adopted by the institution that generally do allow such wide deviations, it would quickly be flagged and reported. Most financial institutions have keyman fraud insurance. fees are not higher that specified in prospectus Most countries have regulation where fees need to be reported and cannot exceed the guideline specified. at least theoretically possible to end with ETF shares that for weeks cannot be sold Yes some ETF's can be illiquid at difficult to sell. Hence its important to invest in ETF that are very liquid.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "daccd8ca0d17624588d8df91bea8c332",
"text": "One advantage not pointed out yet is that closed-end funds typically trade on stock exchanges, whereas mutual funds do not. This makes closed-end funds more accessible to some investors. I'm a Canadian, and this particular distinction matters to me. With my regular brokerage account, I can buy U.S. closed-end funds that trade on a stock exchange, but I cannot buy U.S. mutual funds, at least not without the added difficulty of somehow opening a brokerage account outside of my country.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20e5cfc13dc16a19aef4dc3ba03eba08",
"text": "\"Let me start by giving you a snippet of a report that will floor you. Beat the market? Investors lag the market by so much that many call the industry a scam. This is the 2015 year end data from a report titled Quantitive Analysis of Investor Behavior by a firm, Dalbar. It boggles the mind that the disparity could be this bad. A mix of stocks and bonds over 30 years should average 8.5% or so. Take out fees, and even 7.5% would be the result I expect. The average investor return was less than half of this. Jack Bogle, founder of Vanguard, and considered the father of the index fund, was ridiculed. A pamphlet I got from Vanguard decades ago quoted fund managers as saying that \"\"indexing is a path to mediocrity.\"\" Fortunately, I was a numbers guy, read all I could that Jack wrote and got most of that 10.35%, less .05, down to .02% over the years. To answer the question: psychology. People are easily scammed as they want to believe they can beat the market. Or that they'll somehow find a fund that does it for them. I'm tempted to say ignorance or some other hint at lack of intelligence, but that would be unfair to the professionals, all of which were scammed by Madoff. Individual funds may not be scams, but investors are partly to blame, buy high, sell low, and you get the results above, I dare say, an investor claiming to use index funds might not fare much better than the 3.66% 30 year return above, if they follow that path, buying high, selling low. Edit - I am adding this line to be clear - My conclusion, if any, is that the huge disparity cannot be attributed to management, a 6.7% lag from the S&P return to what the average investor sees likely comes from bad trading. To the comments by Dave, we have a manager that consistently beats the market over any 2-3 year period. You have been with him 30 years and are clearly smiling about your relationship and investing decision. Yet, he still has flows in and out. People buy at the top when reading how good he is, and selling right after a 30% drop even when he actually beat by dropping just 22%. By getting in and out, he has a set of clients with a 30 year record of 6% returns, while you have just over 11%. This paragraph speaks to the behavior of the investor, not managed vs indexed.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "403f5cce6098e955f1016b38320d2ee1",
"text": "\"I think the answer to your question is no, in theory. By screening out funds, you must actively manage the investments. To then try to ensure you track the index closely enough, you have to do further management. Either you spend your own time to do this or you pay someone else. This is ok, but it seems contrary to the primary reasons most people choose an index fund and why the product exists. You want a specific type of ethical investment(s) that has lower fees and performs well. I think you can get close, it just won't be like an \"\"index fund\"\". Don't expect equal results.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bcbd96d50a6f159f56b3bc04413bca94",
"text": "\"We're in agreement, I just want retail investors to understand that in most of these types of discussions, the unspoken reality is the retail sector trading the market is *over*. This includes the mutual funds you mentioned, and even most index funds (most are so narrowly focused they lose their relevance for the retail investor). In the retail investment markets I'm familiar with, there are market makers of some sort or another for specified ranges. I'm perfectly fine with no market makers; but retail investors should be told the naked truth as well, and not sold a bunch of come-ons. What upsets me is seeing that just as computers really start to make an orderly market possible (you are right, the classic NYSE specialist structure was outrageously corrupt), regulators turned a blind eye to implementing better controls for retail investors. The financial services industry has to come to terms whether they want AUM from retail or not, and having heard messaging much like yours from other professionals, I've concluded that the industry does *not* want the constraints with accepting those funds, but neither do they want to disabuse retail investors of how tilted the game is against them. Luring them in with deceptively suggestive marketing and then taking money from those naturally ill-prepared for the rigors of the setting is like beating up the Downs' Syndrome kid on the short bus and boasting about it back on the campus about how clever and strong one is. If there was as stringent truth in marketing in financial services as cigarettes, like \"\"this service makes their profit by encouraging the churning of trades\"\", there would be a lot of kvetching from so-called \"\"pros\"\" as well. If all retail financial services were described like \"\"dead cold cow meat\"\" describes \"\"steak\"\", a lot of retail investors would be better off. As it stands today, you'd have to squint mighty hard to see the faintly-inscribed \"\"caveat emptor\"\" on financial services offerings to the retail sector. Note that depending upon the market setting, the definition of retail differs. I'm surprised the herd hasn't been spooked more by the MF Global disaster, for example, and yet there are some surprisingly large accounts detrimentally affected by that incident, which in a conventional equities setting would be considered \"\"pros\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca4e08fd07ce1d7ceac49708e140e482",
"text": "You'd be moving from 33.5K of taxable income + 16.5K of untaxable income, to 65K of taxable income (worst case). So the question is whether the net from the extra 31.5K of taxable income is more than the 16.5K, and since marginal tax rates in the relevant brackets are no more than 32% according to the table you posted (22% federal and 10% provincial), it's definitely a win to move jobs. More precisely, the marginal tax rate is 25% on the first 8044 (41544-33500) and 32% on the rest, making for total extra tax of about 9.5K and thus net income (beyond the 33.5K baseline) of 22K. Compared to the 16.5K this leaves you 5.5K up. If you end up at the 70K end, you're another 3.4K up beyond that.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
066aaab7ffbc665fb9cd907b3a514e66
|
Self assessment expenses - billing date or payment date?
|
[
{
"docid": "848ab8b6c4f59f784f99de5bb5c720c8",
"text": "Unless you're running a self-employed business with a significant turnover (more than £150k), you are entitled to use cash basis accounting for your tax return, which means you would put the date of transactions as the payment date rather than the billing date or the date a debt is incurred. For payments which have a lag, e.g. a cheque that needs to be paid in or a bank transfer that takes a few days, you might also need to choose between multiple payment dates, e.g. when you initiated the payment or when it took effect. You can pick one as long as you're consistent: You can choose how you record when money is received or paid (eg the date the money enters your account or the date a cheque is written) but you must use the same method each tax year.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "8143e59701da827051bb11538170aa2e",
"text": "Hi guys, have a question from my uni finance course but I’m unsure how to treat the initial loan (as a bond, or a bill or other, and what the face value of the loan is). I’ll post the question below, any help is appreciated. “Hi guys, I have a difficult university finance question that’s really been stressing me out.... “The amount borrowed is $300 million and the term of the debt credit facility is six years from today The facility requires minimum loan repayments of $9 million in each financial year except for the first year. The nominal rate for this form of debt is 5%. This intestest rate is compounded monthly and is fixed from the date the facility was initiated. Assume that a debt repayment of $10 million is payed on 31 August 2018 and $9million on April 30 2019. Following on monthly repayments of $9 million at the end of each month from May 31 2019 to June 30 2021. Given this information determine the outstanding value of the debt credit facility on the maturity date.” Can anyone help me out with the answer? I’ve been wracking my brain trying to decide if I treat it as a bond or a bill.” Thanks in advance,",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "94ddf1032cb45bb5c777b866ae873592",
"text": "\"I found your post while searching for this same exact problem. Found the answer on a different forum about a different topic, but what you want is a Cash Flow report. Go to Reports>Income & Expenses>Cash Flow - then in Options, select the asset accounts you'd like to run the report for (\"\"Calle's Checking\"\" or whatever) and the time period. It will show you a list of all the accounts (expense and others) with transactions effecting that asset. You can probably refine this further to show only expenses, but I found it useful to have all of it listed. Not the prettiest report, but it'll get your there.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "28fbd6147331296e24091a48b5f615a7",
"text": "It is important to understand that when or before you received services from your medical provider(s), you almost certainly signed a document stating that you understand that you are fully responsible for the entire bill, even though the provider may be willing to bill the insurer on your behalf as a service. In almost all cases, this is the arrangement, so it is very unlikely that you will be able to dispute the validity of the bill, since you did receive the service and almost certainly agreed to be fully responsible for the payments. With regard to the discounts, your medical provides have likely contracted with your insurer to provide services at a certain price or discount level, so I would base all of your negotiations with the providers and/or the collectors on those amounts. They can't legitimately bill you for the full amount since you are insured by a company they have a contract with, and you are not self-pay/uninsured, and the fact that they haven't been paid by your insurer doesn't change that, because the discount likely depends on the contact they have with your insurer and not whether or not they are billed/paid by your insurer. Please note - this is a common arrangement, but I'd recommend that you verify this with your insurer. Unfortunately, payment in 90+ days is often typical by insurance standards, so it's not yet clear to me whether or not your insurer has broken any laws such as a Prompt Pay law, or violated the terms of your policy with them (read it!). However, you need to find out which claims rep/adjuster is handling your claims and follow up with them until the payments are made. It's not personal, so make this person's life miserable until it is done and call them so often that they know it's you by the caller ID. I would also recommend contacting the collector(s), and letting them know that you don't have the money and so will not be able to pay, provide them with copies of the EOBs that state that the insurance company plans to pay the providers, and then ignore their calls/letters until the payments are made. When they call, simply reiterate that you don't have the money and that your insurance company is in the process of paying the bills. You have to expect that you will be dealing with a low-paid employee that is following a script. You are just the next person on their robo-call list, and they are not going to understand that you don't have a pile of money laying around with which to pay them, even if you tell them repeatedly. Make sure that you at no point give them access to any of your financial accounts, such as a checking or savings account, or a debit card - they will access it and clean you out. It is likely that your insurance provider will pay the providers directly since they were likely billed by the providers originally. If the providers have sold the debt to the collectors (and are not just employing a collector for debt they still own), you may have to follow up with the providers as well and make sure that the collection activity stops, since the providers may also need to forward the payments to the collectors once they are paid by the insurance company. Of course, if the insurer refuses to pay the claims, at that point I would recommend meeting with a lawyer to seek to force them to pay.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d3b2a9a6abd42118fa040f7b762a52b",
"text": "\"In the US, you'd run the risk of being accused of fraud if this weren't set up properly. It would only be proper if your wife could show that she were involved, acting as your agent, bookkeeper, etc. Even so, to suggest that your time is billed at one rate but you are only paid a tiny fraction of that is still a high risk alert. I believe the expression \"\"if it quacks like a duck...\"\" is pretty universal. If not, I'll edit in a clarification. note -I know OP is in UK, but I imagine tax collection is pretty similar in this regard.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f1b1c566e68e180bc8d2edd76e7676a",
"text": "\"But I have been having a little difficulty to include the expenditure in my monthly budget as the billing cycle is from the 16th to 15th of the next month and my income comes in at the end of the month. Many companies will let you change the statement date if you want, so one way to do this would be to request your bank to have statements due at the end of the month or first of month. You can call and ask, this might resolve your problem entirely. How can I efficiently add the credit card expenditure to my monthly budget? We do this using YNAB, which then means our monthly budget is separate from our actual bank accounts. When we spend, we enter the transaction into YNAB and it's \"\"spent.\"\" Additionally, we just pay whatever our credit card balance is a day before the end of the month so it is at $0 when we do our budget discussion at the end of each month.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b677bf9fd32eb6bc39174c40ce70a5b",
"text": "If the hospital is run like hospitals in the US it can take a long time just to determine the bill. The hospital, Emergency room, ER doctors, surgeons, anesthesiologists, X-Ray department, pharmacy and laboratory are considered separate billing centers. It can take a while to determine the charges for each section. Is there an insurance company involved? When there is one involved it can take weeks or months before the hospital determines what the individual owes. The co-pays, coverages, and limits can be very confusing. In my experience it can take a few months before the final amount is known. You may want to call the hospital to determine the status of the bills.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c6b09a1c18842ba3d64088cabe20f311",
"text": "Personal story here: I ended up at the Santa Monica hospital without insurance and left with a bill of $30k-$35k. They really helped me, so I felt like I had a duty to pay them. However, close inspection revealed ridiculous markups on some items which I would have disputed, but I noticed that I had been billed for a few thousands of services not rendered. I got very mad at them for this, they apologized, told me they'd fix it. I never heard back from them and they never put it in collection either. I'm assuming they (rightfully) got scared that I'd go to court and this would be bad publicity. Sometimes I feel guilty I didn't pay them anything, sometimes I feel like they tried to screw me.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f544b73053ef55810b85675372d3150a",
"text": "I store all my receipts digitally, and make sure to input them into accounting program sooner than later, just so I don't forget about it. For practical purposes, the two important things are: Any kind of a digital system makes this pretty easy, even just putting the sums in a spreadsheet and the receipts into files with the date in the name. However, because it's easy enough, I also have a box where I stuff the paper receipts. I expect never to need them, but should something very weird happen to my computer and backups, they would be there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "84bc66f322b8d2b1c50ecec75a3970be",
"text": "Careful, here. The last time we got a bill from the doctor's office because they made a billing mistake it turns out the bill was a mistake. Before you pay anything go through the list of charges and payments and make sure it's accurate. (In our case she went to an appointment and was then told there was no reason for the doctor to see her that day. Several months later a bill for the visit showed up--except they hadn't kept straight what payment was for what visit so it took some digging to figure out what had happened.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "540ad14306a6ab98c337a396e981a398",
"text": "Even for those of us who aren't at risk of over drafting, direct debit is a less-than-stellar option. Direct debit is a great way to begin ignoring how large your bills are. By explicitly paying them through my bank's online billpay, I notice immediately when a bill is larger than it ought to be. This is often caused by a billing error. In which case I've found it far easier to resolve disputes when the money is still in my hands. It's significantly harder to convince an internet provider, cell phone service, or utility to reverse an incorrect charge after it's been paid than it is before. The other times, it's because I've been using the service more than normal. For example, sending text messages more frequently or using more electricity. Explicitly paying these bills makes me realize upfront that there's been a change in my behavior and I can either reduce my expenses or accept the higher cost for higher service. My own experience leads me to believe that paying your bills automatically every month is a great way to ignore these events, and leak money like a sieve. Online bill pay makes doing this as trivial as I could hope for, and the risk of missing a payment is essentially nil.",
"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": "1b4466c1672ecccd8c473e8503ff8b95",
"text": "\"According to the instructions for IRS Form 8889, Expenses incurred before you establish your HSA are not qualified medical expenses. If, under the last-month rule, you are considered to be an eligible individual for the entire year for determining the contribution amount, only those expenses incurred after you actually establish your HSA are qualified medical expenses. Accordingly, your medical expenses from year A are not considered \"\"qualified medical expenses\"\" and you should not use funds in your HSA to pay them unless you would like to pay taxes on the distributed funds and a 20% penalty. Publication 969 states very clearly on page 9: How you report your distributions depends on whether or not you use the distribution for qualified medical expenses (defined earlier). If you use a distribution from your HSA for qualified medical expenses, you do not pay tax on the distribution but you have to report the distribution on Form 8889. There is nothing about the timing of contributions versus distributions. As long as the distribution is for a qualified medical expense, the distribution will not be included in gross income and not subject to penalty regardless of how much money you had in your HSA when you incurred the medical expense.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3174bd88a6eb03c2c32fcf1803446a5f",
"text": "My guess: they are giving you a constant number of days between when the bill is sent and when it is due. Due dates are usually set either: same date each month IE the 3rd of each month. same day IE first thursday of the month. Note: due date might vary based on weekends. Number of days in the month - date on bill should be pretty constant if due date option #1 is being used. Note how Feb dates were usually earlier, since it is a shorter month.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "18d9cbc00c698170d9acdf0c488dd88c",
"text": "If you read all that paperwork they made you fill out at the emergency room, there is probably something in there explicitly stating that you owe any bills you rack up regardless of what happens with the insurance company. They generally have a disclaimer that filing for you with your insurance company is a courtesy service they offer, but they are not obliged to do it. Ultimately, you are responsible for your bills even if the provider slow-billed you. Sorry.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cf395ba4cd893fe297222a85e755771d",
"text": "Better suited to /r/personalfinance, but you definitely owe the money. Unless you had something in writing that they were going to send a bill to a certain address, it's your responsibility to pay. Hell, even if you did have something in writing that said they'd send the bill somewhere else it's still your responsibility to pay even if the bill doesn't show up. You know you owed them money. When your parents didn't get the bill, you should have called the company to ask about it. It's your responsibility to follow up since you're the one that owes the money. What did you think would happen when you went 5 months without paying $312 that you knew you owed?",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
c318c953c93d76372cc5e4e2817fd93c
|
Why is a stock that pays a dividend preferrable to one that doesn't?
|
[
{
"docid": "7dcda72e44ad0126ba5ec11ec96b37e3",
"text": "Check out the questions about why stock prices are what they are. In a nutshell, a stock's value is based on the future prospects of the company. Generally speaking, if a growth company is paying a dividend, that payment is going to negatively affect the growth of the business. The smart move is to re-invest that capital and make more money. As a shareholder, you are compensated by a rising stock price. When a stock isn't growing quickly, a dividend is a better way for a stockholder to realize value. If a gas and electric company makes a billion dollars, investing that money back into the company is not going to yield a large return. And since those types of companies don't really grow too much, the stocks typically trade in a range and don't see the type of appreciation that a growth stock will. So it makes sense to pay out the dividend to the shareholders.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "10d8658ae1f278bd82771c88cacf32fa",
"text": "The ultimate reason to own stock is to receive cash or cash equivalents from the underlying security. You can argue that you make money when stock is valued higher by the market, but the valuation should (though clearly not necessarily is) be based on the expected payout of the underlying security. There are only three ways money can be returned to the shareholder: As you can see, if you don't ask for dividends, you are basically asking for one of the top two too occur - which happens in the future at the end of the company's life as an independent entity. If you think about the time value of money, money in the hand now as dividends can be worth more than the ultimate appreciation of liquidation or acquisition value. Add in uncertainty as a factor for ultimate value, and my feeling is that dividends are underpaid in today's markets.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "613fb19903e86d17b4d0dae3b5a7afe7",
"text": "One reason to prefer a dividend-paying stock is when you don't plan to reinvest the dividends. For example, if you're retired and living off the income from your investments, a dividend-paying stock can give you a relatively stable income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d508d155637deec50c60a2ca1ee444b",
"text": "\"Dividend paying stocks are not \"\"better\"\" In particular shareholders will get taxed on the distribution while the company can most likely invest the money tax free in their operations. The shareholder then has the opportunity to decide when to pay the taxes when they sell their shares. Companies pay dividends for a couple of reasons.... 1.) To signal the strength of the company. 2.) To reward the shareholders (oftentimes the executives of the firm get rather large rewards without having to sell shares they control.) 3.) If they don't have suitable investment opportunities in their field. IE they don't have anything useful to do with the money.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "13741d54162a9c82b58e040a60a81243",
"text": "There are two main ways you can make money through shares: through dividends and through capital gains. If the company is performing well and increasing profits year after year, its Net Worth will increase, and if the company continues to beat expectations, then over the long term the share price will follow and increase as well. On the other hand, if the company performs poorly, has a lot of debt and is losing money, it may well stop paying dividends. There will be more demand for stocks that perform well than those that perform badly, thus driving the share price of these stocks up even if they don't pay out dividends. There are many market participants that will use different information to make their decisions to buy or sell a particular stock. Some will be long term buy and hold, others will be day traders, and there is everything in between. Some will use fundamentals to make their decisions, others will use charts and technicals, some will use a combination, and others will use completely different information and methods. These different market participants will create demand at various times, thus driving the share price of good companies up over time. The annual returns from dividends are often between 1% and 6%, and, in some cases, up to 10%. However, annual returns from capital gains can be 20%, 50%, 100% or more. That is the main reason why people still buy stocks that pay no dividends. It is my reason for buying them too.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a441a35f5ea8b2a32692d8b7d32d6a20",
"text": "\"In financial theory, there is no reason for a difference in investor return to exist between dividend paying and non-dividend paying stocks, except for tax consequences. This is because in theory, a company can either pay dividends to investors [who can reinvest the funds themselves], or reinvest its capital and earn the same return on that reinvestment [and the shareholder still has the choice to sell a fraction of their holdings, if they prefer to have cash]. That theory may not match reality, because often companies pay or don't pay dividends based on their stage of life. For example, early-stage mining companies often have no free cashflow to pay dividends [they are capital intensive until the mines are operational]. On the other side, longstanding companies may have no projects left that would be a good fit for further investment, and so they pay out dividends instead, effectively allowing the shareholder to decide where to reinvest the money. Therefore, saying \"\"dividend paying\"\"/\"\"growth stock\"\" can be a proxy for talking about the stage of life + risk and return of a company. Saying dividend paying implies \"\"long-standing blue chip company with relatively low capital requirements and a stable business\"\". Likewise \"\"growth stocks\"\" [/ non-dividend paying] implies \"\"new startup company that still needs capital and thus is somewhat unproven, with a chance for good return to match the higher risk\"\". So in theory, dividend payment policy makes no difference. In practice, it makes a difference for two reasons: (1) You will most likely be taxed differently on selling stock vs receiving dividends [Which one is better for you is a specific question relying on your jurisdiction, your current income, and things like what type of stock / how long you hold it]. For example in Canada, if you earn ~ < $40k, your dividends are very likely to have a preferential tax treatment to selling shares for capital gains [but your province and specific other numbers would influence this]. In the United States, I believe capital gains are usually preferential as long as you hold the shares for a long time [but I am not 100% on this without looking it up]. (2) Dividend policy implies differences in the stage of life / risk level of a stock. This implication is not guaranteed, so be sure you are using other considerations to determine whether this is the case. Therefore which dividend policy suits you better depends on your tax position and your risk tolerance.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5c9eee7ddb2b677c51d0b55c42a95900",
"text": "\"Some investment trusts have \"\"zero dividend preference shares\"\" which deliver all their gains as capital gains rather than income, even if the trust was investing in income yielding stocks. They've rather gone out of fashion after a scandal some years ago (~2000). Good 2014 article on them here includes the quote \"\"Because profits from zero dividend preference shares are taxed as capital gains, they can be used tax efficiently if you are smart about how you use your annual capital gains tax allowance.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1af8f838d7041ba6c1066ea564d306ff",
"text": "\"In the case of mutual funds, Net Asset Value (NAV) is the price used to buy and sell shares. NAV is just the value of the underlying assets (which are in turn valued by their underlying holdings and future earnings). So if a fund hands out a billion dollars, it stands to reason their NAV*shares (market cap?) is a billion dollars less. Shareholder's net worth is equal in either scenario, but after the dividend is paid they are more liquid. For people who need investment income to live on, dividends are a cheap way to hold stocks and get regular payments, versus having to sell part of your portfolio every month. But for people who want to hold their investment in the market for a long long time, dividends only increase the rate at which you have to buy. For mutual funds this isn't a problem: you buy the funds and tell them to reinvest for free. So because of that, it's a prohibited practice to \"\"sell\"\" dividends to clients.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c9b6e76052a90103ff5a9ddac9ac31a5",
"text": "\"Baseball cards don't pay dividends. But many profitable companies do just that, and those that don't could, some day. Profits & dividends is where your analogy falls apart. But let's take it further. Consider: If baseball cards could somehow yield a regular stream of income just for owning them, then there might be yet another group of people, call them the Daves. These Daves I know are the kind of people that would like to own baseball cards over the long term just for their income-producing capability. Daves would seek out the cards with the best chance of producing and growing a reliable income stream. They wouldn't necessarily care about being able to flip a card at an inflated price to a Bob, but they might take advantage of inflated prices once in a while. Heck, even some of the Steves would enjoy this income while they waited for the eventual capital gain made by selling to a Bob at a higher price. Plus, the Steves could also sell their cards to Daves, not just Bobs. Daves would be willing to pay more for a card based on its income stream: how reliable it is, how high it is, how fast it grows, and where it is relative to market interest rates. A card with a good income stream might even have more value to a Dave than to a Bob, because a Dave doesn't care as much about the popularity of the player. Addendum regarding your comment: I suppose I'm still struggling with the best way to present my question. I understand that companies differ in this aspect in that they produce value. But if stockholders cannot simply claim a percentage of a company's value equal to their share, then the fact that companies produce value seems irrelevant to the \"\"Bobs\"\". You're right – stockholders can't simply claim their percentage of a company's assets. Rather, shareholders vote in a board of directors. The board of directors can decide whether or not to issue dividends or buy back shares, each of which puts money back in your pocket. A board could even decide to dissolve the company and distribute the net assets (after paying debts and dissolution costs) to the shareholders – but this is seldom done because there's often more profit in remaining a going concern. I think perhaps what you are getting hung up on is the idea that a small shareholder can't command the company to give net assets in exchange for shares. Instead, generally speaking, a company runs somewhat like a democracy – but it's each share that gets a vote, not each shareholder. Since you can't redeem your shares back to the company on demand, there exists a secondary market – the stock market – where somebody else is willing to take over your investment based on what they perceive the value of your shares to be – and that market value is often different from the underlying \"\"book value\"\" per share.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b630929af30262fb03a36642052d7bd0",
"text": "Stock prices are set by the market - supply and demand. See Apple for example, which is exactly the company you described: tons of earnings, zero dividends. The stock price goes up and down depending on what happens with the company and how investors feel about it, and it can happen that the total value of the outstanding stock shares will be less than the value of the underlying assets of the company (including the cash resulted from the retained earnings). It can happen, also, that if the investors feel that the stock is not going to appreciate significantly, they will vote to distribute dividends. Its not the company's decision, its the board's. The board is appointed by the shareholders, which is exactly why the voting rights are important.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "003ff0722258a8a1db2755954ebb35ee",
"text": "\"I seem not to be able to comment on the first answer due to reputation, so I'll aim to enhanced the first answer which is generally good but with these caveats: 1) Dividends are not \"\"guaranteed\"\" to preferred shareholders. Rather, preferred shareholders are normally in line ahead (i.e. in preference to or \"\"preferred\"\") of common shareholders in terms of dividend payment. This is an extremely important distinction, because unlike investments that we generally consider \"\"guaranteed\"\" such as CDs (known as GICs in Canada), a company's board can suspend the dividend at anytime for long periods of time without significant repercussions -- whereas a missed payment to a bank or secured bondholder can often push a company into bankruptcy very quickly. 2) Due to point 1), it is extremely important to know the \"\"convenants\"\" or rules sorrounding both the preferred shares you are buying and the other more senior creditors of that issuing company (i.e. taxes (almost always come first), banks loans, leases, bonds etc.). It is also important to know if a particular preferred share has \"\"cumulative\"\" dividends. You generally only want to buy preferred's that have \"\"cumulative\"\" dividends, since that means that anytime the company misses a payment, they must pay those dividends first before any other dividends at the same or lower priority in the future. 3) Unlike a common stock, your upside on a preferred stock is relatively fixed: you get a fixed share of the company's profit and that's it, whereas a common shareholder gets everything that's left over after interest and preferred dividends are paid. So if the company does really well you will theoretically do much better with common stock over time. For the above reasons, it is generally advisable to think of preferred shares as being more similar to really risky bonds in the same company, rather than similar to common stock. Of course, if you are an advanced investor there are a lot more variables in play such as tax considerations and whether the preferred have special options attached to them such conversion into common shares.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ae7681cfe1d319898337f727b749fc4",
"text": "Imagine you have a bank account with $100 in it. You are thinking about selling this bank account, so ask for some bids on what it's worth. You get quotes of around $100. You decide to sell it, but before you do, you take $50 out of it to have in cash. Would you expect the market to still pay $100 for the account? The dividend is effectively the cash being withdrawn. The stock had on account a large amount of cash (which was factored into it's share price), it moved that cash out of it's account (to its shareholders), and as a result the stock instantly becomes priced lower as this cash is no longer part of it, just as it is in the bank account example.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "43a8a0bd9f7e3a02c41380568ddbd89c",
"text": "\"Preferred dividends and common dividends are completely separate transactions. There's not a single \"\"dividend\"\" payment that is split between preferred and common shares. Dividends on preferred shares are generally MUCH higher than common dividends, and are generally required by the terms of the preferred shares, again unlike common dividends, which are discretionary.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7357993aa3e3e8e6d746463fbc6fefa2",
"text": "Shares often come associated with a set of rights, such as ability to vote in the outcome of the company. Some shares do not have this right, however. With your ability to vote in the outcome of the company, you could help dictate that the company paid dividends at a point in time. Or many other varieties of outcomes. Also, if there were any liquidity events due to demand of the shares, this is typically at a much higher price than the shares are now when the company is private/closely held.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0fd8ecaa4e48f0176054c42c39d7c412",
"text": "\"Dividends are a way of distributing profits from operating a business to the business owners. Why would you call it \"\"wasting money\"\" is beyond me. Decisions about dividend distribution are made by the company based on its net revenue and the needs of future capital. In some jurisdictions (the US, for example), the tax policy discourages companies from accumulating too much earnings without distributing dividends, unless they have a compelling reason to do so. Stock price is determined by the market. The price of a stock is neither expensive nor cheap on its own, you need to look at the underlying company and the share of it that the stock represents. In case of Google, according to some analysts, the price is actually quite cheap. The analyst consensus puts the target price for the next 12 months at $921 (vs. current $701).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "187da176de28134ca36a1b9726d3e13a",
"text": "The shareholders have a claim on the profits, but they may prefer that claim to be exercised in ways other than dividend payments. For example, they may want the company to invest all of its profits in growth, or they may want it to buy back shares to increase the value of the remaining shares, especially since dividends are generally taxed as income while an increase in the share price is generally taxed as a capital gain, and capital gains are often taxed at a lower rate than income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "abb4cdd47e8ddd5e34572e51cc065730",
"text": "Shareholders can [often] vote for management to pay dividends Shareholders are sticking around if they feel the company will be more valuable in the future, and if the company is a target for being bought out. Greater fool theory",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22ea84df5765d24026478526849a4fb6",
"text": "Don't ever quantify a stock's preference/performance just based on the dividend it is paying out Volatility defined by movements in the the stock's price, affected by factors embedded in the stock e.g. the corporation, the business it is in, the economy, the management etc etc. Apple wasn't paying dividends but people were still buying into it. Same with Amazon, Berkshire, Google. These companies create value by investing their earnings back into their company and this is reflected in their share prices. Their earnings create more value in this way for the stockholders. The holding structures of these companies also help them in their motives. Supposedly $100 invested in either stocks. For keeping things easy, you invested at the same time in both, single annual dividend and prices more or less remain constant. Company A: $5/share at 20% annual dividend yield. Dividend = $20 Company B: $10/share at 20% annual dividend yield Dividend = $20 You receive the same dividend in both cases. Volatility willn't affect you unless you are trading, or the stock market tanks, or some very bad news comes out of either company or on the economy. Volatility in the long term averages out, except in specific outlier cases e.g. Lehman bankruptcy and the financial crash which are rare but do happen. In general case the %price movements in both stocks would more or less follow the markets (not exactly though) except when relevant news for either corporations come out.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f4ed417141918153347ad59bdaa98385",
"text": "Buying stocks is like an auction. Put in the price you want to pay and see if someone is willing to sell at that price. Thing to remember about after hours trading; There is a lot less supply so there's always a larger bid/ask price spread. That's the price brokers charge to handle the stocks they broker over and above the fee. That means you will always pay more after the market closes. Unless it is bad news, but I don't think you want to buy when that happens. I think a lot of the after market trading is to manipulate the market. Traders drive up the price overnight with small purchases then sell their large holdings when the market opens.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
c694b5c5fadf294f7e79081f9c0a8e91
|
what are the benefits of setting up an education trust fund for children?
|
[
{
"docid": "15aa1a1b87ea871acf62c3143aec5758",
"text": "Well, first off, if your children are NZ citizens, they can borrow money at 0% interest for tertiary education and I don't see any benefit to not taking free money. A saving account is your money, and will accrue a little bit of interest and you will pay tax on that. A family trust (I hope this is what you mean by trust fund) is a separate financial entity that can be set up to own assets for the benefit of multiple people. For example, if you have a rental property or business and you want the income divided between your children, rather than coming to you, or if you have a bach you want to keep in the family after you die.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "257b39ff066fa883fd2ac3d6524a037f",
"text": "A UTMA may or may not fit your situation. The main drawbacks to a UTMA account is that it will count against your child for financial aid (it counts as the child's asset). The second thing to consider is that taxes aren't deferred like in a 529 plan. The last problem of course is that when he turns 18 he gets control of the account and can spend the money on random junk (which may or may not be important to you). A 529 plan has a few advantages over a UTMA account. The grandparents can open the account with your son as the beneficiary and the money doesn't show up on financial aid for college (under current law which could change of course). Earnings grow tax free which will net you more total growth. You can also contribute substantially more without triggering the gift tax ~$60k. Also many states provide a state tax break for contributing to the state sponsored 529 plan. The account owner would be the grandparents so junior can't spend the money on teenage junk. The big downside to the 529 is the 10% penalty if the money isn't used for higher education. The flip side is that if the money is left for 20 years you will also have additional growth from the 20 years of tax free growth which may be a wash depending on your tax bracket and the tax rates in effect over those 20 years.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aea888d082dde7b0ae9ba723fe69f1ca",
"text": "\"given your time frame I'm not sure if investing in a 529 is your best option. If you're investing in a 529 you may have to deal with market volatility and the amount you invest over the course of three years could be worth less than what you had initially invested when it comes to your child's college education. The main idea of starting a plan like a 529 is the time-frame for your investments to grow. You also have the option of \"\"pre-paying\"\" your child's college, but that has restrictions. Most of the state sponsored pre-pay plans limit you to state schools if that wasn't obvious. Also, the current political situation is tricky, and may influence the cost of education in ~3-4 years, but I'm not sure this is the proper place for that discussion. Also, as far as the viability of these, it depends state-by-state. I live in Illinois and don't think I would count on a payout given our current financial situation. You could, however, look into paying tuition now for a state school and it will be risk free in terms of inflation, but again, it's hard to anticipate the political scope of this. They also have private pre-pay plans, but that would limit your child's university options just as the state pre-pay. Check out this investopedia article on 529 plans, it's basic but will give you a high level overview. Bankrate has an overview as well.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7d2d210e7e748149b4035d17c0d8304b",
"text": "Trusts are useful for a number of situations, country-centric or not.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed0a834861a6e3accdc94feb5d815429",
"text": "If these are children that may be employed, in a few years, it may well be worth walking them through some basics of the deductions around employment, some basic taxes, uses of banks, and give them enough of a basis in how the economy of the world works. For example, if you get a job and get paid $10/hour, that may sound good but how much do various things eat at that so your take-home pay may be much lower? While this does presume that the kids will get jobs somewhere along the way and have to deal with this, it is worth making this part of the education system on some level rather than shocking them otherwise. Rather than focusing on calculations, I'd be more tempted to consider various scenarios like how do you use a bank, what makes insurance worth having(Life, health, car, and any others may be worth teaching on some level), and how does the government and taxes fit into things. While I may be swinging more for the practical, it is worth considering if these kids will be away in college or university in a few years, how will they handle being away from the parents that may supply the money to meet all the financial needs?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1772e385625c5a0d5bc135f86cef8cd",
"text": "At the very least I'd look closely at what you could get from the RESP (Registered Education Savings Plan). Depending on your income the government are quite generous with grants and bonds you can get over $11,000 of 'free' money if you qualify for everything CESG - Canada Education Savings Grant By applying for the CESG, up to $7,200 can be directly deposited by the Federal Government into your RESP. The Canada Education Savings Grant section offers information about eligibility requirements for the grant as well as how to use it when the beneficiary enrolls at a post-secondary institution. CLB - Canada Learning Bond CLB is available to children born after December 31st, 2003 if an RESP has been opened on their behalf. Browse the Canada Learning Bond section to find out who is eligible, how to apply, and how much the Government of Canada will contribute to your RESP. I can recomend the TD e-series funds as a low cost way of getting stock market exposure in your RESP So if I were you... As an example if you earn $40k and you pay in the minimum amount to get all the grants ($500/year, $42/month) assuming zero growth you'll have almost $14k of which $5.4k would have been given to you buy the government, if you can afford to save $200/month you'll get over $11,000 from the government",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb1a6886a0414d71c3b50c1163c6222c",
"text": "I think you have already outlined for yourself most of the pros and cons of each method of giving. It sounds to me like you have some desire to control how the money is spent, or at least reserve the right not to give it to a child who will waste it (according to your definition). If you set up an UTMA/UGMA account, or just give the money directly each year as a birthday gift, you are surrendering control of the money. It's a gift and is no longer yours to direct. If you set up a 529, you at least restrict the money to a particular, useful purpose. Moreover, if you retain ownership of the 529, you can take the money back, albeit with a tax penalty to yourself. If you do hold a 529 in your name, but for a child's benefit, there are a couple of things to consider with respect to future financial aid (this is from recent experience--my in-laws have 529s for our children, both of whom are currently in college). A 529 not owned by the student or the student's parent is not reported as an asset (of the child or the parent) on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). However, once such a 529 is used to pay college expenses, the amount of those payments does get reported on the following year's FAFSA, and counts as untaxed income for the purposes of figuring the Expected Family Contribution (EFC). Untaxed income is assessed towards the EFC at 50%. In contrast, parental assets are assessed at around 7%, if I recall correctly, and student assets at around 35%. Student-owned 529s are assessed at the rate of parental assets, which is an advantage. If the amount you will set aside is less than the cost of one year of college, you can avoid the disadvantage of the untaxed income assessment by just using the entire 529 for the final year of school, since there will be no FAFSA for the following year. It occurs to me that there is one other way you can give to them that you did not mention, and may make you more comfortable in terms of encouraging some positive behavior. Namely, save the money in a self-owned account, then, when they are old enough to get a job that provides a W-2 showing declared, earned income, you can use the savings to fund a Traditional or Roth IRA for them, up to the limit allowed each year, until the money you set aside is exhausted. The Roth is a better long-term savings vehicle, but the Traditional would carry bigger penalties for early withdrawal and would therefore be less tempting to draw on.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "701bdcfae7c89d8354151051c10d5239",
"text": "IANAL, nor am I a financial professional. However, I've just looked into this because of a relative's death, and I have minor children. I am in the US. First, a named beneficiary on many accounts means that any proceeds are kept out of the estate and do not have to go through probate. That usually means that they're available much more quickly. Second, a beneficiary statement trumps a will. The account may pay out long before a will is even filed with the probate court. Third, you can name a trust as the beneficiary. In this case, because you want to make sure the money goes to your children, that's likely your best option.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f66b45bbd4eac23510e19e9dbe422029",
"text": "Pro: - Faces less redemption pressure and hence the Fund Manager can focus more on long term gains rather than immediate gains. - Works well in emerging markets. - Less churn out in case the market falls sharply, there by making more money in long run. Cons: - No additional money to invest/take advantage of market situation. - Less liquid for investor as he is locked in for a period.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e072d360a7c83613e174f8ea6d56d93",
"text": "A Junior ISA might be one option if you are eligible do you have a CTF? (child trust fund) though the rules are changing shortly to allow those with CTF's to move to a junior ISA. JISA are yielding about 3.5% at the moment Or as you are so young you could invest in one or two of the big Generalist Investment trusts (Wittan, Lowland) - you might need an adult open this and it would be held via a trust for you. Or thinking really far ahead you could start a pension with say 50% of the lumpsum",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9247ac42cea1b677ef3ad6d03ff47937",
"text": "A fourteen-year-old can invest a few thousand into commuting to a part-time job or an education. If you can wait five years for a couple hundred you can wait two to four years for a car (or gas money) or a class (or some textbooks.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4937d5b68a0d1816b7b81ca9fbd721cb",
"text": "First of all kudos to you for seeing the value in saving at a young age. There are several different things you can mean by this and I'm not sure which is accurate so I am going to address the first two that I thought of. If you are selling your investments because you need the money (emergency expenses, saved enough for a short term goal, whatever the reason) then this may not be the best solution for your savings. Investing in mutual funds, ETFs, stocks, 401k, IRA, etc are typically for longer term goals such as a goal that is 10+ years away (maybe buying a home, paying for college for your children, retirement, etc). If you are selling your investments because you believe that another investment is performing better and you want to get in on that one instead what I would suggest is leaving the money you have invested where it is and starting future investments in the new fund/ETF you are interested in. For example if you have $2000 invested in fund X and now you do some research and fund Q looks more appealing that is great, start investing in fund Q with your next deposit. Any research you do will be based on past results, there is nothing that guarantees that fund Q will continue doing better than the fund X you already have. Trying to time the market rarely ends well for the investor. I would encourage you to continue saving money a bit at a time just like you have been doing. Avoid selling your investments until it is time to sell them for whatever goal you intended them for. Set aside some cash to cover any unexpected expenses so you won't have to sell your investments to cover the costs, even at 18 unplanned things happen.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "39759f3a694b4c798f6717f6d8314396",
"text": "\"This is a tricky question, because the financial aid system can create odd incentives. Good schools tend to price themselves above and beyond any reasonable middle-class ability to save and then offer financial aid, much of it in the form of internal \"\"grants\"\" or \"\"loans\"\". If you think about it, the internal grant is more of a discount than a grant since no money need have ever existed to \"\"fund\"\" the grant. The actual price to the parents is based on financial aid paperwork and related rules, perhaps forming a college price-setting cartel. It is these rules that need to be considered when creating a savings plan. Suppose it is $50k/year to send your kids to the best school admitting them. Thats $200k for the 4 years. Suppose you had $50k now to save instead of $10K, and are wondering whether to put it in your son's college savings (whether or not you can do so in a tax advantaged way) or to pay down the mortgage. If you put it in your kids savings, and the $50k becomes $75k over time, that $75k will be used up in a year and a half as the financial aid system will suck it dry first before offering you much help. On the other hand, if you put the $50k on paying down the mortgage [provided the mortgage is \"\"healthy\"\" not upside down], your house payment will still be the same when your kids go to college. The financial aid calculations will consider that the kid has no savings, and allocate a \"\"grant\"\" and some loans the first year and a parental portion that you might be able to tap with a home equity loan or work overtime. Generally, you should also be encouraging your kids to excel and perhaps obtain academic scholarships or at least obtain some great opportunities. A large college savings fund might be as counterproductive as a zero fund. They shouldn't be expecting to breeze through some party school with a nice pad and car, homework assistance, and beer money. Unless they are good at a sport, like maybe football -- in which case you won't need to be the provider. It is not obvious how much the optimal ESA amount is. It might not be $0. Saving like crazy in there probably isn't the best thing to do, either.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7da1e13cc16995fd619ac06c8030c84d",
"text": "Absolutely this. Encouraging education is good. Encouraging education by offering private institutions blank checks someone else (the student) is responsible for paying down is bad. At this point, regulate the price of college tuition, and make federal student loans federal student grants.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a7d40b71488cb83dad50f64980f559a9",
"text": "\"I'd also look into index funds (eg Vanguard) as they have low management fees. you can buy these as ETFs as well - so you can buy in at a very low starting amount. An index fund can also be a talking point for your kids about what an industry index is and how it relates to the companies that fall into it. Also about how mutual funds try to \"\"beat the market\"\" - and often fail.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eaab9bd2b0cb3f917a3cf78a945a3545",
"text": "Our Website : http://www.inglewoodarena.com/ The Forum loves children, but asks that you check the age minimum on the event you are attending prior to buying tickets. If children are allowed, those under two attend for free but must remain on a ticket-holders lap. Any strollers must be collapsible and stored beneath seat. Service Pets are happily accepted but must remain in the seating area with their human, harnessed or leashed. The Forum Inglewood strongly encourages Animal Access card photo IDs.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
3f808afebf338cf23d83fe8756e14b89
|
devastated with our retirement money that we have left
|
[
{
"docid": "df4eb1f3883678b9cb8397aa325b41e2",
"text": "\"I'm going to discuss this, in general, as specific investment advice isn't allowed here. What type of account is the $60K in now? I mean - Is it in a 401(k), IRA or regular account/CD/money market? You are still working? Does your company offer any kind of matched 401(k)? If so, take advantage of that right up the level they'll match. If not, are you currently depositing to pretax IRAs? You can't just deposit that $60K into an IRA if it isn't already, but you can put $11k/yr ($5 for you, $6K for hubby if you make $11K or more this year.) Now, disclaimer, I am anti-annuity. Like many who are pro or con on issues, this is my nature. The one type of annuity I actually like is the Immediate Annuity. The link is not for an end company, it shows quotes from many and is meant as an example. Today, a 65 yr old man can get $600/mo with a $100K purchase. This is 7.2%, in an economy in which rates are sub 3%. You give up principal in exchange for this higher annual return. This is a viable solution for the just-retired person whose money will run out when looking at a 4-5% withdrawal but 1% CD rate. In general, these products are no more complex that what I just described, unlike annuities sold to younger fold which combine high fees with returns that are so complex to describe that most agents can't keep their story straight. Aside from the immediate flavor, all other annuities are partial sold (there's a quote among finance folk - \"\"annuities are sold, not bought\"\") based on their tax deferral features. I don't suspect you are in a tax bracket where that feature has any value to you. At 48/54, with at least 10 years ahead of you, I'd research 'diversification' and 'asset allocation'. Even $60K is enough to proper invest these funds until you retire and then decide what's right for you. Beginners' Guide to Asset Allocation, Diversification, and Rebalancing is an interesting introduction, and it's written by the SEC, so your tax dollars paid for it. Some months ago, I wrote Diversifying to Reduce Risk, which falls short of a complete discussion of asset allocation, but it does illustrate the power of being in a stock/bond mix. The ups and downs were reduced significantly compared to the all stock portfolio. (for follow up or to help others reply to you, a bit more detail on the current investments, and how you are devastated, eg was there a huge loss from what you had a few years ago?) Edit - The original poster hasn't returned. Posted the question and left. It's unfortunate as this was someone who would benefit from the dialog, and the answers here can help others in a similar position, but I feel more discussion is in order for the OP. Last, I caught a downvote on my reply today. I take no offense, but curious which part of my answer the DVer disagreed with.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f87277f1ece0ff496c692790105c99d",
"text": "\"It sounds like the kinds of planners you're talking to might be a poor fit, because they are essentially salespersons selling investments for a commission. Some thoughts on finding a financial planner The good kind of financial planner is going to be able to do a comprehensive plan - look at your whole life, goals, and non-investment issues such as insurance. You should expect to get a document with a Monte Carlo simulation showing your odds of success if you stick to the plan; for investments, you should expect to see a recommended asset allocation and an emphasis on low-cost no-commission (commission is \"\"load\"\") funds. See some of the other questions from past posts, for example What exactly can a financial advisor do for me, and is it worth the money? A good place to start for a planner might be http://napfa.org ; there's also a franchise of planners providing hourly advice called the Garrett Planning Network, I helped my mom hire someone from them and she was very happy, though I do think your results would depend mostly on the individual rather than the franchise. Anyway see http://www.garrettplanningnetwork.com/map.html , they do require planners to be fee-only and working on their CFP credential. You should really look for the Certified Financial Planner (CFP) credential. There are a lot of credentials out there, but many of them mean very little, and others might be hard to get but not mean the right thing. Some other meaningful ones include Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) which would be a solid investment expert, though not necessarily someone knowledgeable in financial planning generally; and IRS Enrolled Agent, which means someone who knows a lot about taxes. A CPA (accountant) would also be pretty meaningful. A law degree (and estate law know-how) is very relevant to many planning situations, too. Some not-very-meaningful certifications include Certified Mutual Fund Specialist (which isn't bogus, but it's much easier to get than CFP or CFA); Registered Investment Adviser (RIA) which mostly means the person is supposed to understand securities fraud laws, but doesn't mean they know a lot about financial planning. There are some pretty bogus certifications out there, many have \"\"retirement\"\" or \"\"senior\"\" in the name. A good question for any planner is \"\"Are you a fiduciary?\"\" which means are they legally required to act in your interests and not their own. Most sales-oriented advisors are not fiduciaries; they wouldn't charge you a big sales commission if they were, and they are not \"\"on your side\"\" legally speaking. It's a good idea to check with your state regulators or the SEC to confirm that your advisor is registered and ask if they have had any complaints. (Small advisors usually register with the state and larger ones with the federal SEC). If they are registered, they may still be a salesperson who isn't acting in your interests, but at least they are following the law. You can also see if they've been in trouble in the past. When looking for a planner, one firm I found had a professional looking web site and didn't seem sketchy at all, but the state said they were not properly registered and not in compliance. Other ideas A good book is: http://www.amazon.com/Smart-Simple-Financial-Strategies-People/dp/0743269942 it's very approachable and you'd feel more confident talking to someone maybe with more background information. For companies to work with, stick to the ones that are very consumer-friendly and sell no-load funds. Vanguard is probably the one you'll hear about most. But T. Rowe Price, Fidelity, USAA are some other good names. Fidelity is a bit of a mixture, with some cheap consumer-friendly investments and other products that are less so. Avoid companies that are all about charging commission: pretty much anyone selling an annuity is probably bad news. Annuities have some valid uses but mostly they are a bad deal. Not knowing your specific situation in any detail, it's very likely that 60k is not nearly enough, and that making the right investment choices will make only a small difference. You could invest poorly and maybe end up with 50K when you retire, or invest well and maybe end up with 80-90k. But your goal is probably more like a million dollars, or more, and most of that will come from future savings. This is what a planner can help you figure out in detail. It's virtually certain that any planner who is for real, and not a ripoff salesperson, will talk a lot about how much you need to save and so forth, not just about choosing investments. Don't be afraid to pay for a planner. It's well worth it to pay someone a thousand dollars for a really thorough, fiduciary plan with your interests foremost. The \"\"free\"\" planners who get a commission are going to get a whole lot more than a thousand dollars out of you, even though you won't write a check directly. Be sure to convert those mutual fund expense ratios and sales commissions into actual dollar amounts! To summarize: find someone you're paying, not someone getting a commission; look for that CFP credential showing they passed a demanding exam; maybe read a quick and easy book like the one I mentioned just so you know what the advisor is talking about; and don't rush into anything! And btw, I think you ought to be fine with a solid plan. You and your husband have time remaining to work with. Good luck.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d66e0f274114c436b814fbccf05830c",
"text": "I'll be blunt.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee9dd9059baeca33306de0ce321cb4f0",
"text": "When you say: I am 48 and my husband is 54. We have approx. 60,000.00 left in our retirement accounts. We want to move our money into something so our money will grow. We've been looking at annunities. We've talked to 4 different advisors about what is best for us. Bad mistake, I am so overwhelmed with the differences they all have til I can't even think straight anymore. @Havoc P is correct: ...It's very likely that 60k is not nearly enough, and that making the right investment choices will make only a small difference. You could invest poorly and maybe end up with 50K when you retire, or invest well and maybe end up with 80-90k. But your goal is probably more like a million dollars, or more, and most of that will come from future savings. This is what a planner can help you figure out in detail. TL; DR Here is my advice:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "def7992252bc336497613522b12cab31",
"text": "The answers you've received already are very good. I truly sympathize with your situation. In general, it makes sense to try to build off of existing relationships. Here are a few ideas: I don't know if you work for a small or large company, or local/state government. But if there is any kind of retirement planning through your workplace, make sure to investigate that. Those people are usually already paid something for their services by your employer, so they should have less of an interest in making money off you directly. One more thought: A no-fee brokerage company e.g. Charles Schwab. They offer a free one hour phone call with an investment adviser if you invest at least $25K. I personally had very good experiences with them. This answer may be too anecdotal and not specifically address the annuity dilemma you mentioned. That annunity dilemma is why you need to find someone you can trust, who is competent (see the credentials for financial advisers mentioned in the other answers), and will work the numbers out with you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "29e636684fa9bb971dfbff84f853c3b7",
"text": "Get a job, if you don't have one right now. Take deductions from your paycheck for an IRA or 401K if the company has one.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "520e7ba0e4b551aa44c93970fffdde0d",
"text": "On pensions, part of the issue will be how well funded they are. Most pensions are not completely funded. In the US pension payments are insured to an annual cap by the PBGC. So you can loose out on part of your pension payment. I don't know what/if there is an equivalent in Canada.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "71a0a28fb5c7847f3ffd5fdab87d2b59",
"text": "> At $31 billion, GE’s pension shortfall is the biggest among S&P 500 companies and 50 percent greater than any other corporation in the U.S. It’s a deficit that has swelled in recent years as Immelt spent more than $45 billion on share buybacks to win over Wall Street and pacify activists like Nelson Peltz. > > Part of it has to do with the paltry returns that have plagued pensions across corporate America as ultralow interest rates prevailed in the aftermath of the financial crisis. But perhaps more importantly, GE’s dilemma underscores deeper concerns about modern capitalism’s all-consuming focus on immediate results, which some suggest is short-sighted and could ultimately leave everyone -- including shareholders themselves -- worse off.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2154894e784fa76977d182c90058d00e",
"text": "Well this is not the best situation. Sorry to your friend. First off ROTHs are out, you need earned income. Secondly, I don't think the focus should be on retirement planning until there is again an earned income. Thirdly, this person is just in a bad spot. Lets assume that you can find some really good mutual funds, that consistently return 10% per year. At best this person can only pull out 10K per year without touching principle. At that income level, taxes are not much of a concern; not as much as surviving. If this person knows anything about investing, they know funds don't work like this. They could be down 5%, down 5%, up ~40% in three years to give an average of 10% return. Which of course further complicates matters. This person (IMO) should seek to start a different career. One that can cater to any long term issues this person has with pain/disability. The money could be used toward training/education in order to get money flowing again. That is not to say the full amount should be used for a BA in Russian Folk Literature, but some minimum training to get a career that starts earning real money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a0994d1ec45dc7b1639e3b353e740fc7",
"text": "Don't forget job. That's one of the things people in the lower classes lost. I was trying to figure out why there weren't mass firings at trading and accounting firms until the numbers started popping up. They had basically just liquidated what they had, bought at lower numbers, and are now reaping the profits. Too bad most people earning under $250k a year can't do that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "74c020c4969af53f64ab7f5211d86b49",
"text": "\"The gross liabilities (benefit obligation) will still be there, regardless. They are *future* benefits. Sure, you can increase funding to the plan to eliminate the *net* pension liability, but why? The new assets would earn very little. The shortfall is not an excessively large risk. The only reason seems to be the \"\"all-consuming focus on immediate results\"\" which is more rhetoric than reality in this case.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd3db7ba67b69b0a6bb9b5ed64bdbf5b",
"text": "I am sorry for your loss, this person blessed you greatly. For now I would put it in a savings account. I'd use a high yield account like EverBank or Personal Savings from Amex. There are others it is pretty easy to do your own research. Expect to earn around 2200 if you keep it there a year. As you grieve, I'd ask myself what this person would want me to do with the money. I'd arrive at a plan that involved me investing some, giving some, and spending some. I have a feeling, knowing that you have done pretty well for yourself financially, that this person would want you to spend some money on yourself. It is important to honor their memory. Giving is an important part of building wealth, and so is investing. Perhaps you can give/purchase a bench or part of a walkway at one of your favorite locations like a zoo. This will help you remember this person fondly. For the investing part, I would recommend contacting a company like Fidelity or Vanguard. The can guide you into mutual funds that suit your needs and will help you understand the workings of them. As far as Fidelity, they will tend to guide you toward their company funds, but they are no load. Once you learn how to use the website, it is pretty easy to pick your own funds. And always, you can come back here with more questions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "648dc0f65d1f823e09181327ef4871ea",
"text": "I'm not sure I'd say the assets they had were worthless. One of the big controversies was whether it was a solvency crisis (bad assets) or a liquidity crisis (fine assets, but if everyone sells illiquid assets there's a fire sale problem). The US and Buffett bet it was a liquidity crisis, and they were proven right.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cc1cf169ab94c3ca2ec2792758e84bb9",
"text": "Uhh ... Not really. There was a bank run, it just wasn't on deposits. We are only staving off depression by taxing future dollars ... That policy will probably fail eventually and if we haven't gained enough aggregate hard inputs (people or technology) by the time this delaying tactic runs out then it will be depression. You really misread my comment anyway. Move all insured deposits to not for profit credit unions and sever them completely from investment/commercial banking. Remove all deposit insurance from commercial/investment banking and with it the inherent moral hazard imbedded in the system. We still have insured deposits but for profit banks won't be able to filter them through to investment banking through the shadow banking system.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "271e35b038f0d575c15530850df63d08",
"text": "Well, if they were lemons, the value is significantly less than what GS sold them to the government for. What is more sad is that Fannie and Freddie are going to get made whole and we are going to pretend like their incompetence and lack of due diligence never happened. Back to business as usual, until the next time the hacks at these government agencies get burned.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f01516ef052e1c21bf289ad223b08b6a",
"text": "> I no longer have the fantasy belief that I can do better managing my money than professional investors The pension fund probably lost about as much as your investments did, but they still had to pay out as if they were meeting their targets. I understand you weren't really offered a choice between a higher salary or a pension, so my observation is academic, but to me it just seems strange to believe that a company can pay you a fixed sum of money 30 years in the future. Maybe it's just a generational thing but the whole idea of investing (figuratively) your entire future in a single company doesn't make sense to me. I actually think it's good in the long run that we're moving away from the work at one company your entire life model. Companies shouldn't be in the business of providing retirement benefits any more than they should healthcare plans, IMO.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a967f815ea0304abde07362df5bba0f4",
"text": "\"The abysmal stats on personal savings concern me the most. When push comes to shove, these people will vote to steal from those of us who made wise financial decisions and were responsible savers. Forced draw downs of 401k's before retirement age? Taxation on internal gains in retirement plans? \"\"Wealth\"\" taxes on retirement balances? It's coming in some form or another. Stay vigilant!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c13af654934bc577fa0bd825f6a33460",
"text": "\"Since your question was first posted, I happened to watch PBS FRONTLINE's The Retirement Gamble, about \"\"America's Retirement Crisis\"\" and the retirement industry. You can watch the entire episode online at the previous link, and it's also available on DVD. Here's a link to the episode transcript. Here's a partial blurb from a post at PBS that announced the episode: If you’ve been watching any commercial television lately, you are well aware that the financial services industry is very busy running expensive ads imploring us to worry about our retirement futures. Open a new account today, they say. They are not wrong that we should be doing something: America is facing a retirement crisis. One in three Americans has no retirement savings at all. One in two reports that they can’t save enough. On top of that, we are living longer, and health care costs, as we all know, are increasing. But, as I found when investigating the retirement planning and mutual funds industries in The Retirement Gamble, which airs tonight on FRONTLINE, those advertisements are imploring us to start saving for one simple reason. Retirement is big business — and very profitable. (... more... ) There's another related PBS FRONTLINE documentary from back in 2006, Can You Afford To Retire? You'll find a link on that page to watch the program online. Finally, I'm also aware of but haven't yet seen a new documentary called Broken Eggs: The Looming Retirement Crisis in America. Looks like it isn't available for online streaming or on DVD yet, but I expect it would be, eventually.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "590410dbf3bc7cecced45bb305aba857",
"text": "I was also going to mention people going through savings during unemployment. And given the unemployment figures, 28% having no emergency savings even seems low. Purely anecdotal but I cleared through my savings a few years ago during seven months of unemployment and have several friends who did the same and/or racked up thousands in debt.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "24ce1d080d8142a55975f5ea1e071e6d",
"text": "\"I can see why you are feeling financial stress. If I understand right you have put yourself in a very uncomfortable and unsustainable situation and one that should indeed be very stressful for a person of your age. I feel a lot of stress just reading over your question. I'm going to be very frank. Your financial situation suggests that you have very aggressively taken wealth from your future self in order to consume and to make inefficient investments. Well, look in the mirror and say to yourself \"\"I am now my future self and it is time to pay for my past decisions.\"\" Don't take money out of your IRA. That would be continuing the behavior as it is a very inefficient use of your resources that will lead to yet more extreme poverty down the line. Ok, you can't take back what you have done in the past. What to do now? Major life restructuring. If I were you, I'd sell my house if I had one. Move in with one of your kids if you have any nearby. If not, move into the cheapest trailer you can find. Take a second job. Very seriously look to see if you can get a job that pays more for your primary job--I know you love your current job but you simply cannot continue as you are now. Start eating really cheap food and buying clothes at thrift stores. Throw everything you can at your debts, starting with the ones with the highest interest rate. Plan now to continue working long after your peers have retired. Early in life is the time to be borrowing. Middle age is when you should be finishing paying off any remaining debts and tucking away like crazy for retirement. Now is not an OK time to be taking on additional debt to fund consumption. I know changing your life is going to be very uncomfortable, but I think you will find that there is more peace of mind in having some amount of financial security (which for you will require a LOT of changes) than in borrowing ever more to fund a lifestyle you cannot sustain.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "692579e2c78ec184eabeb8f9581d99b8",
"text": "Yes, I think this is the general idea. We're going through a deleveraging. On the one hand, this isn't entirely a bad thing because the financial crisis showed some people were lending irresponsibly. A lot of bad loans were made and bad loans that don't get repaid cause a lot of havoc. One the down side, like the original poster said this makes it seem like money is drying up. This has been a bigger problem in some places than other. A lot would argue, myself included, that the US has deleveraged relatively--and key word is relatively--smoothly. Other places, like Europe have not been so lucky.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
1cfc5eab5206f87a184a872338d5f0d8
|
Can rent be added to your salary when applying for a mortgage?
|
[
{
"docid": "a5b98c263e67e55dc1edff2864f901cc",
"text": "\"The decision as to what counts as income is up to the bank. You'll need to ask them whether or not rental income can be included in the total. I can offer some anecdotal evidence: when I applied for a mortgage to buy my home, I already had a rental property with a buy-to-let mortgage on it. Initially the bank regarded that property as a liability, not an asset, because it was mortgaged! However, once I was able to show that there was a good history of receiving enough rent, they chose to ignore the property altogether -- i.e. it wasn't regarded as a liability, but it wasn't regarded as a source of income either. More generally, as AakashM says, residential mortgages are computed based on affordability, which is more than just a multiple of your salary. To answer your specific questions: Covered above; it's up to the bank. If you're married, and you don't have a written tenancy agreement, and you're not declaring the \"\"rent\"\" on your tax return, then it seems unlikely that this would be regarded as income at all. Conversely, if your partner is earning, why not put their name on the mortgage application too? Buy-to-let mortgages are treated differently. While it used to be the case that they were assessed on rental income only, nowadays lenders may ask for proof of the landlord's income from other sources. Note that a BTL cannot be used for a property you intend to live in, and a residential mortgage cannot be used for a property you intend to let to tenants -- at least, not without the bank's permission.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "08bddd891e22c3d1673a1357cb9e00c9",
"text": "I am in Australia, but I think the banks in the UK would use similar wrkings. Your options 1 and 2 are basically no. Why would the bank consider your wife to be paying you rent when you live together. These are the type of practices that led to the GFC, and since then practices have been tightened. Regarding option 3, yes banks do take into consideration rent in their analysis of your loan. However, they would not include the full rent in their calculations, but about 70% to 75% of the full rent. This allows for loss of rent during vacant periods and adds a safety factor in their caluclations. But they will not include the rent itself, you would have to have other income as well to support your loan. Saying that, we do have Low Doc Loans in Australia (loans with little documentation required to get a loan). With these loans you basically have to make a declaration that you are telling the truth regarding your income sources and you can only usually borrow a lower LVR as these loans are seen as a bigger risk. These type of loans have also been tightened up since the GFC.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7cf5c99fe0c5d5951803ae8a0299a763",
"text": "The days are long gone when offered mortgages were simply based on salary multiples. These days it's all about affordability, taking into account all incomes and all outgoings. Different lenders will have different rules about what they do and don't accept as incomes; these rules may even vary per-product within the same lender's product list. So for example a mortgage specifically offered as buy-to-let might accept rental income (with a suitable void-period multiplier) into consideration, but an owner-occupier mortgage product might not. Similarly, business rules will vary about acceptance of regular overtime, bonuses, and so on. Guessing at specific answers: #1 maybe, if it's a buy-to-let product, Note that these generally carry a higher interest rate than owner-occupier mortgages; expect about 2% more #2 in my opinion it's extremely unlikely that any lender would consider rental income from your cohabiting spouse #3 probably yes, if it's a buy-to-let product",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "89ac24a421d2f1ca1dfdd29c3f01825d",
"text": "I can answer Scenario #3. If you are purchasing a property with buy-to-let intentions […] can you use the rental income exclusively to fund the mortgage repayments? Yes – this is exactly how buy-to-let mortgage applications are evaluated. Lenders generally expect you to fund the mortgage payments with rent. They look for the anticipated monthly rent income to cover a minimum of 125% of the monthly mortgage payment. This is to make sure you can allow for vacant periods, maintenance, compliance with rules and regulations, and still be in profit (i.e. generate a positive yield on your investment). However, buy-to-let (BTL) mortgage lenders also generally expect you to own your own home to begin with. It's up to them, but rare is the lender who will provide a buy-to-let mortgage to a non-owner-occupier. This is because of point 2 above. The lender doesn't want you to end up living in the property because then you'll need to repay the loan capital, since you'll always need somewhere to live. This makes the economics of BTL unfavourable. They look at your application as a business proposal: quite different to a residential mortgage application, which is what your question seems to be addressing. Bottom line: You're right about scenario #3 but it sounds like you're trying to afford a home first, whereas BTL is best viewed as an investment for someone who already has their main residence under ownership (mortgaged or otherwise). As for Scenarios #1 and #2 I can't offer first hand answers but I think Aakash M. and Steve Melnikoff have covered it.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "70a85b9407434a0beb0b669f39d3cea6",
"text": "People typically present themselves to be as wealthy as possible to banks and as poor as possible to the government at tax time. Gross income is really the most reliable number for most folks. Your and your employer are required by law to report an accurate gross income figure annually. Anything else is totally situational. All they are doing anyway is computing your total debt-to-income ratio and mortgage-to-income ratio. The government agencies that buy mortgages, the big bank that buys the mortgage or the self-underwriting bank has differing standards for different products.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "05b5668a792f490a1eda8dc402f8125e",
"text": "\"DirectGov has a good overview here: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/Taxes/TaxOnPropertyAndRentalIncome/DG_4017814 and answers to your specific questions here: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/Taxes/TaxOnPropertyAndRentalIncome/DG_10013435 In short, you do need to declare the rental income on your tax return and will need to pay tax on it (and note that only the mortgage interest (not the full repayment) is deductible as an \"\"allowable expense\"\", see the full list of what is deductible here: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/Taxes/TaxOnPropertyAndRentalIncome/DG_10014027 ).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "f304fe393f813f932683294a175b44b7",
"text": "In the rental application you are giving them express consent to check up on your credit and employment history for verification, you must be honest with them, if you have had no income for the last say 6 months then you have simply had no income. If you are worried about it, you can supply them with a longer history if it will help your situation, they may also call your employer to see that you will be returning to work or again receiving some sort of income. But also as stated, talk to the property manager, they can work both ways in either helping or not helping you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4a9478eb389207bfb7d974ef114821da",
"text": "Note: I am in the UK. I don't know specifically about australia but I expect the general principles will be much the same everywhere. What banks want is to be reasonablly confident that you have a steady income stream that will continue to pay the mortgate until it completes. In general employed are fairly easy to assess. Most employed people will have a steady basic pay that increases through their career. Payslips will usually seperate-out basic pay, overtime and bonuses. There is little opertunity to cook the books. The self-employed are harder to assess. Income can be bursty and there are far more opertunities for cooking the books to make it look like you are earning more than you really are. So banks are likely to be far more careful about lending to the self-employed, they will likely want to see multiple years of buisness records so that any bursts, whether natural due to the ebbs and flows of buisness or deliberatly created to cook the books average out and they can see the overall pattern. A large deposit will help because it reduces the risk to the bank in the event of a default. Similarly not being anywhere near your limit of affordability will help.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "47f8e35a332893bfa08992edee775499",
"text": "\"Mortgage agreements usually have a clause in which the mortgagor warrants that all the statements and information which they have provided to the mortgagee are correct. In your case, this probably included your credit score. Since your \"\"statement\"\" concerning your credit score is no longer accurate, they want you to update the agreement with the new information before the final version is prepared. Credit scores change for many random reasons. The agencies re-calibrate formulas constantly. It is unlikely that your mortgage negotiations affected your credit score. The bank will only start reporting the facts of mortgage to a credit agency when you start paying (or not paying) the loan. Credit agencies don't care whether you have a loan or not. They only care whether you have paid your debts, or not paid them.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe638c47505fa844419fd4a4523d8fb8",
"text": "\"A person can finance housing expenses in one of two ways. You can pay rent to a landlord. Or you can buy a house with a mortgage. In essence, you become your own landlord. That is, insta the \"\"renter\"\" pays an amount equal to the mortgage to insta the \"\"landlord,\"\" who pays it to the bank to reduce the mortgage. Ideally, your monthly debt servicing payments (minus tax saving on interest) should approximate the rent on the house. If they are a \"\"lot\"\" more, you may have overpaid for the house and mortgage. The advantage is that your \"\"rent\"\" is applied to building up equity (by reducing the mortgage) in your house. (And mortgage payments are tax deductible to the extent of interest expense.) At the end of 30 years, or whatever the mortgage term, you have \"\"portable equity\"\" in the form a fully paid house, that you can sell to move another house in Florida, or wherever you want to retire. Sometimes, you will \"\"get lucky\"\" if the value of the house skyrockets in a short time. Then you can borrow against your appreciation. But be careful, because \"\"sky rockets\"\" (in housing and elsewhere) often fall to earth. But this does represent another way to build up equity by owning a house.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1996cb63df62a460f6fbd2a182ca33f5",
"text": "Also you would need to consider any taxation issues. As he will be paying you rent you will need to include this as income, plus any capital gains tax on the re-sale of the property may need to be paid.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7377d2268dcb7cd6f476d5923bce0e6a",
"text": "Slightly abbreviated version of the guidance from NOLO.com California state law limits credit check or application screening fees landlords can charge prospective tenants and specifies what landlords must do when accepting these types of fees. (Cal. Civ. Code § 1950.6.) Here are key provisions: I am not a lawyer, but it would seem you have two options if you catch a landlord violating these rules. An idea to avoid the whole problem in the first place: Get a copy of your credit report yourself and take a copy with you to meet the landlord. If they want an application fee, ask why they need it making it clear you know the above law. If they say for a credit report offer to give them a copy in lieu of the fee.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "af327322384aaf1fb4808ed9b4adc50d",
"text": "Another option is to look at the rent difference between where you need to be and where the others would rent, without considering your job. You pay the difference, which is due to your unique requirements, and split the remainder equally.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d90b5501dc00d0d5a1a79c878c6279d1",
"text": "Several factors are considered in loans as significant as a home mortgage. I believe the most major factors are 1) Credit report, 2) Income, and 3) Employment status If you borrow jointly, all joint factors are included, not just the favorable ones. Some wrinkles this can cause may include: Credit Report - The second person on the loan may have poor credit or no credit. This can/will hurt your rate or even prevent them from being listed on the loan at all, which will also mean you can't include their income. In addition, there are future consequences: that any late payments, default, foreclosure, etc. will be listed on all borrower's reports. If you both have solid work history, great credit, and want to jointly own the home, then there shouldn't be any negatives. If this is not the case, compare both cases (fully, not just rates, as some agents could sneakily say you can get the same rate either way but then not tell you closing costs in one scenario are higher), and pick the one that is best overall. This is just information from my recollection so make sure to verify and ask plenty of questions, don't go forward on assumptions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba2dda2440aab1b0940b723689abe424",
"text": "I don't like it using percentages makes no sense. Find out what market value is for rent and pay 1/2 of that to your partner, adjust annually. You partner should be protected from inflation if he is going to invest in real estate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "63029d28ff692db162d40829b0399aaa",
"text": "I have never had a lender ask my budget, only my income, savings, credit rating and value of the collateral. That's considered adequate info to estimate risk for most ordinary loans. Yes, they may want the income proven by evidence from your employer or via a copy of your tax returns. They don't care what you buy as long as there's evidence you'll make loan payments on time for the life of the loan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2b1e020358eabd9b5de2ea5a749a6416",
"text": "Is this a reasonable goal or will it be impossible to get a loan with my almost non-existent income? I know I can put estimated rental revenue as income, but I'm not sure if I would qualify. Banks typically only count rental income after you've been collecting it for two years, and at that point the banks will count 75% of it as income for loan qualification purposes. You'd have to qualify for the mortgage without the potential rental income. Currently that means a 43% debt (including proposed mortgage) to gross income ratio. Even if you qualify, you have to be prepared to handle repairs, HVAC/water-heater could fail on day 1, and tenants have a right to withhold rent if some repairs aren't made. You also have to be able to weather non-payment/eviction of a tenant. You could find a co-signor, maybe go in on a house with a friend, but there are risks and complications that can arise there if a party becomes unable to pay, or deciding how to split equity and expenses. If you had the income/capital to comfortably pull it off without tenants, then that'd be a great situation, college rentals tend to be lucrative (I'd recommend getting tenants with parental co-signers to reduce risk). If you qualify but would be in trouble quickly if one tenant stopped paying, or a major appliance needed to be replaced, then it's probably not worth the risk.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
19035b9529da7d0f428f86c8beb7ca8f
|
Effect on Bond asset allocation if Equity markets crash?
|
[
{
"docid": "4c020f3c37abccf66e1d71bf9f09dc55",
"text": "what will happen to the valuation of Tom's bond holdings after the equity crash? This is primarily opinion based. What will happen is generally hard to predict. Bond Price Bump due to Demand: Is a possible outcome; this depends on the assumption that the bonds in the said country are still deemed safe. Recent Greece example, this may not be true. So if the investors don't believe that Bonds are safe, the money may move into Real Estate, into Bullion [Gold etc], or to other markets. In such a scenario; the price may not bump up. Bond Price Decline due to Rising Interest Rates: On a rising interest rates, the long-term bonds may loose in value while the short term bonds may hold their value. Related question How would bonds fare if interest rates rose?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d366215b375cef0820dc85e6d867f191",
"text": "I agree that the cause of the crash can make a huge difference in the effect on the bond market. Here's a few other possibilities: All that to say that there's no definitive answer as to how the bond market will respond to an equity crash. Bonds are much more highly correlated to equities lately, but that could be due to much lower interest rates pushing more of the risk of bonds to the credit worthiness of the issuer, increasing correlation.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c964a2755a0c7300abb81a9c680931f6",
"text": "It certainly creates an opportunity for the re-distribution of wealth. Money will be transferred from insurance companies to construction companies. Businesses that go under will be replaced by ones that survived. Some companies will make a profit out of this, but as you have already figured out, no new wealth is created by the disaster. (Although lots has been destroyed, so we are looking at a net loss.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4571bbf2ec41f30bc870081d15d4d138",
"text": "Summarized article: On Friday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped almost 275 points and wiped out the last of the index's gains for the year. Friday's massive selloff was triggered by a dismal US jobs report and data indicating a European and Chinese economic slowdown. Friday was the worst day of the year for the market. Worried investors moved cash to the US Treasury bond market which also dragged the yield to a record low. Some analysts believe the panic in the market may cause the Federal Reserve to plan for additional stimulus. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is scheduled to speak next week. *For more summarized news, subscribe to the [/r/SkimThat](http://www.reddit.com/r/SkimThat) subreddit*",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f6b490195aee0c5351658b1edfd90ba3",
"text": "If you're referring to investment hedging, then you should diversify into things that would profit if expected event hit. For example alternative energy sources would benefit greatly from increased evidence of global warming, or the onset of peak oil. Preparing for calamities that would render the stock market inaccessible, the answer is quite different. Simply own more of things that people would want than you need. A list of possibilities would include: Precious metals are also a way to secure value outside the financial markets, but would not be readily sellable until the immediate calamity had passed. All this should be balanced on an honest evaluation of the risks, including the risk of nothing happening. I've heard of people not saving for retirement because they don't expect the financial markets to be available then, but that's not a risk I'm willing to take.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1972c4bb86c1c26f86d8243cf45d2cbc",
"text": "\"To your first comment: yup. To your second comment, A = L + E. If E goes down, and L goes up, the net effect is 0. Then, if L goes down, and A goes up, the net effect is 0 and we are balanced once again. There is no \"\"rebalancing\"\" equity. You just have to make sure that, at the end of your journal entries, the accounting equation holds. It's a very unintuitive concept to wrap your head around, but spend some time mapping out the flow of various journal entries. Once it clicks, you'll really understand the logic.\"",
"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": "ca9ff7c27a27a446f5031e35247d5294",
"text": "Asset prices are inversely related to interest rates. If you're valuing a business or a bond, if you use a lower interest rate you get a higher valuation. Historic equity returns benefit from a falling interest rate environment which won't be repeated as interest rates can only go so low. edit: typo",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "38bde89cbae187e5aa06f270f7c8a163",
"text": "I think everyone assumes various segments of the market/economy are going to cool off at some point. The question isn't if it'll happen, but when, and how suddenly. I don't think it'll be that big of a deal if we see market corrections across stocks or real estate if they happen over the course of months, and if anything it'll be a relief to many. The trouble will be if it happens suddenly and 'violently,' as it did in 2007, causing bankruptcies, massive job losses and lasting damage. That probably depends more on whether or not this was an artificial bubble (caused by Fed policies, likely), like what caused the Great Recession, or if it's a more normal market cycles.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "68379ec96b414de08349c1d219ab07ad",
"text": "It depends. Very generally when yields go up stocks go down and when yields go down stocks go up (as has been happening lately). If we look at the yield of the 10 year bond it reflects future expectations for interest rates. If the rate today is very low but expectations are that the short term rates will go up that would be reflected in a higher yield simply because no one would buy the longer term bond if they could simply wait out and get a better return on shoter term investments. If expectations are that the rate is going down you get what's called an inverted yield curve. The inverted yield curve is usually a sign of economic trouble ahead. Yields are also influenced by inflation expectations as @rhaskett is alluding in his answer. So. If the stock market crashes because the economy is doing poorly and if interest rates are relatively high then people would expect the rates to go down and therefore bonds will go up! However, if there's rampant inflation and the rates are going up we can expect stocks and bonds to move in opposite directions. Another interpretation of that is that one would expect stock prices to track inflation pretty well because company revenue is going to go up with inflation. If we're just talking about a bump in the road correction in a healthy economy I wouldn't expect that to have much of an immediate effect though bonds might go down a little bit in the short term but possibly even more in the long term as interest rates eventually head higher. Another scenario is a very low interest rate environment (as today) with a stock market crash and not a lot of room for yields to go further down. Both stocks and bonds are influenced by current interest rates, interest rate expectations, current inflation, inflation expectations and stock price expectation. Add noise and stir.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e7777b222351bc03f73b9c5d9a640863",
"text": "Your asset mix should reflect your own risk tolerance. Whatever the ideal answer to your question, it requires you to have good timing, not once, but twice. Let me offer a personal example. In 2007, the S&P hit its short term peak at 1550 or so. As it tanked in the crisis, a coworker shared with me that he went to cash, on the way down, selling out at about 1100. At the bottom, 670 or so, I congratulated his brilliance (sarcasm here) and as it passed 1300 just 2 years later, again mentions how he must be thrilled he doubled his money. He admitted he was still in cash. Done with stocks. So he was worse off than had he held on to his pre-crash assets. For sake of disclosure, my own mix at the time was 100% stock. That's not a recommendation, just a reflection of how my wife and I were invested. We retired early, and after the 2013 excellent year, moved to a mix closer to 75/25. At any time, a crisis hits, and we have 5-6 years spending money to let the market recover. If a Japanesque long term decline occurs, Social Security kicks in for us in 8 years. If my intent wasn't 100% clear, I'm suggesting your long term investing should always reflect your own risk tolerance, not some short term gut feel that disaster is around the corner.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c365980654ce6e5d8b9aa27958f484e9",
"text": "> How is a loan an asset? To use your example, our starting books are $100 in cash (asset), which corresponds to $100 in equity. We then loan out $20 with a future return of $25, so our books have changed to $80 cash, $25 in collectable loans (assets), $20 in loan liabilities, and $80 in equity + $5 in interest revenue. > I cannot be acting like I HAVE that 20$ can I? Not really, and lending banks are regulated very tightly by having both required minimum capital adequacy ratios (basically how many loans you can have out for a given amount of equity) and annual stress testing by the Fed (CCAR). > Isn't that how the 08' crash happened? Is the risk of default accounted for? No and yes. Lending banks weren't really responsible for the crash and it certainly wasn't because of over-lending. The problem was that the mortgage backed securities that banks were trading were (at the time) not properly valued to account for their risk, and the resulting insurance contracts (Credit Default Obligations, or CDOs) were improperly priced *and* leveraged. The CDOs were overly complicated, and made some strong statistical assumptions about the underlying assets (the MBSs and the individual mortgages within them) that lead to a systemic underestimation of risk (autocorrelation in default probabilities, esp.) Banks since then have dramatically increased the size of their risk management departments, and I think it's fairly unlikely we see another systemic mispricing like that for some time. > default risk is not transferred with the asset I don't agree with this in the basic cases. If I sell you the rights to collect a loan that I wrote, then absent of any other contract you will bear the full risk of the borrower defaulting. > how can it possibly be sold in such a way that the risk of default is detached Credit default swaps and other forms of insurance contracts. I could sell you the loan as above, but then you could buy an insurance contract on the loan that pays out if the borrower defaults. In other words, either the loan stays alive and you collect interest as normal, or it defaults and you receive some payout from the insurance contract which limits your downside risk. Just about every large financial institution will have themselves hedged like this to some extent, though perhaps by other means. Regarding your overall question about student loan defaults, I'm in the camp that believes they're an overstated direct* risk. It's currently not possible to default on a student loan, and if the law allowing student loan bankruptcy came in to effect, I think we'd see a large adjustment of interest rates on student loans (and probably consumer loans, etc. as well) to compensate for the increased risk of holding these loans. *Direct risk referring to the risk to the loan holder. I think there is a risk that consumer spending becomes weighed down by the burden of large loans. However, I also don't think this would appear as a sudden market shock, and would likely manifest over an extended period of time. Just my thoughts, I'm sure there are some people who'll disagree with me on this.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1b807557ba137c1143736dc37981715b",
"text": "I think your premise is slightly flawed. Every investment can add or reduce risk, depending on how it's used. If your ordering above is intended to represent the probability you will lose your principal, then it's roughly right, with caveats. If you buy a long-term government bond and interest rates increase while you're holding it, its value will decrease on the secondary markets. If you need/want to sell it before maturity, you may not recover your principal, and if you hold it, you will probably be subject to erosion of value due to inflation (inflation and interest rates are correlated). Over the short-term, the stock market can be very volatile, and you can suffer large paper losses. But over the long-term (decades), the stock market has beaten inflation. But this is true in aggregate, so, if you want to decrease equity risk, you need to invest in a very diversified portfolio (index mutual funds) and hold the portfolio for a long time. With a strategy like this, the stock market is not that risky over time. Derivatives, if used for their original purpose, can actually reduce volatility (and therefore risk) by reducing both the upside and downside of your other investments. For example, if you sell covered calls on your equity investments, you get an income stream as long as the underlying equities have a value that stays below the strike price. The cost to you is that you are forced to sell the equity at the strike price if its value increases above that. The person on the other side of that transaction loses the price of the call if the equity price doesn't go up, but gets a benefit if it does. In the commodity markets, Southwest Airlines used derivatives (options to buy at a fixed price in the future) on fuel to hedge against increases in fuel prices for years. This way, they added predictability to their cost structure and were able to beat the competition when fuel prices rose. Even had fuel prices dropped to zero, their exposure was limited to the pre-negotiated price of the fuel, which they'd already planned for. On the other hand, if you start doing things like selling uncovered calls, you expose yourself to potentially infinite losses, since there are no caps on how high the price of a stock can go. So it's not possible to say that derivatives as a class of investment are risky per se, because they can be used to reduce risk. I would take hedge funds, as a class, out of your list. You can't generally invest in those unless you have quite a lot of money, and they use strategies that vary widely, many of which are quite risky.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "af7535b950b00daa65f3e587fcb3e827",
"text": "Most of the “recommendations” are just total market allocations. Within domestic stocks, the performance rotates. Sometimes large cap outperform, sometimes small cap outperform. You can see the chart here (examine year by year): https://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chfdeh=0&chdet=1428692400000&chddm=99646&chls=IntervalBasedLine&cmpto=NYSEARCA:VO;NYSEARCA:VB&cmptdms=0;0&q=NYSEARCA:VV&ntsp=0&ei=_sIqVbHYB4HDrgGA-oGoDA Conventional wisdom is to buy the entire market. If large cap currently make up 80% of the market, you would allocate 80% of domestic stocks to large cap. Same case with International Stocks (Developed). If Japan and UK make up the largest market internationally, then so be it. Similar case with domestic bonds, it is usually total bond market allocation in the beginning. Then there is the question of when you want to withdraw the money. If you are withdrawing in a couple years, you do not want to expose too much to currency risks, thus you would allocate less to international markets. If you are investing for retirement, you will get the total world market. Then there is the question of risk tolerance. Bonds are somewhat negatively correlated with Stocks. When stock dips by 5% in a month, bonds might go up by 2%. Under normal circumstances they both go upward. Bond/Stock allocation ratio is by age I’m sure you knew that already. Then there is the case of Modern portfolio theory. There will be slight adjustments to the ETF weights if it is found that adjusting them would give a smaller portfolio variance, while sacrificing small gains. You can try it yourself using Excel solver. There is a strategy called Sector Rotation. Google it and you will find examples of overweighting the winners periodically. It is difficult to time the rotation, but Healthcare has somehow consistently outperformed. Nonetheless, those “recommendations” you mentioned are likely to be market allocations again. The “Robo-advisors” list out every asset allocation in detail to make you feel overwhelmed and resort to using their service. In extreme cases, they can even break down the holdings to 2/3/4 digit Standard Industrial Classification codes, or break down the bond duration etc. Some “Robo-advisors” would suggest you as many ETF as possible to increase trade commissions (if it isn’t commission free). For example, suggesting you to buy VB, VO, VV instead a VTI.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0765778b69a0befaa7950d21c9663cf4",
"text": "Anti-Facebook circlejerk continues. Where were these articles before it went public ? It makes it seem like bad for common investors when in reality they couldn't even get in on the stock. It was the institutional funds and connected investors who bought the stock at 38. The common market actually was the one that didn't support the stock once it went public. If anyone, it's the institutional funds that got screwed.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b004e8f6c250759e152884ec241164a7
|
Estate taxes and the top 1 percent by net worth
|
[
{
"docid": "cd8357d402dd8084d8d89d0fc81cd792",
"text": "Of course, you've already realized that some of that is that smaller estates are more common than larger estates. But it seems unlikely that there are four times as many estates between $10 and $11 million as above that range. People who expect to die with an estate subject to inheritance tax tend to prepare. I don't know how common it is, but if the surviving member of a couple remarries, then the new spouse gets a separate exemption. And of course spouses inherit from spouses without tax. In theory this could last indefinitely. In practice, it is less likely. But if a married couple has $20 million, the first spouse could leave $15 million to the second and $5 million to other heirs. The second spouse could leave $10 million to a third spouse (after remarrying) and another $5 million to children with the first spouse. All without triggering the estate tax. People can put some of their estate into a trust. This can allow the heirs to continue to control the money while not paying inheritance tax. Supposedly Ford (of Ford Motor Company) took that route. Another common strategy is to give the maximum without gift tax each year. That's at least $14k per donor and recipient per year. So a married couple with two kids can transfer $56k per year. Plus $56k for the kids' spouses. And if there are four grandchildren, that's another $112k. Great-grandchildren count too. That's more than a million every five years. So given ten years to prepare, parents can transfer $2 million out of the estate and to the heirs without tax. Consider the case of two wealthy siblings. They've each maxed out their gifts to their own heirs. So they agree to max out their gifts to their sibling's heirs. This effectively doubles the transfer amount without tax implication. Also realize that they can pretransfer assets at the current market rate. So if a rich person has an asset that is currently undervalued, it may make sense to transfer it immediately as a gift. This will use up some of the estate exemption. But if you're going to transfer the asset eventually, you might as well do so when the value is optimal for your purpose. These are just the easy things to do. If someone wants, they can do more complicated things that make it harder for the IRS to track value. For example, the Bezos family invested in Amazon.com when Jeff Bezos was starting it. As a result, his company could survive capital losses that another company might not. The effect of this was to make him fabulously rich and his parents richer than they were. But he won't pay inheritance tax until his parents actually transfer the estate to him (and I believe they actually put it in a charitable trust). If his company had failed instead, he still would have been supported by the capital provided by his parents while it was open (e.g. his salary). But he wouldn't have paid inheritance tax on it. There are other examples of the same pattern: Fred Smith of FedEx; Donald Trump; Bill Gates of Microsoft; etc. The prime value of the estate was not in its transfer, but in working together while alive or through a family trust. The child's company became much more valuable as a result of a parent's wealth. And in two of those examples, the child was so successful that the parent became richer as a result. So the parent's estate does count. Meanwhile, another company might fail, leaving the estate below the threshold despite a great deal of parental support. And those aren't even fiddles. Those children started real companies and offered their parents real investment opportunities. A family that wants to do so can do a lot more with arrangements. Of course, the IRS may be looking for some of them. The point being that the estate might be more than $11 million earlier, but the parents can find ways to reduce it below the inheritance tax exemption by the time that they die.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b309d8497110987412f3ebce00f7f42f",
"text": "There are two main reasons for the difference between these two numbers: While there are a few people that are wildly wealthy, most of the people with more than 10 million have between 10-50 million dollars. These people shield most of their estate and in the end the tax only effects a small portion of even the wealthy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "58855f1783e2b031601dca2b3e9a29fc",
"text": "There are two key reasons: Consider a family of four, two kids and two adults, that has a net worth of $20 million. Each of these four people live in a top 1% household. But any of those four people can die, and their estate will not pay any estate tax. Both kids and one spouse can die, and still no estate tax will be paid. Only when the last spouse dies would there be any estate tax. Also, consider a person who dies but whose assets do not flow into their estate. For example, their assets could be held in an inter-vivos trust. People with higher net worths are much more likely to use trusts to avoid or minimize estate taxes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa07528615abdd6a4fcf39b4ec776522",
"text": "Data is a funny thing. There are many different ways of constructing data sets. Keep in mind, the cite you linked is fine, I follow this kind of site when I am data mining. They got their data from the Government, and there's no reason to doubt its validity. Keep in mind, it's a survey. They extrapolate from a survey of a small population - In the 2016 survey, 6,254 families were interviewed, and in the 2013 survey, 6,026 were interviewed. 1) Let's set that aside, and look at the numbers as if they were gospel. $10.37M net worth to be top 1%. That's people at all different ages, and not the wealth cutoff for those dying, else the estate tax would hit closer to the 1%. Given the limited data set, I'd only hypothesize, if we graphed the age (along the bottom, X axis) vs number of people, the curve would peek in mid to late 60's, as people retire. With 20 years for the couple to spend and gift, it's not tough to imagine that by the time they pass away, the taxable estate $11M couple falls to just .2%. 2) When the estate tax impacted estates over just $600K, and my daughter was born, we set up a trust. Out net worth was barely positive, but insurance alone would have created enough wealth to have our orphaned child be subject to the tax of our estate before she received a dime. We also used the trust to fund her college. As a completed gift, had we made some bad decisions and lost it all, at least that money would be protected. Keep in mind, there are different flavors of trusts, but it's safe to say that in a survey to collect data, the million dollar+ trusts are considered family wealth. Not tough to imagine a good fraction of those families over $10M have a nice chunk already protected this way. 3) Last - For any illiquid assets, there's a discount that gets applied, typically 30%. I own a ranch, and want to start gifting it to the kids, the process involves creating stock, with restrictions, as a way to transfer the fractions required to gift the $14K/yr per person combination. (That is, a couple can gift 14x4 = $56K to a child with a spouse. 4 kids, all married, and the gifting is $224K/yr, $320K at full valuation. Again, these gifts may be to irrevocable trusts, and still thought of as their wealth.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "4aa71bc5470147597db83be59cdb3e56",
"text": "\"The scenario you mention regarding capital gains is pretty much the core of the issue. Here's a run-down from PolitiFact.com that explains it a bit. It's important to focus on it being the tax rate, not the tax amount (which I think you get, but I want to reinforce that for other readers). Basically, most of Buffett's income comes from capital gains and dividends, income from investments he makes with the money he already has. Income earned by buying and selling stocks or from stock dividends is generally taxed at 15 percent, the rate for long-term capital gains and qualified dividends. Buffett also mentioned that some of the \"\"mega-rich\"\" are hedge fund managers \"\"who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as 'carried interest,' thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate.\"\" We don't know the taxes paid by Buffett's secretary, who was mentioned by Obama but not by Buffett. Buffet's secretary would have to make a high salary, or else typical deductions (such as the child tax credit) would offset taxes owed. Let's say the secretary is a particularly well-compensated executive assistant, making adjusted income more than $83,600 in income. (Yes, that sounds like a lot to us, too, but remember: We're talking about the secretary to one of the richest people in the world.) In that case, marginal tax rates of 28 percent would apply. Then, there would be payroll taxes of 6.25 percent on the first $106,800, money that goes to Social Security, and another 1.45 percent on all income, which goes to Medicare. The secretary’s overall tax rate would be lower than 28 percent, since not all the income would be taxed at that rate, only the income above $83,600. Buffett, meanwhile, would pay very little, if anything, in payroll taxes. In the New York Times op-ed, Buffett said he paid 17.4 percent in taxes. Thinking of the secretary, it gets a little complicated, given how the tax brackets work, but basically, people who make between $100,000 and $200,000 are paying around 20 percent in federal taxes, including payroll and income taxes, according to an analysis from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. So in this case, the secretary's rate is higher because so much of Buffett's income comes from investments and is taxed at the lower capital gains rate. Here's Buffet's original Op-Ed in the NYT for those of you that aren't familiar.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d4fa325f676d104d2e0616422b951ff6",
"text": "It is the most incorrect piece of the article, but it's not the lack of taxes that have allowed the wealthy to do better than the rest of us. You can argue for the seizure of their assets by the gov't - through taxes - as a way to take it from them. But the Fed's monetary policies are far more severe in how they impact inequality.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6177247a1ac13044890876a8fafc0a23",
"text": "Here's how the CBO says the top 1% get their income: Source|% from source :--------|---------: Cash Wages and Salaries|33.4% Business Income|23.2% Capital Gains|19.1% Capital Income|11.2% Corporate Tax Borne by Capital|7.3% Other Income|3.2% Employer's Share of Payroll Taxes|0.9% Employee's Contributions to Deferred Compensation Plans|0.7% Employer's Contributions to Health Insurance|0.5%",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee13d471d6a4de0b7fb093a6e1334ae9",
"text": "\"Well I'd say they are expected to pay much more than what you describe. What you've described is called \"\"flat\"\" tax and is widely considered unacceptable (meaning the rich wouldn't pay enough). Today, as codified in progressive tax tables, the rich are certainly *expected* to pay much *more* than a flat tax as you describe. Beyond the natural scaling you get with a percentage, the percentage itself goes up as you make more.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "814cb498ebdb318b3b26331502051b3a",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/15/top-1-of-households-in-uk-fully-recovered-from-financial-crisis) reduced by 89%. (I'm a bot) ***** > New research from the Resolution Foundation showed that households with incomes of &pound;275,000 or more quickly recovered from the impact of the deep recession and have seen their share of national income return to the level seen before the global banking system froze up in the summer of 2007. > &quot;Adam Corlett, senior economic analyst at the Resolution Foundation, said:&quot;The incomes of the top 1% took a short, sharp hit following the financial crisis. > The share of national disposable income for the richest 1% of households rose steadily after Margaret Thatcher became prime minister in 1979 and reached a peak of 8.5% on the eve of the financial crisis. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6njstj/top_1_of_households_in_uk_fully_recovered_from/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~167774 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **income**^#1 **year**^#2 **election**^#3 **Foundation**^#4 **standards**^#5\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f04a63bace0b07f39e3568065d4022d7",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://qz.com/994323/economists-say-the-ultra-wealthy-dodging-taxes-far-more-than-we-think/) reduced by 74%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Economists Annette Alstads&aelig;ter, Niels Johannesen, and Gabriel Zucman have taken the data from the two leaks and combined them with unusually detailed income and wealth records in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark to estimate the size and scope of tax evasion. > The economists&#039; surprising finding: The top.01% of the wealthy in these countries evades about 30% of their respective personal income and taxes, compared to the average evasion rate of 3%. These findings complicate two arguments commonly made by defenders of the status quo: One, that tax evasion is a relatively uncommon practice among the very wealthy highlighted by extreme cases, and two, that tax evasion among lower-income earners-working under the table or failing to declare tips, for example-is more pernicious than the use of offshore banks. > The researchers think that the results will likely show more tax evasion among the ultra-wealthy in more unequal countries, like the United States. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6etje2/economists_say_panama_papers_and_swiss_leaks_show/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~134702 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Theory](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31bfht/theory_autotldr_concept/) | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **tax**^#1 **evasion**^#2 **wealthy**^#3 **wealth**^#4 **super**^#5\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc7edd99a53e359a1c34b75cc8cbc63e",
"text": "> 73% of Americans were in the ‘top 20%’ for at least a year Well, sure. [The top 20% currently begins at $92,000](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_in_the_United_States). All an American needs to do to qualify for that 73% is sell their house with ~50% equity at some point in their life since the IRS considers that income. Great logic of this article: liquidate your primary investment and \\*poof\\* you're wealthy. Even [the authors of the study cited in this article say](http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/01/hirschl-research-finds-many-join-1-percent-few-stay-long): *“It would be misguided to presume that top-level income attainment is solely a function of hard work, diligence and equality of opportunity,” they write. “A more nuanced interpretation includes the proposition that access to top-level income is influenced by historic patterns of race and class inequality.”*",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c0bd52e79978f8c6e0af02469a87a93",
"text": "\"Securities and ETFs are also subjected to Estate Tax. Some ways: Draft a \"\"Transfer on Death\"\" instruction to the broker, that triggers a transfer to an account in the beneficiary's name, in most cases avoiding probate. If the broker does not support it, find another broker. Give your brokerage and bank password/token to your beneficiary. Have him transfer out holdings within hours of death. Create a Trust, that survives even after death of an individual. P.S. ETF is treated as Stock (a company that owns other companies), regardless of the nature of the holdings. P.S.2 Above suggestions are only applicable to nonresident alien of the US.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c83108ac8af92e0912975e456bd3c5dd",
"text": "Maryland is one of only two states (as of the writing of that article) that collects both inheritance tax and estate tax. These are two different issues, and it's important to differentiate between them sufficiently. I can't provide you a definitive answer, so consult a tax professional in Maryland for specific details to make sure you don't run afoul of tax authorities. This blog has a nice summary of the differences, as of 2012: The estate tax is assessable if more than one million dollars passes at death. The total dollar value of the property determines whether there is an estate tax. The inheritance tax is not dependent upon the value of the estate, as even very small estates can have inheritance tax imposed. Inheritance tax is assessed on property given to a person who is further removed in relationship than a sibling. Thus, for example, a 10% tax will be assessed on property passing to a cousin, niece, nephew or friend. Another section of the page states, as an example: If you give someone $10,000 in cash, the inheritance tax will simply reduce the amount inherited – in this case to $9,000. There are several other exemptions to the inheritance tax in addition to the immediate family exception discussed above: Property that passes from a decedent to or for the use of a grandparent, parent, spouse, child or other lineal descendant, spouse of a child or other lineal descendant, stepparent, stepchild, brother or sister of the decedent, or a corporation if all of its stockholders consist of the surviving spouse, parents, stepparents, stepchildren, brothers, sisters, and lineal descendants of the decedent and spouses of the lineal descendants. Putting this information together makes me think that the inheritance wouldn't be taxable in your case because it's a cash inheritance from an immediate family member, so it qualifies for one of the exemptions. Since I'm not a tax professional, however, I can't say that for sure. Hopefully these pages will give you enough of a foundation for when you talk to a professional.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e5bbbf00ed8e7b0c39a7ece90572ef56",
"text": "I know that if you make more, you pay more, but do those who have more, not make more, pay higher income tax? In general, no. In most locales, income tax is based on income, not on wealth. I am retired. I have little income but a fair amount of wealth. I play very little income tax. (But I do pay other kinds of taxes.) Here's a scenario. 2 people of average wealth with similar situations have the same job with equal pay. After 5 years, their situations haven't changed and they still earn equal pay, but now one has $40,000 in their account and the other $9,000. Does one now pay higher income tax because he has more in his account or does he pay the same because he makes the same? In most locales, you pay income tax on everything that is counted as income. Your salary is income. In some cases, earned interest is income. But aside from the earned interest from your bank accounts, neither the $40,000 nor the $9,000 is income. Your huge mansion isn't income. Your expensive car isn't income. The huge amount of land you own isn't income. The pricey artwork on your walls isn't income. You don't pay income tax on any of these, but your local may impose other taxes on these (such as property tax, etc.) [Note: consult the tax laws of your specific locale if you want to know details.]",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a292e86a29e93f809f8d96cd651970a1",
"text": "Fact check: not true. Their **median** net worth dropped 39 percent from 2007 to 2010 while their **mean** net worth, which is what the title of this post implies, went down 14.7 percent over the same period. Other things worth noting: the 2007 net worth values were adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U-RS) and were based on the interviews of 6492 families in 2010 and 4421 in 2007. Here's the [source article from the Fed [PDF Warning]](http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2012/PDF/scf12.pdf).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1808c6c81d6b04a809ec7841876cc6a4",
"text": "I think you are thinking too hard about this. If a billionaire's assets increase 70% in the stock market, he created $700M in new wealth. If 300 people each create a million dollars in new wealth. We have 300 new millionaires creating 300M in wealth, but still 70% of wealth among the 301 people was created by the billionaire. 300 new millionaires is still a good thing, no matter what you think about how to tax a billionaire's assets.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "05106f27e856cd2f6b5bd98a7903936f",
"text": "Net worth is interesting as it can have a different number assigned depending on your intent. The number I focus on is my total retirement account and any brokerage account. I purposely exclude the value of my house.* This tells me how much I'm able to invest. My heir would look at it a bit differently. She'd have the cash not only from the house, but from every bit of our possessions that can be sold. For my own purposes, knowing I have a piece of art that might sell for $xxx doesn't mean much, except for insurance purposes. In your case, if the coins are gold, and held for investment, count them. If they were your grandfather's and you plan to leave them to your own grandkids, I'd leave them out. * I make this point for two reasons - as someone with an eye toward retirement, the house doesn't get included in the 4% return math that I apply to the retirement and stock accounts. Also, in our situation, even when we downsize at retirement, the move isn't likely to pull much cash out of the house, it will be a lateral move. For those who plan to move from a McMansion in the suburbs of NY or Boston to a modest home in a lower cost of living elsewhere, that difference may be very important, and should be taken into account. This is simply how we handle this.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6fabbdbd646deebfed2e6ce56a9ae822",
"text": "\"If you own 1% of a company, you are technically entitled to 1% of the current value and future profits of that company. However, you cannot, as you seem to imply, just decide at some point to take your ball and go home. You cannot call up the company and ask for 1% of their assets to be liquidated and given to you in cash. What the 1% stake in the company actually entitles you to is: 1% of total shareholder voting rights. Your \"\"aye\"\" or \"\"nay\"\" carries the weight of 1% of the total shareholder voting block. Doesn't sound like much, but when the average little guy has on the order of ten-millionths of a percentage point ownership of any big corporation, your one vote carries more weight than those of millions of single-share investors. 1% of future dividend payments made to shareholders. For every dollar the corporation makes in profits, and doesn't retain for future growth, you get a penny. Again, doesn't sound like much, but consider that the Simon property group, ranked #497 on the Fortune 500 list of the world's biggest companies by revenue, made $1.4 billion in profits last year. 1% of that, if the company divvied it all up, is $14 million. If you bought your 1% stake in March of 2009, you would have paid a paltry $83 million, and be earning roughly 16% on your initial investment annually just in dividends (to say nothing of the roughly 450% increase in stock price since that time, making the value of your holdings roughly $460 million; that does reduce your actual dividend yield to about 3% of holdings value). If this doesn't sound appealing, and you want out, you would sell your 1% stake. The price you would get for this total stake may or may not be 1% of the company's book value. This is for many reasons: Now, to answer your hypothetical: If Apple's stock, tomorrow, went from $420b market cap to zero, that would mean that the market unanimously thought, when they woke up tomorrow morning, that the company was all of a sudden absolutely worthless. In order to have this unanimous consent, the market must be thoroughly convinced, by looking at SEC filings of assets, liabilities and profits, listening to executive statements, etc that an investor wouldn't see even one penny returned of any cash investment made in this company's stock. That's impossible; the price of a share is based on what someone will pay to have it (or accept to be rid of it). Nobody ever just gives stock away for free on the trading floor, so even if they're selling 10 shares for a penny, they're selling it, and so the stock has a value ($0.001/share). We can say, however, that a fall to \"\"effectively zero\"\" is possible, because they've happened. Enron, for instance, lost half its share value in just one week in mid-October as the scope of the accounting scandal started becoming evident. That was just the steepest part of an 18-month fall from $90/share in August '00, to just $0.12/share as of its bankruptcy filing in Dec '01; a 99.87% loss of value. Now, this is an extreme example, but it illustrates what would be necessary to get a stock to go all the way to zero (if indeed it ever really could). Enron's stock wasn't delisted until a month and a half after Enron's bankruptcy filing, it was done based on NYSE listing rules (the stock had been trading at less than a dollar for 30 days), and was still traded \"\"over the counter\"\" on the Pink Sheets after that point. Enron didn't divest all its assets until 2006, and the company still exists (though its mission is now to sue other companies that had a hand in the fraud, get the money and turn it around to Enron creditors). I don't know when it stopped becoming a publicly-traded company (if indeed it ever did), but as I said, there is always someone willing to buy a bunch of really cheap shares to try and game the market (buying shares reduces the number available for sale, reducing supply, increasing price, making the investor a lot of money assuming he can offload them quickly enough).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f469e2fa5ef685010cd4b8febf2dc799",
"text": "In 2015 there's a $5.43M (That's million, as in 6 zeros) estate exemption. Even though it's $14K per year with no paperwork required, if you go over this, a bit of paperwork will let you tap your lifetime exemption. There's no tax consequence from this. The Applicable Federal Rate is the minimum rate that must be charged for this to be considered a loan and not a gift. DJ's answer is correct, otherwise, and is worth knowing as there are circumstances where the strategy is applicable. If the OP were a high net worth client trying to save his estate tax exemption, this (Dj's) strategy works just fine.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
5f1d10d40db7d0a2b446f3f116290a66
|
Saving for a down payment on a new house, a few years out. Where do we put our money next?
|
[
{
"docid": "873098f58435c884347892c0d1afc27d",
"text": "If you're absolutely certain that you won't buy a house within a year or so, I'd still be tempted to put some of the money into short-term CDs (ie, a max of 12 months). I think that at the moment CDs are a bit of a mug's game though because you'd hardly find one that offers better interest rates than some of the few savings accounts that still offer 1%+ interest. A savings account is probably where I'd put the money unless I could find a really good deal on a CD, but I think you might have to check if they've got withdrawal limits. There are a couple of savings accounts out there that pay at least 1% (yes, I know it's pitiful) so I'd seek out one or two of those. From memory, both Sallie Mae and Amex offer those and I'm sure there are a couple more. It's not great that your money is growing at less than inflation but if you're saving for something like a downpayment on a house I would think that (nominal) capital preservation is probably more important than the potential for a higher return with the associated higher risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "42017314ad29c44e315aa4a2cccc938a",
"text": "In October 2011 in the United States, you just don't have any options. Save your money in a savings account and that is the best you can do. Your desire to buy a house means you are a saver not an investor, and you risk tolerance on this pile of money is 0. Save it in a bank account; I highly doubt chasing an interest rate will pay off with any significance. (being highly dependent on your opinion of significant)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a0a75a20ad601b923ad627b9a171ffdb",
"text": "Rewards cards charge the merchant more to process. So the card is making money when you use it. So if your concern is for the cards going away because they are losing money... That is not going to happen because you use it too much. If their business model has them losing money because they are giving away more rewards than they make then they are going to go away anyway. TANSTAAFL. If you are looking for security and the ability to access your funds when you need them then a standard savings account works great. We have a few Credit Unions that have over 2% return while its not much it is safe and liquid and better than the Stock Market did in the last year.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "58ef13596490800da6f197ed332a44d6",
"text": "If you don't think you're necessarily going to stay in this area for five years, consider another option: renting. Five years is often quoted as the minimum length of time for buying (over renting), as the costs of the house purchase and the mortgage are significant - and if you're buying a new house every 5 years you're putting several thousand dollars of fees up front each time. If you don't assume that house prices will increase (as they won't necessarily), then you can consider these costs - say, $5000-$6000 for a $500k house - an extra 1% or so of interest that first year. If you are there 5 years, then you're paying 0.2% extra (more or less); that's reasonable, but if you're there only 2 years, you're adding 0.5% to your rate, which is pretty significant. You won't necessarily come out ahead here (versus renting). Renting for a year or two gives you enough time to find out if you do like the area, and if you do, you buy then - with more knowledge of the area and a chance to make a purchase at the right time for you. You pay off your loans, or at least a chunk of them, now, save some of the rest, and then rethink in a couple of years. If you then don't qualify for a doctor's mortgage anymore, you just save up the rest of the 20% before making the purchase.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bac44a8c730685829aae631e9b51a6dc",
"text": "\"Okay. Savings-in-a-nutshell. So, take at least year's worth of rent - $30k or so, maybe more for additional expenses. That's your core emergency fund for when you lose your job or total a few cars or something. Keep it in a good savings account, maybe a CD ladder - but the point is it's liquid, and you can get it when you need it in case of emergency. Replenish it immediately after using it. You may lose a little cash to inflation, but you need liquidity to protect you from risk. It is worth it. The rest is long-term savings, probably for retirement, or possibly for a down payment on a home. A blended set of stocks and bonds is appropriate, with stocks storing most of it. If saving for retirement, you may want to put the stocks in a tax-deferred account (if only for the reduced paperwork! egads, stocks generate so much!). Having some money (especially bonds) in something like a Roth IRA or a non-tax-advantaged account is also useful as a backup emergency fund, because you can withdraw it without penalties. Take the money out of stocks gradually when you are approaching the time when you use the money. If it's closer than five years, don't use stocks; your money should be mostly-bonds when you're about to use it. (And not 30-year bonds or anything like that either. Those are sensitive to interest rates in the short term. You should have bonds that mature approximately the same time you're going to use them. Keep an eye on that if you're using bond funds, which continually roll over.) That's basically how any savings goal should work. Retirement is a little special because it's sort of like 20 years' worth of savings goals (so you don't want all your savings in bonds at the beginning), and because you can get fancy tax-deferred accounts, but otherwise it's about the same thing. College savings? Likewise. There are tools available to help you with this. An asset allocation calculator can be found from a variety of sources, including most investment firms. You can use a target-date fund for something this if you'd like automation. There are also a couple things like, say, \"\"Vanguard LifeStrategy funds\"\" (from Vanguard) which target other savings goals. You may be able to understand the way these sorts of instruments function more easily than you could other investments. You could do a decent job for yourself by just opening up an account at Vanguard, using their online tool, and pouring your money into the stuff they recommend.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "97c33aa8e668fb4aae4bbdd1108233f1",
"text": "\"In your particular condition could buy the condo with cash, then get your mortgage on your next house with \"\"less than 20%\"\" down (i.e. with mortgage insurance) but it would still be an owner occupied loan. If you hate the mortgage insurance, you could save up and refi it when you have 20% available, including the initial down payment you made (i.e. 80% LTV ratio total). Or perhaps during the time you live in the condo, you can save up to reach the 20% down for the new house (?). Or perhaps you can just rent somewhere, then get into the house for 20% down, and while there save up and eventually buy a condo \"\"in cash\"\" later. Or perhaps buy the condo for 50% down non owner occupied mortgage... IANAL, but some things that may come in handy: you don't have to occupy your second residence (owner occupied mortgage) for 60 days after closing on it. So could purchase it at month 10 I suppose. In terms of locking down mortgage rates, you could do that up to 3 months before that even, so I've heard. It's not immediately clear if \"\"rent backs\"\" could extend the 60 day intent to occupy, or if so by how long (1 month might be ok, but 2? dunno) Also you could just buy one (or the other, or both) of your mortgages as a 20% down conventional \"\"non owner occupied\"\" mortgage and generate leeway there (ex: buy the home as non owner occupied, and rent it out until your year is up, though non owner occupied mortgage have worse interest rates so that's not as appealing). Or buy one as a \"\"secondary residency\"\" mortgage? Consult your loan officer there, they like to see like \"\"geographic distance\"\" between primary and secondary residences I've heard. If it's HUD (FHA) mortgage, the owner occupancy agreement you will sign is that you \"\"will continue to occupy the property as my primary residence for at least one year after the date of occupancy, unless extenuating circumstances arise which are beyond my control\"\" (ref), i.e. you plan on living in it for a year, so you're kind of stuck in your case. Maybe you'd want to occupy it as quickly as possible initially to make the year up more quickly :) Apparently you can also request the lender to agree to arbitrarily rescind the owner occupancy aspect of the mortgage, half way through, though I'd imagine you need some sort of excuse to convince them. Might not hurt to ask.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5711d12602cfcbaf9d52c641416cb4d",
"text": "\"Fundamentals: Then remember that you want to put 20% or more down in cash, to avoid PMI, and recalculate with thatmajor chunk taken out of your savings. Many banks offer calculators on their websites that can help you run these numbers and figure out how much house a given mortgage can pay for. Remember that the old advice that you should buy the largest house you can afford, or the newer advice about \"\"starter homes\"\", are both questionable in the current market. =========================== Added: If you're willing to settle for a rule-of-thumb first-approximation ballpark estimate: Maximum mortgage payment: Rule of 28. Your monthly mortgage payment should not exceed 28 percent of your gross monthly income (your income before taxes are taken out). Maximum housing cost: Rule of 32. Your total housing payments (including the mortgage, homeowner’s insurance, and private mortgage insurance [PMI], association fees, and property taxes) should not exceed 32 percent of your gross monthly income. Maximum Total Debt Service: Rule of 40. Your total debt payments, including your housing payment, your auto loan or student loan payments, and minimum credit card payments should not exceed 40 percent of your gross monthly income. As I said, many banks offer web-based tools that will run these numbers for you. These are rules that the lending industy uses for a quick initial screen of an application. They do not guarantee that you in particular can afford that large a loan, just that it isn't so bad that they won't even look at it. Note that this is all in terms of mortgage paymennts, which means it's also affected by what interest rate you can get, how long a mortgage you're willing to take, and how much you can afford to pull out of your savings. Also, as noted, if you can't put 20% down from savings the bank will hit you for PMI. Standard reminder: Unless you explect to live in the same place for five years or more, buying a house is questionable financially. There is nothing wrong with renting; depending on local housing stock it may be cheaper. Houses come with ongoung costs and hassles rental -- even renting a house -- doesn't. Buy a house only when it makes sense both financially and in terms of what you actually need to make your life pleasant. Do not buy a house only because you think it's an investment; real estate can be a profitable business, but thinking of a house as simultaneously both your home and an investment is a good way to get yourself into trouble.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2c42f2eb5810f7b396be829f8e997dfd",
"text": "\"Outside of broadly hedging interest rate risk as I mentioned in my other answer, there may be a way that you could do what you are asking more directly: You may be able to commit to purchasing a house/condo in a pre-construction phase, where your bank may be willing to lock in a mortgage for you at today's rates. The mortgage wouldn't actually be required until you take ownership from the builder, but the rates would be set in advance. Some caveats for this approach: (1) You would need to know the house/condo you want to move into in advance, and you would be committing to that move today. (2) The bank may not be willing to commit to rates that far in advance. (3) Construction would likely take far less than 5 years, unless you are buying a condo (which is the reason I mention condos specifically). (4) You are also committing to the price you are paying for your property. This hedges you somewhat against price fluctuation in your future area, but because you currently own property, you are already somewhat hedged against property price fluctuation, meaning this is taking on additional risk. The 'savings' associated with this plan as they relate to your original question (which are really just hedging against interest rate fluctuations) are far outweighed by the external pros and cons associated with buying property in advance like this. By that I mean - if it was something else you were already considering, this might be a (small) tick in the \"\"Pro\"\" column, but otherwise is far too committal / complex to be considered for interest rate hedging on its own.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1b64a9f85765c40910ce7fa1ede9fb4d",
"text": "The fact that you want to look for a home within the next 2 years (and the lack of 401(k) match) leads me to suggest saving for the house as top priority. A VA loan for that purchase. The VA loan has a very low up front fee, but a new home is always going to come with expenses that can add up. Better to have as much liquidity as you can. If you have a lot of cash after the move in and furnishings, it won't be tough to choose a high savings rate to jump start the retirement plan. Thank you for your service.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "932da761aed6d1f0a6fa2e8efc6af74f",
"text": "If you expect a significant increase in future income, then you should wait until that future income is assured, and then buy based on that decision. Buying more house than you can afford is what caused you to have to sell; you don't want to do that again. Instead of buying more house now, buy the right house for what you have now. Better yet, though, you might rent instead of buying until the future income comes onboard. Then you can get the best of both worlds - you get to buy the house you can afford in a year or two, but also don't overspend your income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ccbded8e947dc60198be6d55fec7d18c",
"text": "Let's look at some of your options: In a savings account, your $40,000 might be earning maybe 0.5%, if you are lucky. In a year, you'll have earned $200. On the plus side, you'll have your $40,000 easily accessible to you to pay for moving, closing costs on your new house, etc. If you apply it to your mortgage, you are effectively saving the interest on the amount for the life of the loan. Let's say that the interest rate on your mortgage is 4%. If you were staying in the house long-term, this interest would be compounded, but since you are only going to be there for 1 year, this move will save you $1600 in interest this year, which means that when you sell the house and pay off this mortgage, you'll have $1600 extra in your pocket. You said that you don't like to dabble in stocks. I wouldn't recommend investing in individual stocks anyway. A stock mutual fund, however, is a great option for investing, but only as a long-term investment. You should be able to beat your 4% mortgage, but only over the long term. If you want to have the $40,000 available to you in a year, don't invest in a mutual fund now. I would lean toward option #2, applying the money to the mortgage. However, there are some other considerations: Do you have any other debts, maybe a car loan, student loan, or a credit card balance? If so, I would forget everything else and put everything toward one or more of these loans first. Do you have an emergency fund in place, or is this $40,000 all of the cash that you have available to you? One rule of thumb is that you have 3 to 6 months of expenses set aside in a safe, easily accessible account ready to go if something comes up. Are you saving for retirement? If you don't already have retirement savings in place and are adding to it regularly, some of this cash would be a great start to a Roth IRA or something like that, invested in a stock mutual fund. If you are already debt free except for this mortgage, you might want to do some of each: Keep $10,000 in a savings account for an emergency fund (if you don't already have an emergency fund), put $5,000 in a Roth IRA (if you aren't already contributing a satisfactory amount to a retirement account), and apply the rest toward your mortgage.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4247fc4bd8436e1a1c0b69754b86c1ff",
"text": "One big factor that no one has mentioned yet is whether you believe in a deflationary or inflationary future. Right now, we are leaning towards a deflationary environment so it makes sense to pay off more of the debt. (If you make just one extra payment a year, you will have paid off your house 7 years early). However, should this change (depending on government and central bank policy) you may be better off putting down the very minimum. In a year or three from now, you should have a clearer picture. In the meanwhile, here is a recent Business Week article discussing both sides of the argument. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_28/b4186004424615.htm",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6feb68f1f4bf210fa3330896509742de",
"text": "So you wouldn't really be using the IRA money for building the house, but for padding your savings? I would just leave the money in the IRA. Don't take it out just in the off-chance you need it, especially when you already have money in savings. If you want to replenish your savings do it by putting some of your income in there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a343aab16364936d534a6a452b22d73d",
"text": "\"To buy a house, you need: At least 2 years tax returns (shows a steady income history; even if you're making 50k right now, you probably weren't when you were 16, and you might not be when you're 20; as they say, easy come, easy go). A 20% down payment. These days, that easily means writing a $50k check. You make $50k a year, great, but try this math: how long will it take you to save 100% of your annual salary? If you're saving 15% of your income (which puts you above many Americans), it'll still take 7 years. So no house for you for 7 years. While your attitude of \"\"I've got the money, so why not\"\" is certainly acceptable, the reality is that you don't have a lot of financial experience yet. There could easily be lean times ahead when you aren't making much (many people since 2008 have gone 18 months or more without any income at all). Save as much money as possible. Once you get $10k in a liquid savings account, speak to a CPA or an investment advisor at your local bank to set up tax deferred accounts such as an IRA. And don't wait to start investing; starting now versus waiting until you're 25 could mean a 100% difference in your net worth at any given time (that's not just a random number, either; an additional 7 years compounding time could literally mean another doubling of your worth).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a84b09627540269a6bcb47aed748f4c1",
"text": "If you are going to be buying a house in 1-2 years, I would be putting my money into a short term holding area like a high interest (which isn't that high right now) or a CD (also low interest) because of your near-term need. I wouldn't use the Roth option for your down payment money. If you invest in something volatile (and stocks/mutual funds are very volatile in a 1-2 year term) I would consider it too risky for your need and time frame.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2cd11f8d10fca96e0b515190f11ccc66",
"text": "I wouldn't go into a stock market related investment if you plan on buying a house in 4-5 years, you really need to tie money up in stocks for 10 years plus to be confident of a good return. Of course, you might do well in stocks over 4-5 years but historically it's unlikely. I'd look for a safe place to save some money for the deposit, the more deposit you can get the better as this will lower your loan to valuation (LTV) and therefore you may find you get a better interest rate for your mortgage. Regards the pension, are you paying the maximum you can into the company scheme? If not then top that up as much as you can, company schemes tend to be good as they have low charges, but check the documentation about that and make sure that is the case. Failing that stakeholder pension schemes can also have very low charges, have a look at what's available.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "233b45020f0ea89ffff605675dde4489",
"text": "You should evaluate where to put your money based on when you need-by-date is. If you need it in the next 5 years, I'd essentially keep it in cash or no-risk savings accounts/cds, money market accounts, etc. If you need it further than 5 years from now, invest for the future with some form of asset allocation that matches your risk tolerance. Research asset allocation and decide how to divide amongst different types of investments. **Retirement accounts have earnings requirements and maximum contribution limits.",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
eee6d0a838254387953ba6f3a67dad92
|
Deduct Health Care Premiums for Family When Employer Only Pays for Me
|
[
{
"docid": "3772f20a1d02c1a4ae8fc6aef9e9d331",
"text": "\"You can deduct what you pay for your own and your family's health insurance regardless of whether it is subsidized by your employer or not, as well as all other medical and dental expenses for your family, as an itemized deduction on Schedule A of Form 1040, but only to the extent that the total exceeds 7.5% of your Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) (10% on tax returns for year 2013 onwards). As pointed out in KeithB's comment, you cannot deduct any health insurance premium (or other medical expense) that was paid for out of pre-tax dollars, nor indeed can you deduct any medical expense to the extent that it was paid for by the insurance company directly to hospital or doctor (or reimbursed to you) for a covered expense; e.g. if the insurance company reimbursed you $72 for a claim for a doctor's visit for which you paid $100 to the doctor, only $28 goes on Schedule A to be added to the amount that you will be comparing to the 7.5% of AGI threshold, and the $72 is not income to you that needs to be reported on Form 1040. Depending on other items on Schedule A, your total itemized deductions might not exceed the standard deduction, in which case you will likely choose to use the standard deduction. In this case, you \"\"lose\"\" the deduction for medical expenses as well as all other expenses deductible on Schedule A. Summary of some of the discussions in the comments Health care insurance premiums cannot be paid for from HSA accounts (IRS Pub 969, page 8, column 2, near the bottom) though there are some exceptions. Nor can health care insurance premiums be paid from an FSA account (IRS Pub 969, page 17, column 1, near the top). If you have a business on the side and file a Schedule C as a self-employed person, you can buy medical insurance for that business's employees (and their families too, if you like) as an employment benefit, and pay for it out of the income of the Schedule C business, (thus saving on taxes). But be aware that if you have employees other than yourself in the side business, they would need to be covered by the same policy too. You can even decide to pay all medical expenses of your employees and their families too (no 7.5% limitation there!) as an employment benefit but again, you cannot discriminate against other employees (if any) of the Schedule C business in this matter. Of course, all this money that reduced your Schedule C income does not go on Schedule A at all. If your employer permits your family to be covered under its health insurance plan (for a cost, of course), check whether you are allowed to pay for the insurance with pre-tax dollars. The private (non-Schedule C) insurance would, of course, be paid for with post-tax dollars. I would doubt that you would be able to save enough money on taxes to make up the difference between $1330/month and $600/month, but it might also be that the private insurance policy covers a lot less than your employer's policy does. As a rule of thumb, group insurance through an employer can be expected to offer better coverage than privately purchased insurance. Whether the added coverage is worth the additional cost is a different matter. But while considering this matter, keep in mind that privately purchased insurance is not always guaranteed to be renewable, and a company might decline to renew a policy if there were a large number of claims. A replacement policy might not cover pre-existing conditions for some time (six months? a year?) or maybe even permanently. So, do consider these aspects as well. Of course, an employer can also change health insurance plans or drop them entirely as an employment benefit (or you might quit and go work for a different company), but as long as the employer's health plan is in existence, you (and continuing members of your family) cannot be discriminated against and denied coverage under the employer's plan.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "ae7be7cb6cef755a474a988aa6536040",
"text": "To fairly compare a comp-only job to a job that offers insurance, get a quote for health insurance. Call your local insurance broker and find out what it would cost. Because if you aren't getting insurance from your employer, you'll have to get it elsewhere. If you get a quote on an HSA, don't forget to add in the annual deductible as part of the cost. On the ESPP, I'd count it as zero. The rationale being that so much of your financial status is tied to your employer that you don't really want to tie up too much more in company stock. (I.e. Company hits hard times, stock tanks, and then they lay you off. Double whammy -- both your assets and income.) But given that I've only been employed by companies that no longer exist in their original form, my perspective may be warped.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e4599a364b5a530dbb6877e76d48ebad",
"text": "There is a dependent care spending account for child care related expenses. Also Medical and Dental expenses over a certain % of your income maybe deductible on your tax return.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "efc91fa5fa2d0c3bb4e72edc8b3cdb7b",
"text": "\"I don't think so. There is a provision in ObamaCare called \"\"community rating\"\" that applies starting in 2014. Insurance companies must place individual and small group plans into a pool of people from the same geographical region. The same plan must cost the same for all small businesses from the same region. So having employees who have high costs will not significantly affect the company's cost; it will get factored into the cost for all people in the area; but the effect gets averaged out over all businesses and individuals who have plans.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7109782443dbe86b480761ec2425af6a",
"text": "Gifts from your parents are not treated as income for tax purposes. You should not include that in your subsidy calculation. If you are here on a student-visa and have been in the US for less than 5 years, then you are considered a non-resident alien, and you are not required to buy a qualified plan through the insurance marketplace. You might be able to get a cheaper student plan through your school, but the subsidy might be enough that it's still worth it when calculated correctly. If you are a resident-alien or you are a citizen of the US, then you are required to get coverage, though you can choose not to purchase coverage and pay the tax for not having creditable coverage. That tax cannot be collected by the IRS unless you have already had federal tax withheld. They can only confiscate your tax return money to recoup that money. I don't have enough information to recommend one way or the other what you should do, but I would bet that if you recalculated your subsidy without including your parents income it would cover the majority of the cost. You should also consider applying for Medicaid if you meet the eligibility requirements in your state.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7aeccd8d70a17e60f0e13c3bd7c0bad7",
"text": "\"Yes, you can. See the instructions for line 29 of form 1040. Self employed health insurance premiums are an \"\"above the line\"\" deduction.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "257116992df00710237576f5bac1cec2",
"text": "In the US there's no significant difference between what a business can deduct and what an individual can deduct. However, you can only deduct what is an expense to produce income. Businesses are allowed to write off salaries, but individuals can't write off what they pay their gardener or maid (at least in the US) If you're a sole proprietor in the business of managing properties - you can definitely deduct payments to gardeners or maids. Business paying for a gardener on a private property not related to producing the income (like CEO's daughter's house) cannot deduct that expense for tax purposes (although it is still recorded in the business accounting books as an expense - with no tax benefit). Businesses are allowed to deduct utility expenses as overhead, individuals cannot Same thing exactly. I can deduct utility expenses for my rental property, but not for my primary residence. Food, shelter, clothing and medical care are fundamental human needs, but we still pay for them with after-tax money, and pay additional sales tax. Only interest (and not principal) on a mortgage is deductible in the US, which is great for people who take out mortgages (and helps banks get more business, I'm sure), but you're out of luck if you pay cash for your house, or are renting. Sales taxes are deductible. You can deduct sales taxes you paid during the year if you itemize your deduction. You can chose - you either deduct the sales taxes or the State income taxes, whatever is more beneficial for you. BTW in many states food and medicine are exempt from sales tax. Medical expenses are deductible if they're significant compared to your total income. You can deduct medical expenses in excess of 10% of your AGI. With the ACA kicking in - I don't see how would people even get to that. If your AGI is low you get subsidies for insurance, and the insurance keeps your expenses capped. For self-employed and employed, insurance premiums are pre-tax (i.e.: not even added to your AGI). Principle for mortgage is not deductible because it is not an expense - it is equity. You own an asset, don't you? You do get the standard deduction, even if your itemized (real) deductions are less - business don't get that. You also get an exemption amount (for your basic living needs), which businesses don't get. You can argue about the amounts - but it is there. In some States (like California) renters get tax breaks for renting, depending on the AGI. CA renters credit is phasing out at AGI of about $60K, which is pretty high.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bfa39c8c8683ef5bef804b060747d579",
"text": "Not optional, but I assumed the premise was that with out having to pay for health care corporations would pay more in wages. In the US that is never going to be true. In other words they would use the VAT and not having to pay for health care as an excuse to extract more profit. Employee wages wouldn't go up, corporate health care costs would go down, and the VAT would be passed on to the consumer through higher prices.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "18d1949aeb240a770a7997bd5a236671",
"text": "Essentially obamacare act is forcing me NOT to claim my sister as my dependent (although I provide > 51% for her). No, that's not what it's doing. It's forcing you (or her) to get insurance. So, as a big sister I can provide for her, but NOT claim her as my dependent. Do I understand everything correctly? The exemption (that gave you that $1K back) can only be claimed by you, she cannot claim it. So by not claiming her you're giving that up. Her medical bills will probably be on you as well, so it would be in your best interest to have her insured. If you want to dump her on the taxpayer in case of a medical emergency - then yes, it will cost you the tax benefit of the additional exemption and the HOH deduction (depending on your tax rates, probably a couple of thousands of dollars). Either way you'll pay.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af3b47ef376d979ba6ba6043644031e9",
"text": "The answer likely depends a bit on which state you are in, but this should be true for most states. I don't know anything about Pennsylvania specifically unfortunately. The Affordable Care Act created the SHOP marketplace, which allows small businesses to effectively form larger groups for group coverage purposes. SHOP stands for Small Business Health Options Program, and requires only one common-law employee on payroll. This would effectively allow you to offer group coverage without having a group. Talk to your tax accountant for more details, as this is still very new and not necessarily well understood. There are some other options, all of which I would highly suggest talking to a tax accountant about as well. HRAs (health reimbursement accounts) allow the employer to set aside pre-tax funds for the employee to use for approved medical expenses; they're often managed by a benefits company (say, Wageworks, Conexis, etc.). That would allow your employee to potentially pick a higher deductible health plan which offers poorer coverage on the individual marketplace (with after-tax dollars) and then supplement with your HRA. There are also the concept of Employer Payment Plans, where the employer reimburses the employee for their insurance premiums, but those are not compatible with the ACA for the most part - although there seems to be a lot of disagreement as to whether it's possible to have something effectively the same work, see for example this page versus this for example.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e1fe3430b8aac8f8a2d492cd2caaff94",
"text": "Basically a company who provides health insurance for their employees provides it as part of the employee's salary package. This is an expense by the company in its pursuit of making income. In general, tax deductions are available on any expense incurred in deriving income (the exception is when social policy allows deductions for other types of expenses). If you pay for your own health insurance individually, then this expense is not an expense for you to derive your income, and as such is not tax deductible.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b5bdf9d528d9d22037096d1248682550",
"text": "There is some magic involved in that calculation, because what health insurance is worth to you is not necessarily the same it is worth for the employer. Two examples that illustrate the extreme ends of the spectrum: let's say you or a family member have a chronic or a serious illness, especially if it is a preexisting condition - for instance, cancer. In that case, health insurance can be worth literally millions of dollars to you. Even if you are a diabetic, the value of health insurance can be substantial. Sometimes, it could even make financial sense in that case to accept a very low-paying job. On the other extreme of the scale, if you are very young and healthy, many people decide to forego insurance. In that case, the value of health insurance can be as little as the penalty (usually, 2% of your taxable income, I believe).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2aa22bb2d815f4191f5414beea421b7f",
"text": "I'm an independent tech contractor in Canada. The single payer health care makes it so much easier to be a contractor or to create a startup. I have to wonder if the lack of healthcare in the US is the result of businesses trying to retain white collar workers that would otherwise go independent. In this environment, it's little surprise that I prefer getting those big cheques over getting benefits. Usually the benefit packages are little more than dental, many of which only provide partial coverage.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a40f4301c1268c1484be0c6ea4f636b5",
"text": "You have to consider that taxes that you pay on the premiums is money definitely paid, while benefits being tax free won't save you a thing if you never receive the benefits.",
"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": "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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ccfe07b4b26e034377cae5d9c0ec4cb3
|
Live in California but work for Illinois-based company
|
[
{
"docid": "275036777972139623012c23df65cd37",
"text": "California and New York are very aggressive when it comes to revenue and taxes. As such, mere having an employee in these States creates a nexus and tax/filing liability for the company. @Adam Wood mentioned sales tax - that is correct. Having an employee in the State of California will require collecting sales tax for CA, and if until now your employer didn't have to - that would be a good enough reason to refuse your request. In addition to sales taxes, there's also the issue of corporate filings (they will now have to file paperwork in CA and pay CA franchise taxes just because of you) and payroll taxes (which are pretty high in CA and NY). It will also subject the to CA/NY/WA labor laws, which are more liberal than in most of the other States. Washington doesn't have personal income tax, but does have corporate income tax and sales tax, so I'm guessing the reasons to exclude this State are the same.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0493d4f827147a296d9f105fe8748726",
"text": "They might be concerned with having to charge sales tax in California if they have a single employee in California, creating a nexus situation with CA. If that's the case, or even if there is some other issue, you might be able to switch from being a W2 employee to being a 1099 independent contractor. There's a host of additional issues this could cause, but it alleviate the nexus problem (if THAT is the problem). Here's a terrible solution you can bring up, but shouldn't do under any circumstances: offer to set up a mailing address in an allowed State, and give your company plausible deniability with regards to your legal residence. Obviously, this is a terrible idea, but exploring that option with your employer would help you suss out what the actual objection is. Ultimately, anything said here about the reason is just conjecture. You need to talk to the decision maker(s) about the real reason behind the denial. Then you can talk through solutions. Also - don't forget that you can get another job. If you are serious about a future with your girlfriend, you should put that relationship ahead of your current employment comfort and security. If you are willing to walk away from your position, you are in a much better situation to negotiate.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "98e4a30799ac22fdf632c7ade120ac85",
"text": "\"The decision whether this test is or is not met seems to be highly dependent on the specific situation of the employer and the employee. I think that you won't find a lot of general references meeting your needs. There is such a thing as a \"\"private ruling letter,\"\" where individuals provide specific information about their situation and request the IRS to rule in advance on how the situation falls with respect to the tax law. I don't know a lot about that process or what you need to do to qualify to get a private ruling. I do know that anonymized versions of at least some of the rulings are published. You might look for such rulings that are close to your situation. I did a quick search and found two that are somewhat related: As regards your situation, my (non-expert) understanding is that you will not pass in this case unless either (a) the employer specifies that you must live on the West Coast or you'll be fired, (b) the employer would refuse to provide space for you if you moved to Boston (or another company location), or (c) you can show that you could not possibly do your job out of Boston. For (c), that might mean, for example, you need to make visits to client locations in SF on short-notice to meet business requirements. If you are only physically needed in SF occasionally and with \"\"reasonable\"\" notice, I don't think you could make it under (c), although if the employer doesn't want to pay travel costs, then you might still make it under (a) in this case.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cb48528bd684878c3b9cf10feec6c72a",
"text": "Depends. If Levandowski(the engineer who essentially went from Waymo to Uber) signed a non-compete and non-disclosure agreement before leaving, Google could sue Uber in tort for interfering with the contract. Don't know the specifics of the story, but it really comes down to whether or not he signed those two forms.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "be8d414a0fd1c029f1c9ad663a449c4d",
"text": "I do NOT know the full answer but I know here are some important factors that you need to consider : Do you have a physical location in the United States? Are you working directly from Canada? With a office/business location in the United States your tax obligation to the US is much higher. Most likely you will owe some to the state in which your business is located in Payroll Tax : your employer will likely want to look into Payroll tax, because in most states the payroll tax threshold is very low, they will need to file payroll tax on their full-time, part-time employees, as well as contractor soon as the total amount in a fiscal year exceeds the threshold Related to No.1 do you have a social security number and are you legally entitled to working in the States as an individual. You will be receiving the appropriate forms and tax withholding info Related to No.3 if you don't have that already, you may want to look into how to obtain permissions to conduct business within the United States. Technically, you are a one person consulting service provider. You may need to register with a particular state to obtain the permit. The agency will also be able to provide you with ample tax documentations. Chances are you will really need to piece together multiple information from various sources to resolve this one as the situation is specific. To start, look into consulting service / contractor work permit and tax info for the state your client is located in. Work from state level up to kick start your research then research federal level, which can be more complex as it is technically international business service for Canada-US",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2075892487a7c5ff672321994ff53eaf",
"text": "I don't see any Chicago comments, which seems weird as it has access to both Atlantic Ocean/east coast shipping via St lawrence seaway and the Gulf/south via the Mississippi. One of the largest airports in the world in O'hare (not to mention Midway). It's the economic hub of the midwest, Google already has a large operation here along with many other tech/industrial companies.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f3ffeb92660440c7b9af90daec97274b",
"text": "\"Oh I see, as a \"\"Chicagoan\"\"? Well I guess if you were from Detroit, Stockton, Mammoth Lakes, Jefferson County, Harrisburg, Central Falls, or Boise County you might understand why it might be necessary to force a government entity to actually back up their retirement plans with real investments.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8831f4e7c58254ff02b0311baf3833f4",
"text": "It's not so much about time but about intent. If your intent is to move there permanently, it would be when you arrive in the state for the purposes of living there (i.e. not from a while before that when you went to check a place out or for an interview). I believe that most (if not all) states expect you to get a Driver's License from that state within 30-days of moving there. Something like a Driver's License or State ID would be proof of your residency. These things vary greatly from state to state, so you'd have to research particular states. Or find someone who's done that already. A bit of searching, specifically for Texas, brought me to this forum thread: If you / he wish to establish residency here -- here being Texas -- get a Texas Driver's License and Voter Registration here. Government issued ID with a Texas address is pretty much bulletproof defense against being found to be a resident of elsewhere. Your battle, if there is one, will not be with Texas, but with your present home of record state and/or local government if there are income taxes associated with having been a resident there during the tax year. Which brings up the other question: You would need to make sure that California does not have some provision that would cause you issues. (This isn't so much a case of income from a company in the state as it about capital gains, but it is still prudent to check.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3ea78da0a95244e4bea035ad458a8bed",
"text": "\"If you \"\"do business\"\" in a state, then you need to register your business in that state. I suspect that you have a misconception of what it means to \"\"do business\"\" in a state. If you are a 1-man shop, then you very likely are not doing business in any state except the one state where you work. Examples of when you are doing business in a state include having an office in the state or having employees in the state. Merely selling something to a client in that state is NOT enough to be doing business in the state. Each state is different, but unless you are doing something that is, in some sense, close to having an office or an employee in a state, then you have nothing to worry about. For example, if you regularly travel to a state to do work for a client then it is possible that you could be doing business in that state (I have no idea if that would be sufficient in any state). But if you are just working out of your basement running a website, then you are only doing business in your own state.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c0cca1559fd31aa78b2978f8695784f5",
"text": "\"The problem with your math is that your assumptions are all sorts of fucked up. You have him living in a 700 sqft apartment in Sunnyvale but paying $1400 in Indianapolis (I live here). $1400 in Indy is enough to rent a 3 bedroom house, or a 3 bedroom luxury apartment downtown. And a front end dev isn't going to be making 70K in Indy with 5 years experience. That's the average of salaried employees in Indy, web developers make more, my friend's starting webdev job out of a no name local college here was 70K. With 5 years experience you can find a job paying a lot more than that. Your salary scale is automatically going to be skewed since tech pays more and a greater percentage of the population is going to be in tech in SF than Indy. The dude would probably be making more like 90k if he was competent. And paying $500 a month for a 700 sqft apartment. If he had some money for a down payment, for $1400 a month he could afford the mortgage of like a 300K house, and could actually be putting that money into an investment rather than sinking that money into rent. Good luck buying a house in SF for less than 1M. But for sport, let's assume he doesn't buy a home and is renting a small apartment. So he is now paying only $6000 a year for housing and is making 20K more than your estimate which after taxes is like what, at least 16K in take home money, plus the 11K he is paying less in rent than you assumed? So he is actually making 27K more than you are assuming in your math, and now instead of making 20K less a year than he would in SF, he is making 7K more. Again, if he was smart and bought a house, which isn't possible for 99% of people in SF, the monetary gain isn't even close. And don't get me started on the \"\"perks\"\" of California. People from Cali all seem to be under the assumption that things like nature, restaurants, and entertainment only exist in California.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1f7667a2760ae4f21cf8be02f371e524",
"text": "\"Its not for US citizens - its for US residents. If the US considers you as a tax resident - you'll be treated the same as a US citizen, regardless of your immigration status. The question is very unclear, since it is not mentioned whether your US sourced income \"\"from the Internet\"\" is sales in the US, sales on-line, services you provide, investments, or what else. All these are treated differently. For some kinds of US-sourced income you should have paid taxes in the US already, regardless of where you physically reside. For others - not. In any case, if you become US tax resident, you'll be taxed on your worldwide income, not only the $10K deposited in the US bank account. ALL of your income, everywhere in the world, must be declared to the US government and will be taxed. You should seek professional advice, before you move to the US, in order to understand your responsibilities, liabilities and rights. I suggest looking for a EA/CPA licensed in California and experienced with taxation of foreigners (look for someone in the SF or LA metropolitan areas). Keep in mind that there may be a tax treaty between the US and your home country that may affect your Federal (but not California) taxes.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eb268fbdc828960fb02208f639f08e2a",
"text": "\"Ed: Saw your comment, thank you. The short answer (a rough simplification), seems to be that you pay PA income tax for income made in PA. You pay IL income tax for income made in IL, not income made across both states. And you make sure the IL amount paid is correct via a credit calculated on Schedule CR. It looks to me (bear with me, I am no expert on tax law in IL, PA, or in general, so consult a professional for \"\"good\"\" advice :), like you basically do this on Schedule CR: It looks like there may be some more pertinent info on Publication 111, so that may potentially change the math a bit too. This check is 2014 income, during which you are a resident of IL. It's income from a PA employer. You must file a tax return in PA regardless, since you \"\"earned income in PA\"\". Did your former employer withhold PA income taxes on this particular paycheck? I'm not seeing where it says you should not include tax withheld; could you please point that out? Perhaps they mean you should only include tax actually considered \"\"due\"\" on the PA tax return. From IL's Schedule CR instructions: What is the purpose of Schedule CR? Schedule CR, Credit for Tax Paid to Other States, allows you to take a credit for income taxes you paid to other states on income you received while a resident of Illinois. You are allowed this credit only if you filed a required tax return with the other state. You must use information from the tax return you filed with the other state to complete Schedule CR. ... What taxes qualify for the credit? Taxes that qualify for the credit are income taxes you paid to another state of the United States,\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "36f6badea2305f3f99408c2f90a5e2b7",
"text": "Would that be the same retirement funding requirements that every business has to fulfill by law? Oh right, they should be free to completely screw their retirement programs like CalPers and Illinois by under investing and assuming they will get 8% returns every year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d961ced18eef4a17f9381e5c64a18b3",
"text": "And what's the cost-of-living in Silicon Valley? How long are the work-days, how abundant the vacation time? Most of the publicly-held companies there apparently have solid sources of revenue, but for all too many start-up companies, where's the value proposition? As I've learned from first-hand experience, a high salary isn't as great as it sounds in an expensive area to live, and Silicon Valley is up there with New York, Washington DC, and Boston for the *really* expensive areas of America. >“Companies like Color are being given a second, third, or fourth shot at the game because it’s a big game,” says Bill Nguyen, Color’s chief executive officer. “The prizes are pretty darn huge. There are fundamental changes happening in information because of Facebook and mobile devices.” HOW DOES THIS NOT SOUND LIKE A SPECULATIVE BUBBLE TO PEOPLE?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d9a780decda5c8e8bb9f5fa69add811c",
"text": "\"Even though you will meet the physical presence test, you cannot claim the FEIE because your tax home will remain the US. From the IRS: Your tax home is the general area of your main place of business, employment, or post of duty, regardless of where you maintain your family home. Your tax home is the place where you are permanently or indefinitely engaged to work as an employee or self-employed individual. Having a \"\"tax home\"\" in a given location does not necessarily mean that the given location is your residence or domicile for tax purposes. ... You are not considered to have a tax home in a foreign country for any period in which your abode is in the United States. However, your abode is not necessarily in the United States while you are temporarily in the United States. Your abode is also not necessarily in the United States merely because you maintain a dwelling in the United States, whether or not your spouse or dependents use the dwelling. ... The location of your tax home often depends on whether your assignment is temporary or indefinite. If you are temporarily absent from your tax home in the United States on business, you may be able to deduct your away from home expenses (for travel, meals, and lodging) but you would not qualify for the foreign earned income exclusion. If your new work assignment is for an indefinite period, your new place of employment becomes your tax home, and you would not be able to deduct any of the related expenses that you have in the general area of this new work assignment. If your new tax home is in a foreign country and you meet the other requirements, your earnings may qualify for the foreign earned income exclusion. If you expect your employment away from home in a single location to last, and it does last, for 1 year or less, it is temporary unless facts and circumstances indicate otherwise. If you expect it to last for more than 1 year, it is indefinite. If you expect your employment to last for 1 year or less, but at some later date you expect it to last longer than 1 year, it is temporary (in the absence of facts and circumstances indicating otherwise) until your expectation changes. For guidance on how to determine your tax home refer to Revenue Ruling 93-86. Your main place of business is in the US and this will not change, because your business isn't relocating. If you are intending to work remotely while you are abroad, you should get educated on the relevant laws on where you are going. Most countries don't take kindly to unauthorized work being performed by foreign visitors. And yes, even though you aren't generating income or involving anyone in their country, the authorities still well may disapprove of your working. My answer to a very similar question on Expatriates.\"",
"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": "f8bf77ba73ff0544fb4f39bcf56d8226",
"text": "\"Designed by Apple in California, manufactured in China. At this point in time Apple has more employees in the US than in the past. They never really moved jobs overseas, mostly they just spun up work overseas because that's where all of the components of the supply chain were. When you say \"\"hey... I want to start cranking out devices. I need to know how fast you can turn if there's a design change late in the pre-production stage\"\" and the best answers you get are from makers in China, that's where your work goes.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
dfcaf6db052add32acaaaf4100de298d
|
Sleazy Bait and Switch Marketing — Is this legal?
|
[
{
"docid": "c03c89b9c8a7b1f7dc27747751e1c316",
"text": "\"This is completely disgusting, utterly unethical, deeply objectionable, and yes, it is almost certainly illegal. The Federal Trade Commission has indeed filed suit, halted ads, etc in a number of cases - but these likely only represent a tiny percentage of all cases. This doesn't make what the car dealer's do ok, but don't expect the SWAT team to bust some heads any time soon - which is kind of sad, but let's deal with the details. Let's see what the Federal Trade Commission has to say in their article, Are Car Ads Taking You for a Ride? Deceptive Car Ads Here are some claims that may be deceptive — and why: Vehicles are available at a specific low price or for a specific discount What may be missing: The low price is after a downpayment, often thousands of dollars, plus other fees, like taxes, licensing and document fees, on approved credit. Other pitches: The discount is only for a pricey, fully-loaded model; or the reduced price or discount offered might depend on qualifications like the buyer being a recent college graduate or having an account at a particular bank. “Only $99/Month” What may be missing: The advertised payments are temporary “teaser” payments. Payments for the rest of the loan term are much higher. A variation on this pitch: You will owe a balloon payment — usually thousands of dollars — at the end of the term. So both of these are what the FTC explicitly says are deceptive practices. Has the FTC taken action in cases similar to this? Yes, they have: “If auto dealers make advertising claims in headlines, they can’t take them away in fine print,” said Jessica Rich, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “These actions show there is a financial cost for violating FTC orders.” In the case referenced above, the owners of a 20+ dealership chain was hit with about $250,000 in fines. If you think that's a tiny portion of the unethical gains they made from those ads in the time they were running, I'd say you were absolutely correct and that's little more than a \"\"cost of doing business\"\" for unscrupulous companies. But that's the state of the US nation at this time, and so we are left with \"\"caveat emptor\"\" as a guiding principle. What can you do about it? Competitors are technically allowed to file suit for deceptive business practices, so if you know any honest dealers in the area you can tip them off about it (try saying that out loud with a serious face). But even better, you can contact the FTC and file a formal complaint online. I wouldn't expect the world to change for your complaint, but even if it just generates a letter it may be enough to let a company know someone is watching - and if they are a big business, they might actually get into a little bit of trouble.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "49be8a82d19df5fa7b139fed606d7d12",
"text": "But.. what I really want to know.... is it illegal, particularly the clause REQUIRING a trade in to qualify for the advertised price? The price is always net of all the parts of the deal. As an example they gave the price if you have $4000 trade in. If you have no trade in, or a trade in worth less than 4K, your final price for the new car will be more. Of course how do you know that the trade in value they are giving you is fair. It could be worth 6K but they are only giving you a credit of 4K. If you are going to trade in a vehicle while buying another vehicle the trade in should be a separate transaction. I always get a price quote for selling the old car before visiting the new car dealer. I do that to have a price point that I can judge while the pressure is on at the dealership.. Buying a car is a complex deal. The price, interest rate, length of loan, and the value of the trade in are all moving parts. It is even more complex if a lease is involved. They want to adjust the parts to be the highest profit that you are willing to agree to, while you think that you are getting a good deal. This is the fine print: All advertised amounts include all Hyundai incentives/rebates, dealer discounts and $2500 additional down from your trade in value. +0% APR for 72 months on select models subject to credit approval through HMF. *No payments or 90 days subject to credit approval. Value will be added to end of loan balance. 15MY Sonata - Price excludes tax, title, license, doc, and dealer fees. MSRP $22085- $2036 Dealer Discount - $500 HMA Lease Cash - $500 HMA Value Owner Coupon - $1000 HMA Retail Bonus Cash - $500 HMA Military Rebate - $500 HMA Competitive Owner Coupon - $400 HMA College Grad Rebate - $500 HMA Boost Program - $4000 Trade Allowance = Net Price $12149. On approved credit. Certain qualifications apply to each rebate. See dealer for details. Payment is 36 month lease with $0 due at signing. No security deposit required. All payment and prices include HMA College Grad Rebate, HMA Military Rebate, HMA Competitive Owner Coupon and HMA Valued Owner Coupon. Must be active military or spouse of same to qualify for HMA Military Rebate. Must graduate college in the next 6 months or within the last 2 years to qualify for HMA College Grad rebate. Must own currently registered Hyundai to qualify for HMA Valued Owner Coupon. Must own qualifying competitive vehicle to qualify for HMA Competitive Owner Coupon.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "41a06545fc835b047c6d7573dbab219c",
"text": "\"So this situation is fraud. -SumGuy: \"\"Hey Mr. Target employee can I use this to buy this.\"\" -Employee: \"\"Abso-fucking-lutely Sir\"\". The responsibility lies on the store, not the customer in this situation. Terms of service on things like coupons are not LAWS, they are terms a company is telling you they will accept. For this Company to then accept it makes these people a few bucks richer, not criminals. The customers did not lie or hide what they where doing, and the company accepted it. Good on em I say.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6a0e8e267b9c2143c32fe1e2acdd31f2",
"text": "\"The fact that some women have taken their companies for a ride does not negate the existence of [Title VII protections](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Title_VII). Downvote me all you want, but this is *the law*. The practices being described in the article are illegal, as observed by the researchers themselves (who, it's worth noting, are a *law firm*), and expose the involved companies to lawsuits that would cause more financial blowback than making the \"\"riskier\"\" hires in the first place.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c6ac86020d15d666cc27cbc7d3b81585",
"text": "They do state that but it may not mean much. I just read an article where the former NJ attorney general warns that a legal contract like this would trump a statement from the marketing department saying the clause does not apply. The article was on Bloomberg, I'd cite it if I wasn't too lazy right now.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7db30e24a29a16d5db83326ad46706c7",
"text": "\"Even less reason for influencers to tag it then? The way it works for us is our PR company pretty much gives us a list of their affiliate \"\"Key Opinion Leaders\"\" (KOL) with all of their rates. We then choose a couple after looking at their pages. PR firm sends out product samples then lets us know when the post is up. PR firm pays KOL, we pay PR firm. So for this to come up as \"\"advertised\"\" on insta, my understanding from the above thread is that the KOL needs to tag it. However as the client we would absolutely not want \"\"Paid\"\" or \"\"Sponsored\"\" to show up if we can help it, it destroys the illusion. Last thing I will note is what /u/pwnicholson posted about regarding FTC rules. That is fine if you need to tag it for regulatory reasons. We don't in Aus, so it won't happen. In saying that, the data looks juicy so we'd probably do it here and there to see the numbers, but otherwise the 'illusion' is very important imo.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "77136663cc4ce4e7c30857923a4f5747",
"text": "Before I answer, you should know a few things about me. I've paid to get into a couple of Network-Marketing/Multi-Level-Marketing franchises, and I made a little money in it. I have worked in financial services sales. I later went on to get my Masters in Business Administration. I've been there, and I know MLMs and Business in theory and practice. There's room for some nuance here, but for the most part: Don't do it! There's no snake oil out there that people can't get on their own. If you can sell it to them, then here's the simple case against it: if you're a good enough salesman to get other people to buy products or franchises from you (and really, you don't care about product sales, you care about franchise sales, because that's how they sold it to you, right?) you can make far more money selling business to business. If you're a good enough sales manager that you can get good salespeople to buy franchises from you and sell more franchises, you'll make far more money managing salespeople selling business to business. For the most part, people aren't good at sales, and that likely includes you. Most MLM's are sales groups with bad salespeople leading bad salespeople. It's the blind leading the blind. And as your friends get burned, and your family gets burned, and you start losing everyone who got burned, you'll start to wish you had never done this stuff in the first place. The main reason the above holds true is that the people involved in MLM don't really create any value. They're looking to get a free ride on everyone else in the pyramid beneath them. There are exceptions, the main ones that come to mind are like Mary Kay, where, ok, mostly women, makeup artists teach women how to apply makeup without looking like a clown, and it's a skill, and it's part of how they create value. And it may well be the best option for someone whose chosen career is a makeup artist. I'm not particularly an exception, but at the age of 17, I sold books door-to-door in Southern Mississippi, mostly to teach myself how to talk to people, since I had grown up with my nose in a book. It turned out that the business was structured like a MLM to encourage the salespeople to become managers, but I had no interest in that, I just wanted to learn people skills. I also blew a couple hundred bucks on franchise fees on other MLMs, mostly because friends were in it - never did I see that money ever again. Sales is hard work. Teaching people how to sell is even harder, and impossible if you don't know how. If you're good at it, you'll do so much better in a business to business setting. Think about the economics of it. Salespeople get paid on volume of sales. Businesses have a lot more money than consumers. You have to sell to an awful lot more consumers than businesses to make the same amount of money. Think about competition, too. Considering Amway? You're competing with everyone from Walmart to the corner convenience store, and you will be asking everyone and their brother to join up. And many of them have already been pitched it, if they've been around long enough. The bargaining strength of your customers (they have lots of alternatives) and suppliers (their over-priced pricing structure is set in stone) is pretty strong. You have immense direct competition and product substitutes, and anyone else can go into the same business as you. Your competitive position is extremely weak. It's almost guaranteed to fail. You probably don't have the skills, you'll burn your relationships, and you'll make more money doing almost anything else.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dbb366333dff9b93b005f8c8ed0d9ac7",
"text": "Note that in the UK at least this scam - not so dissimilar from what you propose - seems be perfectly legal behaviour: Evidence to date is that both of you can expect to walk away without much consequence.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "28ac9750fbe2ced1cbb41ddf2bd17d70",
"text": "it is legal. In fact part of the service is provided by Google that displays the notifications. It's only available on Android which is approx 85% of the market share. It's not targeted advertising using an email address, telephone number, etc. The users smartphone scans for the signal. The user can dismiss a notification and turn the feature off and they opt in to the service during install/update of their OS",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "50affc8a60ecd2bea2f5508658e5f3b4",
"text": "\"Actually there is no law that makes insider trading illegal, except for actual company insiders (people working at the company). Insider trading as you describe is just a court precedent set in the 80s (I think it was the 80s) and it's based on the concept of \"\"fraud\"\", whereby you are misappropriating information that you should not have. So no, insider trading isn't \"\"illegal\"\" in that sense, and the jury is out as to whether it's even bad or not for the markets. That doesn't mean I would recommend doing it or really anything even closely resembling it, since they're pretty aggressive about pursuing those cases.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "909909d1f435026e62d05aafa79a7e6b",
"text": "This just happened to me to! At target. I have no idea if its a scam but that is the same thing i am thinking. They Lady who told me about it didn't tell me anything about her business. Just to go to the link....which isn't working. Idk its feels pretty shady. She did everything you said above.",
"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": ""
},
{
"docid": "63cb75611375746f06571c1a15539d58",
"text": "\"I can't give you proper legal advice, but if I called their customer service and used half an hour of my time to wait and explain the situation in detail, and their official response was \"\"just use the points,\"\" I would do just that. Of course you would have stronger legal standing if you had recorded their answer, or had it in writing from them. But I don't think spending these points will come crashing down on you. And morally I see absolutely no problem with spending these points; it is not as if you are stealing from someone else. These points can usually be given away in any kind of crazy manner. Sometimes there are lotteries or events where they give away 100,000 points for new customers who open up an account on a specific weekend. Sometimes they give points to customers who want to terminate their contracts as an attempt to coax them into staying. They have given you a lot of points and don't really care. As a result you are probably staying their customer forever – and will most likely tell this story to many friends. This is free advertising for them. Heck, maybe they would even make a news story out of this some day, it could be good publicity. Everyone is essentially getting these points \"\"for free\"\" but in fact the company has a business case by improving their image and customer retention with these points. So you can spend these points with a sound mind morally. Legally you would have to contact a lawyer, but I think chances for legal repercussions are small if you have done your duty, informed them and their customer service basically said it's ok.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1d57699b2f4dd3ddec27b09863aae0e",
"text": "\"How were these customers \"\"cheating\"\"? It doesn't sound like they were hiding *anything* from Target. It sounds like they made these purchases through the regular channels and Target employees said that what they were doing was OK, so they kept doing it. That's not cheating, that's taking advantage of a generous offer.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6f74e06785dd589d7d2e3505795b36bf",
"text": "\"It's definitely annoying, but it's not necessarily false advertising. There is no rule or law that says they have to fix a pricing error at all, let alone within a certain period of time. Unfortunately they have no obligation to do business with you unless they take (and keep) your money. If they canceled the order and returned your money you have no binding agreement with them. On top of that, in the US... 'misleading advertising' usually refers to \"\"Any advertising or promotion that misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities or geographic origin of goods, services or commercial activities\"\" (Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1125(a)). The main criteria that they evaluate before taking legal action is whether or not someone has suffered harm or loss due to the reliance on the bad information. But you're in Europe. The EU ideas behind misleading advertising tend to focus a lot more on comparing one product to someone else's and making subjective claims or false promises. Pricing does come up, but still, you need to have an ability to prove that you suffered harm or a loss from the business' actions. Even if you were able to prove that, to force the business to change its price catalog, you would need to go through legal proceedings, demonstrate the harm that you've sustained, and then have a judge decide in your favor and order the supplier to comply. My guess is that it's just not worth it for you, but you haven't specified if this is just an annoying shoe-shopping experience or if you are regularly experiencing bait-and-switch tactics from a supplier that is a crucial part of a business operation. If it's the former, just like a physical shop reserves the right to kick you out if you're not behaving, (but usually doesn't because they'd like to keep you as a customer), an online shop can update its prices whenever they like. They can change their prices too, and cancel orders. If it's the latter, then start putting together some documentation on how many times this has happened and how it has damaged your business. But before you get on the warpath I would recommend you look for another place to buy whatever you have in mind, or else try a pound of sugar in your approach to this supplier... My own business experience has shown that can go a lot way in figuring out a mutually beneficial resolution. If you want to see a bit more... Here is the EU Justice Commission's website on false advertising, Here is a PDF leaflet from the UK Office of Fair Trading that spells out what is explicitly not allowed from a business by way of advertising & business practices.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e00415f5ff94621197e5f22dbca4dde",
"text": "To be flippant: it is illegal because it is against the law; there is no considered involved, it just is. To elaborate, part of the illusion of the stock exchange and other market-like entities is that of (apparent) fairness. If I think a stock will go up because it is involved in a growing industry, that is generally public information. Conversely if I have a dim view of a particular company because of its track record of product launches, that is similarly out in the open. A secret formula is something that I invented or discovered, not (presumably) something that I stole from someone else. To stretch that further: If I notice that Company X stock always moves with Company Y stock, that is indeed something that I have found, that I can try to profit from. It is secret to me, but not particularly dependent upon information not available to others, just that my interpretation is better. So trading on information in the public domain is fine, as it preserves the principal of fairness I mentioned, whereas inside knowledge breaks that principal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "36f55d846fa130fc88774c30c92e1814",
"text": "Yes it would be colluding. Most countries have well defined laws to prevent companies including banks from indulging in such activities.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
37871a4ef0e1e688901ef77c7c4e3533
|
Why small retail stores ask for ID with a credit card while big don't
|
[
{
"docid": "da786484da35c61111564223a3e58038",
"text": "Because large stores do not pay their cashiers enough that the companies can dock the employees' pay if they allow a bad credit card to go through. So most cashiers at large stores won't take the extra effort to check the card properly. As a result, large stores come up with other ways to handle potential credit card fraud. For example, they calculate a certain amount of fraud as expected and include it in their price calculations. Or they can use cameras to catch fraudsters. At small stores, there is a much higher chance that the cashier is either the owner or a relative of the owner. And even those who are unrelated tend to be hired by the owner directly. The owners do have their pay docked if a bad credit card is accepted, as their pay is the profit from the business. So they tend to create protocols that, at least in their mind, reduce the chance of taking a bad credit card. The cashier is often the only employee in the store to check anything. Another issue is that small stores have a harder time getting approved to accept credit cards. The companies that process the credit cards can take back their machine if there is a lot of fraud. So the companies can require more from small stores than they can from big stores. Those companies can't stop processing cards for Safeway, because they need Safeway as much if not more than Safeway needs them. So the processors have more leverage to make small stores do what they want. And small stores can feasibly fire (non-owner) cashiers who do not comply. Owners of course can't be fired. But they are far more vulnerable to business losses. So it is really important to an owner to keep the credit card machine. And it is pretty important to avoid losses, as it is their money directly. Relatives of owners may be safe from firing, but they are not safe from family retaliation like taking away television privileges. And they may also think of the effect of business losses on the family. Large stores can fire cashiers, but they are chronically understaffed and almost none of their cashiers will consistently follow a strict protocol. Since fraudsters only need to succeed once, an inconsistent application is almost as bad as no application. They might charge the cashiers for fraud, but then they would have to pay the cashiers more than minimum wage specifically for that reason (e.g. a $50 a month bonus for no fraud). For many of them, it's cheaper to risk the fraud. And large stores can't mix owners and relatives of owners into the mix. It's hard to say who owns Safeway. And even if you could, the relationship between one fraud transaction and the dividend paid on one share of stock is tiny. It would take thousands of shares to get up to a penny.",
"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": "fe200868faf55dc6ca45e31c8426e5a3",
"text": "Competition, or actually lack of competition, mostly due to a demand curve that has minimal change due to price. You would buy the equivalent, cheaper option if it was available, but the store has little interest in offering multiple, competing options that would drive their same store revenue down. And the competing stores (Grocery, Department, Drug, Card) have similar overhead costs (floor space, lights, personnel). Most carry the cards for incremental revenue, and observe little advantage to lower price for a card (customers seldom buy more cards due to a lower price). Thus they mark the price to what (most) customers are willing to pay. You may choose to shop the various stores and find the one that has a (slightly) better pricing for cards, and then stop at that store when you want to buy a card. But many cards are sold as an incremental purchase as part of a larger shopping trip (convenience), as the customer combines trips (reduce the time spent shopping, albeit not reducing the money spent).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d8ece65eb6ec4ccdf42ad3ecc6bfaf9a",
"text": "Merchants are only supposed to verify the presence of a signature, which signifies that the card owner has accepted the terms and conditions of the card / account. It was never really intended to be used to authenticate the card holder, nor is it used as such in practice.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5f47a81ac4e95a651ae91ff4749699af",
"text": "\"As others have stated, credit (signature required) is processed through their respective networks (Visa, MasterCard, Discover, or American Express). A \"\"debit\"\" card tied to your checking account, still go through the same credit network even though the funds are guaranteed from your checking rather than a free loan 30-60 days which has the potential to be unpaid. This type of debit card purchase may be eligible for a lower processing rate for less risk. Debit cards can also be processed through the debit network (PIN required, no signature). This is typically a straight fee such as $0.35. Fees vary, but let me give you a simple comparison: Say you are at the supermarket and buy $50 worth of groceries with a debit card with Visa logo. You are asked \"\"credit\"\" or \"\"debit\"\": At my supermarket, this is why I am given the option to enter my PIN first. If I want to pay by credit, I have to tap Cancel to process via credit signature.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "123c5d8da7e052d5b03841cd5706169a",
"text": "Cash-back also lets the store turn hard currency into an electronic transfer or check, which reduces the hassle/risk of hauling bagfulls of cash to the bank. (The smaller stores I've spoken to have called this out as a major advantage of plastic over either cash or checks. I'm assuming that the problem scales with number and size of transactions.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "85667121b3846596f582b1f99bfb2b23",
"text": "\"At least in the US, one reason could be the \"\"liability shift\"\" that encourages adoption of chipped and contactless cards by shifting the fraud liability to the party that caused the transaction to not use chip-and-PIN / contactless payment: either the merchant (by not having a new compatible terminal) or the card issuer (by not providing the customer with a compatible card). This means the issuers will try to replace old, magnetic-only cards as soon as possible once adoption of the liability shift is certain. http://usa.visa.com/download/merchants/bulletin-us-participation-liability-shift-080911.pdf\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d18beb46cb0338a631f4fa4b4b77fcea",
"text": "My understanding it that the signature requirement is at the retailer's discretion. If the merchant decides to require a signature it protects them against fraudulent charge-back claims, but increases their administrative costs. In some situations it just isn't practical for a retailer to require a signature. Consider for example mail-order or online purchases, which I've never had to sign a credit card slip for.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9ad235adbc365a7f267a915eb6b63ab2",
"text": "Per their merchant agreements, Visa and MasterCard say that the signature on the back of the card is the proper way to identify the card holder. If a card is not signed, the merchant is supposed to check your ID and make you sign the card before accepting it for payment. Merchants are not allowed the require an ID for paying with a signed card. Of course, store employees rarely know all these things. Some will gladly accept an unsigned card. Some will try to make you show your ID.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f5448df867f20d94ca3c0328499f8d2",
"text": "In the United States there are 3 main types of cards. There are organizations that push a credit card with their branding. They aren't a bank so they partner with a bank to offer the card. In the US many colleges and professional sports teams will market a credit card with the team or universities colors and logo. The bank handles the details and the team/university gets a flat fee or a portion of the fees. Many even have annual fees. They market to people who want to show their favorite team colors on their credit card, and are willing to pay extra. Some of these branded cards do come with extra perks: Free shipping, discounts on tickets, being able to buy tickets earlier. There are 4 other types of cards that have limited usage: What makes it confusing is that large business can actually turn a portion of the corporation into a bank. Walmart has been doing this, and so have casinos.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "56e3871e37ab13e6f1243588f2f7f8be",
"text": "Back when they started, Discover undercut Visa and Amex fees by about a point. This was also true when I worked for a mail-order computer retailer in the '90s: if a customer asked us which credit cards we took, we were told to list Discover first (and AmEx last) because Discover had the lowest merchant charges. Possibly this is no longer true today, but for quite a while it was a significant selling point of the Discover card to merchants, and a reason why many did sign on. (A reason some stores did not sign on was that Discover was owned by Sears, and many businesses that competed with Sears didn't like the idea of sending any of their profits to the competition.) Today, Discover also owns Diners Club and the fees for those cards are higher.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "afad993777d3ac29eaac2caca85e5dbc",
"text": "The funny thing is that mom & pop type establishments usually prefer cash due to the merchant charges they have to pay to the credit card companies. Some of these are percentage-based & others are fixed like a per-transaction charge. In the long run, accepting 10k USD wouldn't be enough. They would lose more than that in people who don't have a card on them vs accepting both cash and cards.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "58798764a5f701a63768787f72841c06",
"text": "Chip and Pin cards are popular in Europe, however in the US we don't have them. Visa/MC and Amex can issue chip and pin cards but no merchants or machines are set up here to take them. Only certain countries in Europe use them and since you could possibly have a US visitor or a non-chip and pin person using your machine or eating at your restaurant they usually allow you to sign or just omit the pin if the card doesn't have a chip. It is definitely less secure, but the entire credit card industry in the US is running right now without it, so I don't think the major credit card companies care too much (they just pass the fraud on to the merchants anyway).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd86c575bf2a438ab2443e2b0eaf8ea1",
"text": "So my wife was at work today and got yelled at by both a cop and her managers for simply LOOKING at the card. I don't understand I also work in retail and of course I must see the card to ensure it is a real card, it is a very strict policy that we must have a valid physical card to run any credit/debit transactions. People put skimmers everywhere you use your card and can pick up the info off the strip and put it onto another card and use it without you noticing right away. With the right equipment they can put their name on it or the name on their fake I.d. so the only red flag would be them trying to use several different cards",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc736a0253f9ea442158e48f5bc98ccb",
"text": "\"I thought I'd see if the credit card companies had anything to say about this while trying to get merchants to sign up. I went to visa.com, clicked \"\"Run Your Business\"\" in the top nav, then \"\"Accept Visa Payments\"\". This page has a \"\"More benefits of accepting Visa\"\" link with an overlay (which I can't easily link directly to), which includes these lines: While the average cash transaction is $17, credit card purchases average $70 while debit card purchases average $36.² ² Visa Payment Panel Study (2Q11 to 1Q12 time period); Visa MARS Data: March 2015 – May 2015 That obviously doesn't tell the entire story (I suspect people are more likely to pull out cash when they're just buying a stick of gum, and more more likely to pull out a card when they're buying large electronics), but certainly there is some evidence from the credit card companies themselves that people spend more when using cards, which is one of the aspects they use to convince merchants to accept cards. I think the best evidence that people spend more is that more and more merchants accept cards. Accepting cards comes with some significant costs (though it's important to keep in mind that accepting cash can come with some significant costs as well). I suspect that merchants wouldn't do so unless the increased sales that they get for accepting cards makes up for the fees that they need to pay and the equipment they need to buy to accept them (not to mention the risks of chargebacks and the like).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b7f05c59befb3907f059b801dc96e45b",
"text": "I'm surprised by all the pro-credit answers here, debit has some definite advantages. Most importantly, when you pay with a credit card, the merchant pays around 3% of the transaction to the credit company. In many states, they are forced to charge you the same amount, and this is frequently toted as ''consumer protection''. But consider what this means for the business: they loose money for every credit transaction, and they're legally forbidden to do anything about it. So you're taking 3% from a business and handing it over to a massive cooperation. To make matters worse, the buisness is inevitably going to have to raise their prices (albiet by a small amount), so in the end the average consumer has gained nothing. On the other hand, the credit card company wins big, and they use their profits to pay lobbyists and lawyers to keep these rules in place. To put in the worst possible light, it's essentially legal extortion, verging on corruption. As for the fraud protection offered, while it may be true that credit cards will offer a more hassle-free reimbursement (i.e. you just don't have to pay the bill) if your card is stolen, consumer protection laws also extend to debit: in many cases your bank is legally required to cut you a check for all the money you lost.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b2b90d6c9662e5c131d48ac4f2501de",
"text": "\"For the first part of your question; Refer to related question Why do some online stores not ask for the 3-digit code on the back of my credit card? The other case of Airport ticket machines, requires the physical presence of card. The assumption is that if you had the card before and after the transaction, it was you who used it for transaction. As the amounts are small its really easy by anyone [merchant, Banks] to write this off. The only way to misuse would be if you lost the card and someone used it. Also these ticket machines would have built in feature where by you cannot buy more than \"\"X\"\" tickets for the day. Ensuring max loss on a stolen card is limited to a small amount.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
5da9903b3e54d09992c2f02f55c03f12
|
What is the difference between hedging and diversification? How does each reduce risk?
|
[
{
"docid": "2eb5c9d745da2fe15810ffd0b2fd4451",
"text": "Hedging - You have an investment and are worried that the price might drop in the near future. You don't want to sell as this will realise a capital gain for which you may have to pay capital gains tax. So instead you make an investment in another instrument (sometimes called insurance) to offset falls in your investment. An example may be that you own shares in XYZ. You feel the price has risen sharply over the last month and is due for a steep fall. So you buy some put option over XYZ. You pay a small premium and if the price of XYZ falls you will lose money on the shares but will make money on the put option, thus limiting your losses. If the price continues to go up you will only lose the premium you paid for the option (very similar to an insurance policy). Diversification - This is when you may have say $100,000 to invest and spread your investments over a portfolio of shares, some units in a property fund and some bonds. So you are spreading your risks and returns over a range of products. The idea is if one stock or one sector goes down, you will not lose a large portion of your investment, as it is unlikely that all the different sectors will all go down at the same time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e9479291259074533e355387dc6805eb",
"text": "\"The difference is in the interrelation between the varied investments you make. Hedging is about specifically offsetting a possible loss in an investment by making another related investment that will increase in value for the same reasons that the original investment would lose value. Gold, for instance, is often regarded as the ultimate hedge. Its value is typically inversely correlated to the rest of the market as a whole, because its status as a material, durable store of value makes it a preferred \"\"safe haven\"\" to move money into in times of economic downturn, when stock prices, bond yields and similar investments are losing value. That specific behavior makes investing in gold alongside stocks and bonds a \"\"hedge\"\"; the increase in value of gold as stock prices and bond yields fall limits losses in those other areas. Investment of cash in gold is also specifically a hedge against currency inflation; paper money, account balances, and even debt instruments like bonds and CDs can lose real value over time in a \"\"hot\"\" economy where there's more money than things to buy with it. By keeping a store of value in something other than currency, the price of that good will rise as the currencies used to buy it decrease in real value, maintaining your level of real wealth. Other hedges are more localized. One might, for example, trade oil futures as a hedge on a position in transportation stocks; when oil prices rise, trucking and airline companies suffer in the short term as their margins get squeezed due to fuel costs. Currency futures are another popular hedge; a company in international business will often trade options on the currencies of the companies it does business in, to limit the \"\"jitters\"\" seen in the FOREX spot market caused by speculation and other transient changes in market demand. Diversification, by contrast, is about choosing multiple unrelated investments, the idea being to limit losses due to a localized change in the market. Companies' stocks gain and lose value every day, and those companies can also go out of business without bringing the entire economy to its knees. By spreading your wealth among investments in multiple industries and companies of various sizes and global locations, you insulate yourself against the risk that any one of them will fail. If, tomorrow, Kroger grocery stores went bankrupt and shuttered all its stores, people in the regions it serves might be inconvenienced, but the market as a whole will move on. You, however, would have lost everything if you'd bet your retirement on that one stock. Nobody does that in the real world; instead, you put some of your money in Kroger, some in Microsoft, some in Home Depot, some in ALCOA, some in PG&E, etc etc. By investing in stocks that would be more or less unaffected by a downturn in another, if Kroger went bankrupt tomorrow you would still have, say, 95% of your investment next egg still alive, well and continuing to pay you dividends. The flip side is that if tomorrow, Kroger announced an exclusive deal with the Girl Scouts to sell their cookies, making them the only place in the country you can get them, you would miss out on the full possible amount of gains you'd get from the price spike if you had bet everything on Kroger. Hindsight's always 20/20; I could have spent some beer money to buy Bitcoins when they were changing hands for pennies apiece, and I'd be a multi-millionaire right now. You can't think that way when investing, because it's \"\"survivor bias\"\"; you see the successes topping the index charts, not the failures. You could just as easily have invested in any of the hundreds of Internet startups that don't last a year.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "82e1f714bcf875df2343789d9907506a",
"text": "\"I think you're confusing risk analysis (that is what you quoted as \"\"Taleb Distribution\"\") with arguments against taking risks altogether. You need to understand that not taking a risk - is by itself a risk. You can lose money by not investing it, because of the very same Taleb Distribution: an unpredictable catastrophic event. Take an example of keeping cash in your house and not investing it anywhere. In the 1998 default of the Russian Federation, people lost money by not investing it. Why? Because had they invested the money - they would have the investments/properties, but since they only had cash - it became worthless overnight. There's no argument for or against investing on its own. The arguments are always related to the investment goals and the risk analysis. You're looking for something that doesn't exist.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2fca1facc06f3225c3ebc700424e3432",
"text": "Colloquially, there's no difference except for the level of risk (which is an estimate anyway). Classically, investment is creating wealth through improvement or production. Purchasing a house with the intent to renovate and sell it for a profit would be an investment, as the house is worth more when you sell than when you bought it. Speculation, on the other hand, is when you hope to make a profit through changes in the market itself. Purchasing a house, letting it sit for 6 months, and selling it for a profit would be speculation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5833ec8d238cc8454f640e2e7dadd266",
"text": "It has been hinted at in some other answers, but I want to say it explicitly: Volatility is not risk. Volatility is how much an investment goes up and down, risk is the chance that you will lose money. For example, stocks have relatively high volatility, but the risk that you will lose money over a 40 year period is virtually zero (in particular if you invest in index funds). Bonds, on the other hand, have basically no volatility (their cash flow is totally predictable if you trust the future of your government), but there is a significant risk that they will perform worse than stocks over a longer period. So, volatility equals risk only if you are day trading. A 401(k) is literally the opposite of that. For further reading: Never confuse risk and volatility Also, investing is not gambling. Gambling is bad because the odds are stacked against you. You need more than average luck to actually win and the longer you play, the more you will lose. Investing means buying productive capital that will produce further value. The odds are in your favor. Even if you do a moderately bad job at investing, the longer you stay, the more you will win.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d6bf11b0627d73cbea9659cfedae9210",
"text": "\"The calculation and theory are explained in the other answers, but it should be pointed out that the video is the equivalent of watching a magic trick. The secret is: \"\"Stock A and B are perfectly negatively correlated.\"\" The video glasses over that fact that without that fact the risk doesn't drop to zero. The rule is that true diversification does decrease risk. That is why you are advised to spread year investments across small-cap, large-cap, bonds, international, commodities, real estate. Getting two S&P 500 indexes isn't diversification. Your mix of investments will still have risk, because return and risk are backward calculations, not a guarantee of future performance. Changes that were not anticipated will change future performance. What kind of changes: technology, outsourcing, currency, political, scandal.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "68137f0a658c2a2bc73b6b31ad72c235",
"text": "\"When you invest in a single index/security, you are completely exposed to the risk of that security. Diversification means spreading the investments so the losses on one side can be compensated by the gains on the other side. What you are talking about is one thing called \"\"risk apettite\"\", more formally known as Risk Tolerance: Risk tolerance is the degree of variability in investment returns that an investor is willing to withstand. (emphasis added) This means that you are willing to accept some losses in order to get a potential bigger return. Fidelity has this graph: As you can see in the table above, the higher the risk tolerance, the bigger the difference between the best and worst values. That is the variability. The right-most pie can be one example of an agressive diversified portfolio. But this does not mean you should go and buy exactly that security compostion. High-risk means playing with fire. Unless you are a professional stuntman, playing with fire usually leaves people burnt. In a financial context this usually means the money is gone. Recommended Reading: Investopedia; Risk and Diversification: The Risk-Reward Tradeoff Investopedia; How to construct a High Risk portfolio Fidelity: Guide to Diversification KPMG: Understanding and articulating Risk Appetite (pdf)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ead7c9267f9e549354648cf5ca4cd186",
"text": "\"I though that only some hedge funds operated that way and others were specific vehicles to provide an efficient hedge? This one is described as \"\"betting against chipmakers\"\" and is blaming a substantial loss against one market, so it can't be doing a great job of hedging itself. Though I think we're saying the same thing and just have a different view of the common meaning of \"\"hedge fund\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "324191f8734b2c593a33362ee537213c",
"text": "Sometimes hedging is used if you have a position and you feel the market is going against your position, so one would hedge that position in order to protect their capital and possible profits instead of closing the position and incurring capital gains tax. Personally if the market was going against a position I had open I would get out of that position and protect my capital/profits instead of using more capital to hedge against my position. I would rather take a profit and pay some capital gains tax than watch my profits turn into a loss or use up more capital to try and protect a bad position. Hedging can be useful in certain circumstances but I think if you feel the market is going against your position/s for the medium to long term you should just get out of your positions instead of hedging against them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "180d2a7f0af42c2226913663d438e41b",
"text": "\"I think that the answer by @jkuz is good. I'd add that the there's a mathematically precise difference: Gambling games are typically \"\"zero-sum\"\" games, which means that every dollar won by one person is lost by another. (If there's a \"\"house\"\" taking a cut then it's worse than zero-sum, but let's ignore that for the moment.) None of the markets that you mentioned are zero-sum because it's possible for both parties in the transaction to \"\"win\"\" since they typically have different objectives. If I buy stock, I typically desire for it to go up to make money, but, if I sell stock, I typically sell it because I want the money to do something else completely. The \"\"something else\"\" might be invest in another instrument if I think it's better or I'm rebalancing risk. It might also be to buy a house, pay for college, or (if I'm in retirement living on my investments) to buy food. If the stock goes up, the buyer won (increased investment) but the seller also won (got the \"\"other thing\"\" that they wanted/needed), which they would not have been able to get had there not been a buyer willing to pay cash for the stock. Of course it's possible that in some cases not everyone wins because there is risk, but risk should not be considered synonymous with gambling because there's varying degrees of risk in everything you do.\"",
"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": "c50fce96405fbc6f0b3daae6b415a7e8",
"text": "Delta hedging is not the same as being delta neutral, what you just described is being delta neutral. There exist reasons for a retail trader to be conscious of delta when choosing an option.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e4cbddfaee0024ce7a0ec84c4ca73a32",
"text": "You are diversified within a particular type of security. Notably the stock market. A truly diversified portfolio not only has multiple types of holdings within a single type of security (what your broad market fund does) but between different types. You have partially succeeded in doing this with the international fund - that way your risk is spread between domestic and international stocks. But there are other holdings. Cash, bonds, commodities, real estate, etc. There are broad index funds/ETFs for those as well, which may reduce your risk when the stock market as a whole tanks - which it does on occasion.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0b2cd1d374057742a8282ff21ffba93e",
"text": "I consider speculation to be a security purchase where the point is to sell it to someone for a higher price. Day-trading is completely speculative. I consider Investment to be a purchase you make for its underlying value. You are buying it at that price because you believe the present value of the future payments is higher than the price you are paying. I may sell an investment if a higher price is offered than I think it's worth, or if the business situation changes, but I don't plan on it. Hedging is a third type of security purchase, where you are decreasing your overall risk. If you are a hog farmer, selling hog futures on the CME is hedging, because it locks in the amount you get per hog, regardless of what the price of hogs does. Commodities markets only have hedgers and speculators. Investors don't make sense, it doesn't have an underlying value.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "26ceaf89f25dc15d761e3c7c15c56718",
"text": "\"The risk of any investment is measured by its incremental effect on the volatility of your overall personal wealth, including your other investments. The usual example is that adding a volatile stock to your portfolio may actually reduce the risk of your portfolio if it is negatively correlated with the other stuff in your portfolio. Common measures of risk, such as beta, assume that you have whole-market diversified portfolio. In the case of an investment that may or may not be hedged against currency movements, we can't say whether the hedge adds or removes risk for you without knowing what else is in your portfolio. If you are an EU citizen with nominally delimited savings or otherwise stand to lose buying power if the Euro depreciates relative to the dollar, than the \"\"hedged\"\" ETF is less risky than the \"\"unhedged\"\" version. On the other hand, if your background risk is such that you benefit from that depreciation, then the reverse is true. \"\"Hedging\"\" means reducing the risk already present in your portfolio. In this case it does not refer to reducing the individual volatility of the ETF. It may or may not do that but individual asset volatility and risk are two very different things.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "13bb3594d0833e52ea096698f9bc2d70",
"text": "Basically, diversifying narrows the spread of possible results, raising the center of the returns bell-curve by reducing the likelihood of extreme results at either the high or low end. It's largely a matter of basic statistics. Bet double-or-nothing on a single coin flip, and those are the only possible results, and your odds of a disaster (losing most or all of the money) are 50%. Bet half of it on each of two coin flips, and your odds of losing are reduced to 25% at the cost of reducing your odds of winning to 25%, with 50% odds that you retain your money and can try the game again. Three coins divides the space further; the extremes are reduced to 12.5% each, with the middle being most likely. If that was all there was, this would be a zero-sum game and pure gambling. But the stock market is actually positive-sum, since companies are delivering part of their profits to their stockholder owners. This moves the center of the bell curve up a bit from break-even, historically to about +8%. This is why index funds produce a profit with very little active decision; they treat the variation as mostly random (which seems to work statistically) and just try to capture average results of a (hopefully) slightly above-average bucket of stocks and/or bonds. This approach is boring. It will never double your money overnight. On the other hand, it will never wipe you out overnight. If you have patience and are willing to let compound interest work for you, and trust that most market swings regress to the mean in the long run, it quietly builds your savings while not driving you crazy worrying about it. If all you are looking for is better return than the banks, and you have a reasonable amount of time before you need to pull the funds out, it's one of the more reliably predictable risk/reward trade-off points. You may want to refine this by biasing the mix of what you're holding. The simplest adjustment is how much you keep in each of several major investment categories. Large cap stocks, small cap stocks, bonds, and real estate (in the form of REITs) each have different baseline risk/return curves, and move in different ways in response to news, so maintaining a selected ratio between these buckets and adding the resulting curves together is one simple way to make fairly predictable adjustments to the width (and centerline) of the total bell curve. If you think you can do better than this, go for it. But index funds have been outperforming professionally managed funds (after the management fees are accounted for), and unless you are interested in spending a lot of time researching and playing with your money the odds of your doing much better aren't great unless you're willing to risk doing much worse. For me, boring is good. I want my savings to work for me rather than the other way around, and I don't consider the market at all interesting as a game. Others will feel differently.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "97ba7c78d9da95d26c6773d89ff25ec3",
"text": "\"It's interesting that you use so many different risk measures. Here's what I'd like to know more in detail: 1) About the use of VaR. I've heard (from a friend, may be unreliable) that some investment managers like Neuberger Berman doesn't use VaR for assessing risk and maintaining capital adequacy requirements. Rather, some firms only rely on tracking error, beta, standard deviation, etc. Why do you think is this so? Isn't VaR supposed to be a widely accepted risk measure. 2) The whole \"\"Expected Shortfall vs. VaR\"\" debate. I've read some papers comparing Expected Shortfall and VaR. Mainly, they criticize VaR for not being able to consider the 1% probability left where losses can (probably) skyrocket to infinity. If I need to choose between the two, which do you think is better and why?\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
5c2b28c102dc5d40668ef8340a8351d9
|
How to evaluate an annuity
|
[
{
"docid": "d6ea9d616b30c9973b74157e9df43187",
"text": "Guaranteed 8.2% annual return sounds too good to be true. Am I right? Are there likely high fees, etc.? You're right. Guaranteed annual return is impossible, especially when you're talking about investments for such a long period of time. Ponzi (and Madoff) schemed their investors using promises of guaranteed return (see this note in Wikipedia: In some cases returns were allegedly determined before the account was even opened.[72]). Her financial advisor doesn't charge by the hour--he takes a commission. So there's obviously some incentive to sell her things, even if she may not need them. Definitely not a good sign, if the advisor gets a commission from the sale then he's obviously not an advisor but a sales person. The problem with this kind of investment is that it is very complex, and it is very hard to track. The commission to the broker makes it hard to evaluate returns (you pay 10% upfront, and it takes awhile to just get that money back, before even getting any profits), and since you're only able to withdraw in 20 years or so - there's no real way to know if something wrong, until you get there and discover that oops- no money! Also, many annuity funds (if not all) limit withdrawals to a long period, i.e.: you cannot touch money for like 10 years from investment (regardless of the tax issues, the tax deferred investment can be rolled over to another tax deferred account, but in this case - you can't). I suggest you getting your own financial advisor (that will work for you) to look over the details, and talk to your mother if it is really a scam.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a048e2c9f17bdd09c7ff9c36dd64c49",
"text": "\"Annuities are usually not good deals. Commissions to the salesman can be as high as 9% of the initial premium. They're not scams, just not the best deals for most circumstances. Basically, these things are a combination of an investment vehicle and multiple insurance policies, including permanent insurance. The 8.2% \"\"return\"\" is the total cash value of the account, which your heirs get if you die.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fa606018412c90bd9630de00ff8409e0",
"text": "You can get no load annuities through some no-load financial companies like Vanguard so to start with I'd see how what she is being offered compares with something that comes free of a sales load. I'd also question that fixed rate, seems pretty impossible to me, which makes me think there is some catch or 'gotcha' that we are not seeing that either brings down that rate, or makes it delusional (they are kidding themselves) or deceptive in some way. In any case it's setting off my 'too good to be true' alarm at full volume, along with the 'shark attack' alarm as well. (I would strongly suspect the 'advisor' is advising the product that makes the most money for him, NOT what is in your mother's best interest) A fixed annuity is an insurance product, not a security, because the insurance company must credit the annuity holder’s account with the specified interest rate for the contractually-stipulated time period, regardless of market fluctuations in actual interest rates. It is the insurance company that bears the investment risk, which it does by investing the annuity holder’s purchase proceeds in fixed-income instruments that the company hopes will provide sufficient return to fulfill its contractual representations to the holder. THIS is why there is no prospectus (it's not a 'security' they are not required to provide one by SEC) because the risk is entirely with the company. Obviously as pointed out in the comments, the company could easily go out of business (especially of they sell a lot of these and can't find a way to get that kind of return on the invested money). Now, ask yourself, if I was the insurance company, would I be comfortable guaranteeing that level of return over that much time if I intend to make a profit from it, pay sales comissions, and stay in business? In terms of 'will they stay in business' I'd have a hard look at their ratings, and go compare where that is on the total range for AM Best (they are lowest 'secure' rating, next thing down is in the 'vulnerable' category) and Standard and Poors (4 places down from their best rating, next thing down is 'marginal' followed by 'poor') You might also want to see if you can get any idea of historical ratings, is this company's ratings falling, or rising? Personally, for the amount of money involved, I'd want a company with MUCH higher ratings than these guys.. THEN maybe someone could say 'no risk', but with those ratings? an no, I don't think so! BTW I'd check over what this bozo (um sorry, that's not fair to clowns) is recommending she do with her own funds as well. For example is he recommending she take something that is already tax sheltered such as an IRA and investing the stuff inside that in an annuity (kind of pointless to 'double shelter' the money, or lock it up for a period of time when she may be required to make withdrawals) make sure you don't see something there that is actually against what is in her best interest and is only done to make him a comission.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fceae85b48ddff092e9d08092eecabbd",
"text": "You need to see that prospectus. I just met with some potential new clients today that wanted me to take a look at their investments. Turns out they had two separate annuities. One was a variable annuity with Allianz. The other was with some company named Midland Insurance (can't remember the whole name). Turns out the Allianz VA has a 10 year surrender contract and the Midland has a 14 year contract. 14 years!!! They are currently in year 7 and if they need any money (I'm hoping they at least have a 10% free withdrawal) they will pay 6% surrender on the Allianz and a 15% surrender on the other. Ironically enough, they guy who sold this to them is now in jail. No joke.",
"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": "5f35fa4afca319ddd8836b4f8c4f4df1",
"text": "\"I think you want to look at companies that buy annuities and give you a lump sum. They exist to do this for lawsuit payments, lottery winnings, etc. I'm not sure what the fees would be on a relatively small payout of $6K but try searching for \"\"converting annuity to cash\"\" and the first several hits were all firms looking to buy structured payment settlements for a lump sum. They make their money by paying less than the present-day value of the annuity, so you will get less money this way than collecting your payments slowly.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9170569a02966ba5ad568f1aff9d076f",
"text": "Pension in this instance seems to mean pension income (as opposed to pension pot). This money would be determined by whatever assets are being invested in. It may be fixed, it may be variable. Completely dependant on the underlying investments. An annuity is a product. In simple terms, you hnd over a lump sum of cash and receive an agreed annual income until you die. The underlying investment required to reach that income level is not your concern, it's the provider's worry. So there is a hige mount of security to the retiree in having an annuity. The downside of annuities is that the level of income may be too low for your liking. For instance, £400/£10,000 would mean £400 for every £10,000 given to the provider. That's 4% and would take 25 years to break even (ignoring inflation, opportunity cost of investing yourself). Therefore, the gamble is whether you 'outlive' the deal. You could hand over £50,000 to a provider and drop dead a year later. Your £50k got you, say, £2k and then you popped your clogs. Provider wins. Or you could like 40 years after retiring and then you end up costing the provider £80k. You win. Best way to think of an annuity is a route to guaranteed, agreed income. To secure that guarantee, there's a price to pay - and that is, a lower income rate than you might like. Hope that was the kind of reply you were hoping for. If not, edit your OP and ask again. Chris. PS. The explanation on the link you provided is pretty dire. Very confusing use of the term 'pension' and even if that were better, the explanation is still bad due to vagueness. THis is much better: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26186361",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4a03c953af7e493438d0b7e0261d42eb",
"text": "\"Everything you are doing is fine. Here are a few practical notes in performing this analysis: Find all the primary filing information on EDGAR. For NYSE:MEI, you can use https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0000065270&type=10-K&dateb=&owner=exclude&count=40 This is the original 10-K. To evaluate earnings growth you need per share earnings for the past three years and 10,11,12 years ago. You do NOT need diluted earnings (because in the long term share dilution comes out anyway, just like \"\"normalized\"\" earnings). The formula is avg(Y_-1+Y_-2+Y_-3) / is avg(Y_-10+Y_-11+Y_-12) Be careful with the pricing rules you are using, the asset one gets complicated. I recommend NOT using the pricing rules #6 and #7 to select the stock. Instead you can use them to set a maximum price for the stock and then you can compare the current price to your maximum price. I am also working to understand these rules and have cited Graham's rules into a checklist and worksheet to find all companies that meet his criteria. Basically my goal is to bottom feed the deals that Warren Buffett is not interested in. If you are interested to invest time into this project, please see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vuFmoJDktMYtS64od2HUTV9I351AxvhyjAaC0N3TXrA\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "148d0906bc8b70fc231f893cb9b62fe6",
"text": "You need to check how much of the total is deductible. It's something less than 100%. Your annual payment received is partially tax free as a return of principal, as with any fixed immediate annuity. What's tough, is that rates are so low today that locking in any fixed annuity type product can be disappointing long term. In the end it's the fixed annuity you should compare to, and to that, add on the tax perks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8dd4c25ae22b5388801ba235a5b19a8a",
"text": "Since you are trying to compare corporate bonds that have a defined coupon over the specified time of the bond. Why not use a simple Net Present Value (NPV) calculation. Refer: Net Present Value (NPV) You could use the discounting factor as the current repo rate of your central bank. As I said, this would be a simple fast measure (not considering risk rating of the bonds, inflation and other considerations). Take a notional 1000 as invetment in each instrument and calculate the NPV, higher it is better the investment. Another method, in terms of percentage return would be Internal rate of Return (IRR). Though the calcualtionis a bit more complicated, it would give you a percentage figure. Note, the above 2 measures are used when the cashflow over the time period is known. It will not work for instruments where the cashflow/value over different time are not known. Like stocks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "289270da721e0e136ede814135c932bf",
"text": "\"Re. question 2 If I buy 20 shares every year, how do I get proper IRR? ... (I would have multiple purchase dates) Use the money-weighted return calculation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_of_return#Internal_rate_of_return where t is the fraction of the time period and Ct is the cash flow at that time period. For the treatment of dividends, if they are reinvested then there should not be an external cash flow for the dividend. They are included in the final value and the return is termed \"\"total return\"\". If the dividends are taken in cash, the return based on the final value is \"\"net return\"\". The money-weighted return for question 2, with reinvested dividends, can be found by solving for r, the rate for the whole 431 day period, in the NPV summation. Now annualising And in Excel\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "94d75dbeb9cb911036c9f88144d15c35",
"text": "Edited to incorporate the comments elsewhere of @Atkins Assuming, (apparently incorrectly) that duration is time to maturity: First, note that the question does not mention the coupon rate, the size of the regular payments that the bond holder will get each year. So let's calculate that. Consider the cash flow described. You pay out 1015 at the start of Year #1, to buy the bond. At the end of Years #1 to #5, you receive a coupon payment of X. Also at the end of Year #5, you receive the face value of the bond, 1000. And you are told that the pay out equals the money received, using a time value of money of 4.69% So, if we use the date of maturity of the bond as our valuation date, we have the equation: Maturity + Future Value of coupons = Future value of Bond Purchase price 1000 + X *( (1 + .0469)^5-1)/0.0469 = 1015 * 1.0469^5 Solving this for X, we obtain 50.33; the coupon rate is 5.033%. You will receive 50.33 at the end of each of the five years. Now, we can take this fixed schedule of payments, and apply the new yield rate to the same formula above; only now, the unknown is the price paid for the bond, Y. 1000 + 50.33 * ((1 + 0.0487)^5 - 1) / .0487 = Y * 1.0487^5 Solving this equation for Y, we obtain: Y = 1007.08",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7aec2e5d1480a09c5e8c8671d32c6e8d",
"text": "\"A bit strange but okay. The way I would think about this is again that you need to determine for what purpose you're computing this, in much the same way you would if you were to build out the model. The IPO valuation is not going to be relevant to the accretion/dilution analysis unless you're trying to determine whether the transaction was net accretive at exit. But that's a weird analysis to do. For longer holding periods like that you're more likely to look at IRR, not EPS. EPS is something investors look at over the short to medium term to get a sense of whether the company is making good acquisition decisions. And to do that short-to-medium term analysis, they look at earnings. Damodaran would say this is a shitty way of looking at things and that you should probably be looking at some measure of ROIC instead, and I tend to agree, but I don't get paid to think like an investor, I get paid to sell shit to them (if only in indirect fashion). The short answer to your question is that no, you should not incorporate what you are calling liquidation value when determining accretion/dilution, but only because the market typically computes accretion/dilution on a 3-year basis tops. I've never put together a book or seen a press release in my admittedly short time in finance that says \"\"the transaction is estimated to be X% accretive within 4 years\"\" - that just seems like an absurd timeline. Final point is just that from an accounting perspective, a gain on a sale of an asset is not going to get booked in either EBITDA or OCF, so just mechanically there's no way for the IPO value to flow into your accretion/dilution analysis there, even if you are looking at EBITDA/shares. You could figure the gain on sale into some kind of adjusted EBITDA/shares version of EPS, but this is neither something I've ever seen nor something that really makes sense in the context of using EPS as a standardized metric across the market. Typically we take OUT non-recurring shit in EPS, we don't add it in. Adding something like this in would be much more appropriate to measuring the success of an acquisition/investing vehicle like a private equity fund, not a standalone operating company that reports operational earnings in addition to cash flow from investing. And as I suggest above, that's an analysis for which the IRR metric is more ideally situated. And just a semantic thing - we typically wouldn't call the exit value a \"\"liquidation value\"\". That term is usually reserved for dissolution of a corporate entity and selling off its physical or intangible assets in piecemeal fashion (i.e. not accounting for operational synergies across the business). IPO value is actually just going to be a measure of market value of equity.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "37528e2711eafb0e0573772a2bf49083",
"text": "The equation is the same one used for mortgage amortization. You first want to calculate the PV (present value) for a stream of $50K payments over 20 years at a10% rate. Then that value is the FV (future value) that you want to save for, and you are looking to solve the payment stream needed to create that future value. Good luck achieving the 10% return, and in knowing your mortality down to the exact year. Unless this is a homework assignment, which need not reflect real life. Edit - as indicated above, the first step is to get that value in 20 years: The image is the user-friendly entry screen for the PV calculation. It walks you though the need to enter rate as per period, therefore I enter .1/12 as the rate. The payment you desire is $50K/yr, and since it's a payment, it's a negative number. The equation in excel that results is: =PV(0.1/12,240,-50000/12,0) and the sum calculated is $431,769 Next you wish to know the payments to make to arrive at this number: In this case, you start at zero PV with a known FV calculated above, and known rate. This solves for the payment needed to get this number, $568.59 The excel equation is: =PMT(0.1/12,240,0,431769) Most people have access to excel or a public domain spreadsheet application (e.g. Openoffice). If you are often needing to perform such calculations, a business finance calculator is recommended. TI used to make a model BA-35 finance calculator, no longer in production, still on eBay, used. One more update- these equations whether in excel or a calculator are geared toward per period interest, i.e. when you state 10%, they assume a monthly 10/12%. With that said, you required a 20 year deposit period and 20 year withdrawal period. We know you wish to take out $4166.67 per month. The equation to calculate deposit required becomes - 4166.67/(1.00833333)^240= 568.59 HA! Exact same answer, far less work. To be clear, this works only because you required 240 deposits to produce 240 withdrawals in the future.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a659618cb61c821026993c65d99c5da1",
"text": "Maryland treats income from pensions and annuities in the same manner that the federal government treats such income. Consequently, pensions and annuities can be subject to Maryland's income tax. The resident booklet for Maryland income tax filers states on page 4: Line 1d. Enter on line 1d the total amount of pension, IRA, and annuities reported as income on lines 15b and 16b of your federal Form 1040, or lines 11b and 12b of your federal Form 1040A. Line 1 of Maryland's tax return represents total taxable income, before deductions, exemptions, and adjustments. Line 16b of federal Form 1040 represents the taxable portion of your FERS annuity. Consequently, the federally taxable portion of your FERS annuity is also subject to Maryland's state income tax. The taxable portion of FERS annuities should be recorded on the 1099-R you receive. If it's not, IRS pub 721 records how to calculate the taxable portion of FERS annuities. Maryland does, however, allow filers to exclude up to $29,200 of the taxable portion of their pension income in 2015 from taxable income if: a. You were 65 or over or totally disabled, or your spouse was totally disabled, on the last day of the tax year, AND b. You included on your federal return taxable income received as a pension, annuity or endowment from an “employee retirement system” qualified under Sections 401(a), 403 or 457(b) of the Internal Revenue Code. [A traditional IRA, a Roth IRA, a simplified employee plan (SEP), a Keogh plan, an ineligible deferred compensation plan or foreign retirement income does not qualify.] You mention receiving SS disability, so you may be eligible for that exclusion. Regarding what kinds of disabilities qualifies for those exclusions, Maryland states that: To be considered totally disabled, you must have a mental or physical impairment which prevents you from engaging in substantial gainful activity. You must expect the impairment to be of long, continued or indefinite duration or to result in your death. You must attach to your return a certification from a qualified physician stating the nature of your impairment and that you are totally disabled. If you have previously submitted a physician’s certification, attach your own statement that you are still totally disabled and that a physician’s certification was submitted before. If you feel you would qualify for that exclusion (and have the required supporting evidence), fill out the relevant table and include the result on line 10 of your Maryland tax return. In the future, to avoid a large state tax bill due to inadequate withholding on pension funds, OPM provides a web service which allows you to specify state tax withholding amounts on pension distributions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5f1d36f27dfba7c3d35383c63426e685",
"text": "Until you find a job, I would recommend doing nothing more than a bank checking account or a checking and savings account. Some alternatives, such as savings bonds, would be okay if you were perfectly sure you did not need the money in the next six months. Consider working for a place such as McDonald's in the meantime. Once you have stable employment, there are two paths you could take. The first is a bond fund. It would provide fair market returns for the time between now and the collection of social security. The second would be a traditional annuity. You have to be careful with them. If it sounds much better than what others are offering, it is probably a scam. Your interest in an annuity is that it will pay you money for as long as you live. If you live to be 105 you will still be getting payments. A bond fund would have run out of money long ago by that time. The biggest thing for you right now is getting to when Medicare takes over from private health. Looking for any job is important right now to preserve cash. Although I do not normally recommend annuities, I do with smaller amounts of cash. It is unlikely you will ever recover this sum again and the time remaining to save is very short. The greatest challenge with an annuity is regret. You can't get the money back once you have turned it into an income stream. On the other hand, it will last as long as you live. The only important caveat is that if you are in poor health, then the bond fund would be better for you because you may not live to be very old.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d47943357af338c19a8947599ba63ef",
"text": "\"(1) I think the phrase \"\"Variable Annuity\"\" is a glowing red flag. A corollary to that is that any strategy that uses insurance for a purpose (e.g. tax avoidance) other than protecting against loss rates at least a yellow flag. (2) The other really obvious indicator is a return that is completely out of whack with the level of risk they are saying the investment has. For example, if someone promises a 10% annual return that is \"\"Completely Safe\"\" or \"\"Very low risk\"\", Run. (3) If it is advertised on tv/radio, or all your friends are talking about it at parties. Stay away. Example: Investing in Gold Coins or the hot Tech IPO. (4) The whole sales pitch relies on past returns as proof that the investment will do well without any real discussion of other reasons it will continue to to well. Beware the gambler's fallacy. (5) Finally, be very wary of anyone who has some sort of great investment plan that they will teach you if you just pay $X or go to their seminar. Fee based advice is fine, but people selling a get rich quick vehicle typically know the real way to get rich is to get suckers to pay for their seminars.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c9835dfc7ec0b879d7bda361cc073ffa",
"text": "\"Just to clarify, In wikipedia when it says It is defined as a market in which money is provided for periods longer than a year They are referring to the company which is asking for money. So for example the stock market provides money to the issuing company of an IPO, indefinitely. Meaning the company that just went public is provided with money for a period longer than a year. The definition in Investopedia basically says the same thing Wikipedia does it is just phrased slightly different and leaves out the \"\"for periods longer than a year\"\". For example Wikipedia uses the term \"\"business enterprises\"\" and \"\"governments\"\" while Investopedia uses the term private sector and public sector, in this context \"\"business enterprise\"\" is \"\"private sector\"\" and \"\"governments\"\" is \"\"public sector\"\" So in the sense of the length debt is issued yes, money market would be the opposite of a capital market but both markets still offer a place for governments and companies to raise money and both are classified as financial markets.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "84f19c18230b41f5cf0f9931dfe1fdd9",
"text": "Off the top of my head, a broker: While there are stock exchanges that offer direct market access (DMA), they (nearly) always want a broker as well to back the first two points I made. In that case the broker merely routes your orders directly to the exchange and acts as a custodian, but of course the details heavily depend on the exchange you're talking about. This might give you some insight: Direct Market Access - London Stock Exchange",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ba43443175c904f81c459c9b3540a590
|
How to calculate my real earnings from hourly temp-to-hire moving to salaried employee?
|
[
{
"docid": "1a5e0d894cd75c85c0f41c7ac82bcbcb",
"text": "\"Get some professional accounting help. You're going to have to pay for everything out of the fee you charge: taxes, retirement, health care, etc. You'll be required to pay quarterly. I don't think you should base your fee on what \"\"this\"\" company will pay as a full-time employee, but what you can expect in your area. They're saving a lot of money not going through an established employment firm and essentially, making you create your own. There are costs to setting up and maintaining a company. They have less risk hiring you because there are no unemployment consequences for letting you go. Once you're hired, they'll probably put you on salary, so you can forget about making more money if you work over 40 hrs. IMHO - there have to be better jobs in your area than this one.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f8fdfaf770de8745e3b0fcaa705afcc",
"text": "\"This arrangement is a scam to get around certain tax and benefits laws, both State and Federal. I know they can't get away with this with a person-as-contractor, but this \"\"he's not a contractor, he's a business owner\"\" may move it into a gray area. (I used to know this stuff cold, but I've been retired for a while.) The fact that they asked you to do this is at all is, IMNSHO, a Red Flag®. They think that this way they won't be paying 1/2 your FICA, your Workman's Comp, health insurance, overtime, sick leave or vacation time ... you will. A somewhat simplistic rule of thumb for setting contracting rates is to take your targeted annual salary as a full-time, full-benefits employee and double it. So $50,000 becomes $100,000 a year; $25/hour becomes $50/hour. You can tell them that driving to their workplace from your company's location is now a \"\"site visit\"\" and charge them your hourly rate for the one-way commute time. You could also tell them that your company charges 150% for hours worked over 40 hours/week, plus 150% on Saturdays and 200% on Sundays. Your company may also have a minimum 30 days notice of termination with a penalty kicker. Get it all in writing and signed by someone who has the authority to sign it. Also, Get A Lawyer. The most expensive contracts I've ever signed were ones I thought I was smart enough to draw up myself.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e20fe4193f69866d2bb46f62637b0ded",
"text": "\"Here's an alternative. There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of contract engineering firms (\"\"job shops\"\") in the United States, probably hundreds in California alone. They are in the business of doing what your \"\"employer\"\" wants you to do, they know how to do it, they have been doing it for decades, working with the biggest, most-established companies in the country. They have forgotten more about providing engineering services to clients, and paying the engineers, than you can learn in a lifetime. Call a few of them. Set up meetings. Budget a few hours for it. You want to talk with the most experienced recruiter in the office, the Old Guy Who Has Been There And Done That. Explain your situation, and tell them that, rather than go through all of the headaches yourself, you want to investigate the possibility of THEM handling all the headaches, for their usual markup of course. (You can probably word this better than I can, but you get the idea.) The shop may or may not be willing to talk about their markup. My personal opinion is that this is perfectly OK. What they make off of you, after your rate is paid, is THEIR business. Also, talk about what you do, and your recommended rate. It would not surprise me to learn that you are currently grossly underpaid. AND, mention that, if the client declines, you're going to be available immediately, and you'd certainly be open to working with them. (You will see this again.) In fact, if they have any current leads that you fit, you would certainly be interested in hearing about them. (They may already have a req from another client, for which you fit, for which the client is willing to pay much more than your current \"\"employer\"\".) If it were me, personally, I'd start with Yoh, Belcan, and maybe TAD Technical. These are three of the oldest and best. I'd also hit up CE Weekly, get a subscription, and find some other shops with offices in your area. Once you have a shop lined up, then ask your \"\"employer\"\" if, rather than you setting up a personal corporation, they'd be willing to work with an established Contract Engineering firm, who does this kind of thing for a living, who does this every day, who has been doing this for decades. Doing this is simpler for everyone, and, by going through an established firm, they avoid having to teach you how to do business with them. They also avoid the risk of having you reclassified by IRS as an employee, which exposes them to all kinds of legal and financial liability. If they say \"\"No\"\", WALK AWAY FROM THEM. Immediately. They've just thrown up a HUGE red flag. This is where the other discussions with the shop come into play.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a4130786450c04ffd206a2b40e28ac2",
"text": "If you are a temp-to-hire, or you are asked to setup a company then you are not an employee. They expect you to fund everything from your hourly rate. This includes pay, insurance, taxes, social security, sick, vacation, holidays... The rule of thumb for an established company is 1.75 to 2.25 times the salary rate is the rate they need to charge a customer. For example: employee get paid checks for $25/hour x 80 hours x 26 times a year.: 2080 hours or $52,000 per year. Company can only bill customers for 1800 to 1900 hours of labor. They need to bill at 2 times the salary rate or $50 per hour. They will collect $90,000 (1800*50). The numbers have to be run by the particular company based on their actual costs for benefits, overhead and profits. If they were giving you $25 an hour as a contractor. They expect you to be making $12.50 an hour as an employee.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5f913ab28f450bbe86724d87da09fac1",
"text": "I would not assume they would pay for any benefits. You will be responsible for paying entirely for health insurance and social security and Medicare. This move is most likely not in your best interests. At a minimum, I would charge double your current hourly rate and would charge for all hours worked including time and half for overtime. 3 times is actually probably a better choice if you want to cover holidays (which they will not pay you for), vacation time, etc. I know when I did project bids, we always priced at 2-3 times the salary we paid the employees.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "babcb6f6ad6c8b258cfec94ff4f3e897",
"text": "I believe temp agencies get a payout if the employer decides to hire on the temp full time usually. So it would be to prevent a temp from quitting and going to work for the employer as a way around that payment. The idea is to set a term long enough not to make it worthwhile for the employer to wait rather than paying the fee.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d938cfa19603cd76c60ccc1bc2fa74d2",
"text": "I was looking for ideas on what the usual figures are in such positions. Something like market value, or other terms such as changing slab percentages in compensation. Not sure what the best practices are in this situation. Not sure what you are referring to.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "908ab82153e1d1a47409f81c431298ca",
"text": "\"When you pay the flight, hotel, conference attendance fees of $100: When you repay the credit card debt of $100: When you receive the gross salary of $5000: Your final balance sheet will show: Your final income statement will show: Under this method, your \"\"Salary\"\" account will show the salary net of business expense. The drawback is that the $4900 does not agree with your official documentation. For tax reporting purposes, you report $5000 to the tax agency, and if possible, report the $100 as Unreimbursed Employee Expenses (you weren't officially reimbursed). For more details see IRS Publication 529.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b526fac64b86f0d375209d228854e1b",
"text": "I use paycheckcity.com and first punch in my paycheck and make sure it calculates within a few pennies the value of my actual paycheck. Then I fiddle with withholding values, etc. to see the effect of change. It has been very effective for me over the years.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a9a5dcc1532513df50baedcb611b3ce",
"text": "Thanks for the answer/comments! The time-based method was something we mooted and something I almost went with. But just to wrap this up, the method we settled on was this: Every time there is an entry or exit into the fund, we divvy out any unrealised market profits/losses according to each person's profit share (based on % of the asset purchased at buy-in) JUST BEFORE the entry/exit. These realised profits are then locked in for those particpants, and then the unrealised profits/loss counter starts at zero, we do a fresh recalculation of shareholding after the entry/exit, and then we start again. Hope this helps anyone with the same issue!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4217855657af5723dd47f882f3a402fb",
"text": "\"There is not one right way. It depends on the level of detail that you need. One way would be: Create the following accounts: When you pay the phone bill: When you are paid with the reimbursement: That is, when you pay the phone bill, you must debit BOTH phone expense to record the expense, and also reimbursements due to record the fact that someone now owes you money. If it's useful you could add another layer of complexity: When you receive the bill you have a liability, and when you pay it you discharge that liability. Whether that's worth keeping track of depends. I never do for month-to-month bills. Afterthought: I see another poster says that your method is incorrect because a reimbursement is not salary. Technically true, though that problem could be fixed by renaming the account to something like \"\"income from employer\"\". The more serious problem I see is that you are reversing the phone expense when you are reimbursed. So at the end of the year you will show total phone expense as $0. This is clearly not correct -- you did have phone expenses, they were just reimbursed. You really are treating the expense account as an asset account -- \"\"phone expenses due to be reimbursed by employer\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d7833f48df0b9d829546e90aeb990ef",
"text": "\"I have a related issue, since I have some income which is large enough to matter and hard to predict. Start with a best guess. Check what tax bracket you were in last year and withhold that percentage of the expected non-withheld income. Adjust upward a bit, if desired, to reflect the fact that you're getting paid more at the new job. Adjust again, either up or down, to reflect whether you were over-withheld or under-withheld last year (whether the IRS owed you a refund or you had to send a check with your return). Repeat that process next year after next tax season, when you see how well your guess worked out. (You could try pre-calculating the entire tax return based on your expected income and then divide any underpayment into per-paycheck additional withholding... but I don't think it's worth the effort.) I don't worry about trying to get this exactly correct. I don't stress about lost interest if I've over-withheld a bit, and as long as your withholding was reasonably close and you have the cash float available to send them a check for the rest when it comes due, the IRS generally doesn't grumble if your withholding was a bit low. (It would be really nice if the IRS paid us interest on over-withholding, to mirror the fact that they charge us interest if we're late in returning our forms. Oh well.) Despite all the stories, the IRS really is fairly reasonable; if you aren't deliberately trying to get away with something, the process is annoying but shouldn't be scary. The one time they mail-audited me, it was several thousand dollars in my favor; I'd forgotten to claim some investment losses, and their computers noticed the error. Though I still say the motto of the next revolution will be \"\"No taxation without proper instructions!\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1a4a030d22b00725bc7d80f94e016cc4",
"text": "If you have a relatively stable income and deductions you can get a fairly good estimate using last year's tax bill. Suppose you paid $12000 of actual taxes last year and you are paid once a month. If you plan to make a similar amount of money with similar deductions, you need each monthly paycheck to have $1000 of federal income taxes withheld. I go to a paycheck calculator and find the withholding required to make sure I have that amount withheld every paycheck.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c9a6590bf53c92059a963492127c1c9c",
"text": "DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO THAT!!! What could happen if you lie is that they ask for pay stubs before you get an offer letter. If you don't have paystubs to back up what you claim to of made you have likely just lost your job. If they keep you anyway they will be watching you like a hawk because you have proven on the front end that you can't be trusted. I just went through this very same thing a few months ago and here is how I handled it. These numbers are made up so not to reveal my real salary, of course. I was making $2/hr and underpaid at my then company and wanted to make $10 from the new guys. I knew they wouldn't pay me $10 so I was hoping to make $6. They also wouldn't pay me $6 put they offered me $5. $5 was $3 more than I was making before so I gladly took it. I have a salary I can live with for a few years and I'm in a position to grow with the new company. Be honest and negotiate. Be prepared to explain why you think you are worth the money you say you are. Be reasonable about the situation and don't get greedy. You are doing good by them showing interest in retaining you in the first place. Play your cards correctly and professionally and you will do well. Whatever you do don't lie about anything. Good luck!!!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a13a67170ffc59dbf2ae2485ac4f2bd9",
"text": "I do something pretty simple when figuring 1099 income. I keep track of my income and deductible expenses on a spreadsheet. Then I do total income - total expenses * .25. I keep that amount in a savings account ready to pay taxes. Given that your estimates for the quarterly payments are low then expected, that amount should be more then enough to fully fund those payments. If you are correct, and they are low, then really what does it matter? You will have the money, in the bank, to pay what you actually owe to the IRS.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ce5d619eaed53c079cb9c16c785f478a",
"text": "Some other answers mention the ability to sell at grant. This is very important. If you have that ability, think about your guaranteed return. In my case, I get a 15% discount on the lowest 6 month window price from the last two years. If you do the math, the worst case return can be calculated: 1) Money that from the beginning of the window, I make 15% for 6 months (30% annual return guaranteed) 2) Money at the end of the window (say the last month) is 15% for one month (180% annual return guaranteed) In the end, your average holding window for your money is about 3 months (you can calculate it exactly). At that rate, you have a guaranteed 60% annual return. You can't beat that anywhere, with a significant upside if your company stock is increasing. So, if your company has an instant sell at grant option, you have to be brain dead not to do it. If it takes time to get your shares, then you need to look at the volatility of the stock to see how big the chance of losing money is. To generalize to a formula (if that's what you want): WM = purchase window (in months); D = Discount Percentage; GR = Guaranteed Return GR = 12/(WM/2) * D = 6*D/WM One last thing, If you are going to participate in ESPP, make you that you understand how to do your taxes yourself. I haven't found a tax person yet who does ESPP correctly (including an ex IRS agent), so I always have to do my taxes myself to make sure they get done correctly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f2957071718c3125aae989498d051224",
"text": "I was emailing back and forth with a manager in a different department on how real returns are being calculated, and he said that the industry standard is 1 + real returns*(1+inflation) - fees, and to not use my formula because it can double count inflation, making fees lower. However, real returns are not observable in the future, and I do not why he uses that formula. The returns were used in an Excel spreadsheet. What are your thoughts about this?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3721ceb348cba68d223b26b4009fbc58",
"text": "One way to determine compensation is as a percentage per actual hour billed (and paid by client). Very common place to start is 33% for company overhead/administration (insurance, taxes, office expense, etc), 33% for sales commission/costs (roughly half as direct sales commission, half for marketing), 33% as gross 1099 pay compensation to the employee.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e03ee94d9b1ed2237199cb7764bd1908",
"text": "Does this technically mean that she has to pay AMT on $400,000? Yes. Well, not exactly 400,000. She paid $1 per share, so 390,000. And if so, is %28 the AMT for this sum? (0.28 * $400,000 = $112,000)? Or does she have to include her salary on top of that before calculating AMT? (Suppose in the fake example that her salary is $100,000 after 401k). All her income is included in calculating the AMT, minus the AMT exemption amount. The difference between the regular calculated tax and the calculated AMT is then added to the regular tax. Note that some deductions allowed for the regular calculation are not allowed for the AMT calculation. How does California state tax come into play for this? California has its own AMT rules, and in California any stock option exercise is subject to AMT, unless you sell the stock in the same year. Here's a nice and easy to understand write up on the issue from the FTB. When would she have to pay the taxes for this huge AMT? Tax is due when income is received (i.e.: when you exercise the options). However, most people don't actually pay the tax then, but rather discover the huge tax liability when they prepare to submit their tax return on April 15th. To avoid that, I'd suggest trying to estimate the tax and adjust your withholding using form W4 so that by the end of the year you have enough withheld. Suppose in the worst case, the company goes completely under. Does she get her massive amounts of tax back? Or if it's tax credit, where can I find more info on this? That would be capital loss, and only up to $3K a year of capital loss can be deducted from the general income. So it will continue offsetting other capital gains or being deducted $3K a year until it all clears out. Is there any way to avoid this tax? (Can she file an 83b election?) You asked and answered. Yes, filing 83(b) election is the way to go to avoid this situation. This should be done within 30 days of the grant, and submitted to the IRS, and a copy attached to the tax return of the grant year. However, if you're considering exercise - that ship has likely sailed a long time ago. Any advice for Little Susie on how she can even afford to pay that much tax on something she can't even sell anytime soon? Don't exercise the options? Should she take out a loan? (e.g. I've heard that in the extreme case, you can find angel investors who are willing to pay all your taxes/strike price, but want 50% of your equity? I've also heard that you can sell your illiquid shares on SecondMarket?) Is she likely to get audited by IRS for pulling something like this? You can take a loan secured by shares you own, there's nothing illegal in it. If you transfer your shares - the IRS only cares about the taxes being paid, however that may be illegal depending on the terms and the conditions of the grant. You'll need to talk to a lawyer about your situation. I suggest talking to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) about the specifics concerning your situation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd85b373ebfb5d77342806f310579e72",
"text": "Your math is fine, except employers might not permit the withdrawal. You'd have to go back to their rules or contact HR to understand the withdrawals permitted.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a13ded92a4a367965ed04537e220d22c
|
How come the government can value a home more than was paid for the house?
|
[
{
"docid": "c65e180a03ca3811c59fe7efaec2ad2f",
"text": "\"When a house is sold at a foreclosure auction, the selling bank usually does not provide the guarantees that a normal house seller provides. Furthermore, the previous owner may have neglected the property, and/or spitefully damaged the property. Bank-owned properties are often neglected and/or vandalized. Banks are usually too short-sighted to properly market the real estate they own, and do a poor job of making it easy to buy the property. Thus, foreclosure sales usually happen at a price that is significantly below the \"\"fair market value\"\" of sales between competent households. It is common for a house that is worth $ 125,000 (even in a depressed market) to sell for only $ 100,000 in a short sale or foreclosure. It is possible that this property sold for an even larger discount. It is also possible that the tax assessor is (inadvertently) comparing a run-down property with well-maintained properties that have extra expensive features, without fully adjusting for the properties' conditions and features. In the latter scenario, the property owner can ask the tax assessor to re-consider the assessment. Usually this request is called an \"\"appeal\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8493688530d848b6c06773b25ac03f85",
"text": "\"The real answer why the government is \"\"allowed\"\" to do something is because they are the government and they make the rules. There are lots of laws that I think make no sense. I ran into a similar situation to yours. I bought a house during a time when the market in my area was way down. The previous owner had paid $140,000 but I got it for only $80,000. The government appraised it for, I forget the exact number, but over $100,000. I appealed, and the argument I made to the appeal board was that the law says it is supposed to be appraised for \"\"fair market value\"\". The definition of \"\"fair market value\"\" is the amount that a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller, absent special conditions like a sweetheart sale to a relative. The house had been advertised for a higher price and the seller had to drop the price several times before getting an offer, and finally accepting mine. This is pretty much the definition of \"\"fair market value\"\". The appeals board replied that it was not FMV because the market was bad at this particular time and so I got a good deal. I said that that's the definition of market value: it goes up and down as market conditions change. If the market happened to be up when someone bought a house and they had to pay a high price, would the government assess the house at a lower value because that was an unusually high price? I doubt it. They ended up reducing the assessed value, but not to what I actually paid. All that said, arguably a foreclosure sale might be considered special conditions. Prices at a foreclosure sale tend to be lower than \"\"ordinary\"\" sales. In a foreclosure, the bank is usually trying to get rid of the property quickly because they don't want to be in the property-management business, they want to be in the money lending and management business. Of course you could say that sort of thing about conditions surrounding many sales. Maybe the price is low because the seller needed cash now to start a business. Maybe the price is high because the buyer was too lazy to shop around. Maybe the price is low because the buyer is a very skilled negotiator. Etc etc. My watch just broke and while I was shopping for a new one I found two listings for the exact same watch, I mean exact same manufacturer and model number, identical picture, on the same web site, one giving the price as $24 and the other as $99. What is the market value of that watch? I presume anyone who saw both listings would pick the $24 one, but I presume some number of people pay the higher price because they never see the lower price. In real life there isn't really one, exact, fair market value. That's an abstraction.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5197920633415c6e9338c6eec755f843",
"text": "\"The property tax valuation and the fair market price are NOT one and the same. They track each other, correlate to each other, but are almost NEVER the same number. In some parts of the USA, a municipality has to re-assess property tax values every ten years. In these places, the tax value of a property is on something like a 10-year moving average, NOT on the volatile daily market price. EDIT: It is easy to fall into the \"\"trap\"\" of thinking that property tax valuation is intended to represent fair market value. It's INTENT is to provide an accurate (or, as accurate as possible) RELATIVE VALUATION of your property compared to the other properties in the municipality. The sum of all the property values is the tax base of the municipality. When the town budget (which is paid in part via property taxes) is set, the town simply divides the tax base into the budget total to arrive at the ratio of tax-to-collect, to the tax base, also called the \"\"tax rate per thousand dollars of valuation.\"\" i.e. if the town tax base is US$10,000,000, and the town budget is US$500,000, then the ratio is 0.05, or $50 per thousand dollars of valuation. If your property is assessed at US$100,000, then you would pay 100 x $50, or $5000 in property taxes that year. Since this is the goal of the property tax valuation, NOT deciding what your house is worth on the open market, then we are left with the question of \"\"why use the market value of a house for property assessment?\"\" and the answer is that of all the various schemes and algorithms you can try, \"\"fair market value\"\" is the easiest and most accurate...IF TIME FLUCUTATIONS ARE TAKEN OUT. For example, if I buy a house in a development for $250,000 today, and next summer the housing market crashes, and you buy the identical house next door to me for $150,000, it does NOT stand to reason that you should pay less taxes than me, because your house is \"\"worth\"\" $100,000 less. In fact, BOTH our houses are worth $100,000 less. What matters most in property tax valuation isn't the actual number, but rather, is YOUR valuation the same as other essentially similar properties in your tax base? Getting the RELATIVE ratio of value between you and your neighbors correct is the goal of property tax valuation.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2ea4c5645f9501efe06d56633977f905",
"text": "Keep in mind, there are times that house is in such bad shape that it's going to need 6 months of renovations, in which case you might ask the town if they are willing to reappraise a lower value until the work is completed. Keep in mind, you'll get a new appraisal when permitted (I mean pulling a permit from the town) work is done. I finished my basement and the town was eager to send the appraiser over even before work was fully complete.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b747eda5feed3908986e4fce20f50d45",
"text": "From my perspective I suspect that if the government use the paid price, people will start to buy at very low nominal prices in order to pay less taxes, and will repay the seller by other means.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "4756eab6ac2200618ce3994a7c1fc7a3",
"text": "That really depends on the lender, and in the current climate this is extremely unlikely. In the past it was possible to get a loan which is higher than the value of the house (deposit considered), usually on the basis that the buyer is going to improve the property (extend, renovate, etc.) and this increase the value of the property. Responsible lenders required some evidence of the plans to do this, but less responsible ones simply seem to have given the money. Here in the UK this was often based on the assumption that property value tends to rise relatively quickly anyway so a seemingly-reasonable addition to the loan on top of the current value of the property will quickly be covered. That meant that indeed some people have been able to get a loan which is higher than the cost of the purchase, even without concrete plans to actively increase the value of the property. Today the situation is quite different, lenders are a lot more careful and I can't see this happening. All that aside - had it been possible, is it a good idea? I find it difficult to come up with a blanket rule, it really depends on many factors - On the one hand mortgage interest rates tend to be significantly lower than shorter term interest rates and from that point of view, it makes sense, right?! However - they are usually very long term, often with limited ability to overpay, which means the interest will be paid over a longer period of time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d43fcc68268ff0da832453bd4ae2fc5f",
"text": "\"Presumably the existing house has some value. If you demolish the existing house, you are destroying that value. If the value of the new house is significantly more than the value of the old house, like if you're talking about replacing a small, run-down old house worth $50,000 with a big new mansion worth $10,000,000, then the value of the old house that is destroyed might just get lost in the rounding errors for all practical purposes. But otherwise, I don't see how you would do this without bringing cash to the table basically equal to what you still owe on the old house. Presumably the new house is worth more than the old, so the value of the property when you're done will be more than it was before. But will the value of the property be more than the old mortgage plus the new mortgage? Unless the old mortgage was almost paid off, or you bring a bunch of cash, the answer is almost certainly \"\"no\"\". Note that from the lienholder's point of view, you are not \"\"temporarily\"\" reducing the value of the property. You are permanently reducing it. The bank that makes the new loan will have a lien on the new house. I don't know what the law says about this, but you would have to either, (a) deliberately destroy property that someone else has a lien on while giving them no compensation, or (b) give two banks a lien on the same property. I wouldn't think either option would be legal. Normally when people tear down a building to put up a new building, it's because the value of the old building is so low as to be negligible compared to the value of the new building. Either the old building is run-down and getting it into decent shape would cost more than tearing it down and putting up a new building, or at least there is some benefit -- real or perceived -- to the new building that makes this worth it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "87cae50c530734fd55cebc1b1f8ea58e",
"text": "\"I had the same thing happen to my house. I bought it in 2011 for 137,000, which was the same as the FHA appraised value (because FHA won't guarantee a loan for more than their appraiser thinks its worth). January of last year, I get the letter from the tax office and see that my house has been assessed at only 122,000. I was shocked too, until I read a similar document that Phil told you to read. The short of it is, no matter what the tax assessor calls their calculation, it is an assessment. It was mass-produced along with everyone else's in your neighborhood by looking at its specs on paper (acreage, house square footage, age, beds/baths) and by driving by your home to see its general condition. The fact that your lawn may be less well-kept than the last time they drove by could have affected the decision a little. It's very unlikely to have been a major determinant of the assessment. The assessment value affects taxes, and taxes only. It is, in most states, a matter of public record, and so it could be used by a potential buyer to negotiate a lower price. However, everyone in the housing business knows that the assessed value is not the market value, and the buyer's agent will be encouraging their client to make a more realistic bid. This \"\"assessed value\"\" is not an \"\"appraisal value\"\". An appraisal is done by someone actually walking into and through your home, inspecting the general condition inside and out, to try to make a fair evaluation of what the home is actually worth. That number is almost always going to be more than the assessment value, because it takes into account all the amenities of the home; the current fixtures, the well-kept (or recently-replaced) flooring, the energy-efficient HVAC and hot water system, etc etc. It also takes into account recent comparables; what have other houses, with the same general statistics, the same amenities, relatively close in location, sold for recently? That will still generally be different from the true market value of the home. That value is nothing more or less than what a potential buyer will pay to have it at the time you decide to sell it, and that in turn depends 100% on your potential buyers' myriad situations. Someone may lowball even the assessed value because they're looking for a deal and hoping you're desperate; you just reject the offer. Someone may be looking at comparables indicating the house is maybe overpriced by $10k. You can counter and try to come to an agreement. Or, your potential buyer could work five minutes from your house, and be willing to pay at or above your asking price because the next best possibility is another 10 miles away. Since you aren't looking to sell the home, none of this matters, except to determine any escrow payments you might be making towards property taxes. Just keep making your mortgage payment, and don't worry about it. If you really wanted to, you could petition the state for a second opinion, but you think the value should be higher; if they agree with you, they'll raise the assessed value and you'll pay more in taxes. Why in the world would you want to do that?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0aead3049de7a22bb0e128792c7e1b97",
"text": "\"Valuation by definition is what an item is worth, not what you paid for it. Net worth should be market value for fixed assets or \"\"capital\"\" goods. I would consider this cars, real property, furniture, jewelry, appliances, tools, etc. Everything else can be valued by liquidation value. You can use valuation guides for tax deductions as a way to guide your valuation. Insurance companies usually just pick a percentage of your home's value as a guesstimate for content value. I could see doing this as a way to guide purchase decisions for appliances, cars or the like. But if you are trying to figure out the market value of your socks and underwear, I would argue that you're doing something that's a little silly.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "535266e2040482ce5e44ce6baca813c3",
"text": "An example, where I live. When you buy a house, the seller wants 'black' money. This is because that way the seller pays less taxes. However, it's not smart for the buyer to pay in black, as the tax reductions are lower. Eventually, when the buyer tries to sell the house, he has to declare the difference, so a higher buy price should not have affected... apart from the notary minutes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "246d520eda4cc69e60ea84b164b15d03",
"text": "Property taxes, at least in Canada, are levied by the municipality or city in which the property is situated. For many cities, it is a significant source of income. Part of the justification from the municipal point of view is that the land is serviced, in that it generally has city services like water, sewer, garbage collection and the like. The taxes also commonly pay for city services like libraries, fire and ambulance. The tax rates vary widely across cities, so where your dream house is located may have a large impact on your overall tax bill. Property tax is more-or-less a government imposed lien on your house. You can be foreclosed on if you are unable to pay. This is a last resort of course, but can and does happen.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9233fe4bc97c40460658fc09384361a7",
"text": "Put simply, the advice to never sell a home in CA is based on Note that #2 is unusual: property taxes that do not change as the home value rises came about because of a voter ballot measure, CA Prop 13. So in California, selling your home will expose the buyer of your home to more property taxes than you had to pay. This has some odd consequences: This is all fairly unique. I know property taxes in Tennnessee change as the home increases in value.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6124bf99a81991c16079513b5bf8618d",
"text": "\"Property taxes, where they exist, are generally levied by cities, counties and other local-level administrative bodies like MUDs, and are the primary source of revenue at these levels of government. These taxes pay the lion's share of the expenses for basic services provided by a city or county: There are federal dollars, other revenue sources (State lottery revenues often go toward public schools for instance), and \"\"usage fees\"\" (vehicle registration, utility bills, toll roads) at play as well, but a lot of that money covers larger-scale infrastructure development (freeways/interstates) and specialized \"\"earmarks\"\" (political backscratching involving this bridge or that dam in a Congresscritter's home district, a few national initiatives from the President's budget like first-responder technology upgrades for improved disaster/terrorism readiness). Property taxes are the main funding for the day-to-day government operations at the most visible level to the average resident. The theory behind using a property tax instead of some other form of taxation (like income) is that the value of the property and the quality of services provided to the resident(s) of that property are interrelated; the property is valuable in part because the infrastructure is well-maintained and nearby schools/hospitals are good, and by the same token, affluent residents expect high-quality services. Property taxes are also easier to levy, because most of the work can be done by the tax assessor; monitor recent sale prices, do drive-bys through neighborhoods, come up with a number and send the resident the bill. That's opposed to sales taxes which businesses operating in the jurisdiction have to calculate, collect and turn over, or income taxes which require residents to fill out paperwork to calculate how much they owe. The justification is eminent domain. It's very simple; when you buy land in the U.S. and a State thereof, you are still a citizen and/or resident of that State and the U.S., and subject to their laws. You're not creating your own country when you buy a house. As such, the government charges you for the facilities and services they provide in your area and your State, which are then your privilege to use. Obviously roads aren't free; a one-mile stretch behind my house is costing the county $15 million to expand it from 2-lane to 4-lane. Here's the kicker; you've already been paying these taxes. You think your landlord's just going to take the property taxes for the whole apartment complex on the chin? He's out to make money, and doing that requires charging a sufficient amount to cover costs, including taxes he incurs. You just never see \"\"allocated property taxes\"\" as an item on your rent statement, just like you don't see \"\"allocated landowner mortgage\"\", \"\"allocated facilities maintenance\"\", \"\"allocated gross margin\"\" etc. You know you're getting shafted, paying someone else's financing with a little extra on the side to boot. That's why you want a house. Unfortunately, not being able to pay these taxes is a grim reality for some people, old and young, and government generally doesn't go easy on delinquent homeowners. After medical bills and mortgage delinquency, property tax delinquency is the number three reason for bankruptcy, and only a mortgage or property tax delinquency can cause your home to be seized and sold. Well that and using it for criminal enterprise, but unless you're running a meth lab in your half-million-dollar home or financing it with coke money I wouldn't worry about that score. Retirement planners figure property taxes into cost of living, and they do often advise a downgrade from the 2-story house you raised your children in to something smaller (for many reasons, including lower taxes). There really isn't a way to structure a completely \"\"pay-as-you-go\"\" metropolitan area, and you wouldn't want to live in it if there were. Imagine every strip of asphalt in the county being a toll road where your transponder (TollTag, EZ-Pass, etc) or license plate was scanned and you were billed at each intersection. In addition to being a huge invasion of privacy, the cost to maintain this network (and your cost to use it) would skyrocket. Imagine 911 asking for a credit card number before dispatching police, fire or EMS (Ambulance services already do bill on a per-event basis, but you'd be surprised how few people pay and how little power a county EMS has to enforce collection; without a property tax and Medicaid to cover the difference, EMS service could not be provided in most counties).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c736826887aa913f0544388ca51db098",
"text": "If the building has no income, it also probably has minimal expenses. The heat, water and electricity costs are nearly zero. They are letting the value depreciate, and taking it off the taxes. I also suspect the condition of the building is poor, so any effort to make the building productive would be very costly. Many cities combat this by setting the tax on empty buildings or empty lots at a much higher rate. Or they set the value of the property at a high valuation based on what it could generate. Sometimes this is only targeted at some sections of the city to encourage development. They also offer tax breaks when the owner of a house has the house as their principal residence.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1372eca98843f33d82d53e28b69a5f0b",
"text": "\"No, it can really not. Look at Detroit, which has lost a million residents over the past few decades. There is plenty of real estate which will not go for anything like it was sold. Other markets are very risky, like Florida, where speculators drive too much of the price for it to be stable. You have to be sure to buy on the downturn. A lot of price drops in real estate are masked because sellers just don't sell, so you don't really know how low the price is if you absolutely had to sell. In general, in most of America, anyway, you can expect Real Estate to keep up with inflation, but not do much better than that. It is the rental income or the leverage (if you buy with a mortgage) that makes most of the returns. In urban markets that are getting an influx of people and industry, however, Real Estate can indeed outpace inflation, but the number of markets that do this are rare. Also, if you look at it strictly as an investment (as opposed to the question of \"\"Is it worth it to own my own home?\"\") there are a lot of additional costs that you have to recoup, from property taxes to bills, rental headaches etc. It's an investment like any other, and should be approached with the same due diligence.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba8df4dad5de33163286a919442bf9d4",
"text": "You're paying 5.2% 'interest' on the $115K (500 * 12 / 115,000) * 100 but the amount you pay back is not $115K but 75% of the property value at sale. Is that right? A mortgage would have cost about half that rate and the balloon payment would have been fixed - you would pay back $115K at maturity plus you could have sold it whenever you liked As Gnasher729 said, if you consider it to be rent then the situation looks different but the point of buying a house is to avoid paying 'useless' rent, build equity and hopefully make a capital gain I'd speak to a lawyer & possibly an accountant (regarding the numbers)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "77309dc2d98d3e74a6560ec7f0ea4887",
"text": "\"I don't understand what are the apples and the oranges in them equation above. Also, how do we \"\"assign more money into the system to represent added value in the system?\"\". This is the crux of the matter. Currently, it's gov't debt, as far as I can see. I'm really interested in where else it might come from, and would love to hear your answer.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb90855308bded6bdcea451a5624a0fe",
"text": "\"There are a number of reasons I'm in agreement with \"\"A house that is worth $300,000, or $50,000 of equity in a house and $225,000 in the bank.\"\" So, the update to the first comment should be \"\"A paid off house worth $300K, or a house with $150K equity and $275K in the retirement account.\"\" Edit - On reflection, an interesting question, but I wonder how many actually have this choice. When a family budgets for housing, and uses a 25% target, this number isn't much different for rent vs for the mortgage cost. So how, exactly do the numbers work out for a couple trying to save the next 80% of the home cost? A normal qualifying ration allows a house that costs about 3X one's income. A pay-in-full couple might agree to be conservative and drop to 2X. Are they on an austerity plan, saving 20% of their income in addition to paying the rent? Since the money must be invested conservatively, is it keeping up with house prices? After 10 years, inflation would be pushing the house cost up 30% or so, so is this a 12-15 year plan? I'm happy to ignore the tax considerations. But I question the math of the whole process. It would seem there's a point where the mortgage (plus expenses) add up to less than the rent. And I'd suggest that's the point to buy the house.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a730624c13434ec84e3a67975f3dd2a",
"text": "First, the basis is what was paid for the house along with any documented upgrades, any improvements not consider maintenance. Any gain from that point is taxable. This is the issue with gifting a house before one passes. It's an awful mistake. The fact that there was a mortgage doesn't come into play here nor does the $15K given away. Your question is great, and the only missing piece is what the house cost. Keep in mind, depending on the state, you MIL may have gotten a step-up on the passing of her husband. On a very personal note - my grandparents bough a family house. 4 apartments. 1938 at a cost of $4000. My grandmother transferred 1/2 share to my father well before she died. And before my father's death it was put into my mother's name. Now that she's in her last years, I explained that since moved it to my sister's name already, there's no step up in basis. This share is now worth over $600,000, and after 4 deaths, no step up. When my sister sells, she will have a gain on nearly 100% of the sale price. In my opinion, there's a special place in hell for lawyers that quit claim property like this. For a bit of paperwork, the house could have been put into a trust to avoid probate, avoid being an asset for medicaid, and still get the step up. Even a $2000 cost for a good lawyer to set up a trust would yield a return of nearly $100,000 in taxes avoided. (And as my sister's keeper, I'd have paid the $2,000 myself, no issue that she gets the house. She needs it, I don't. And when the money's gone, I'm all she has anyway.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f90edbfca0952db93bd3675d5978d7c4",
"text": "Why should the rich who buy more expensive homes be subisdized by those who pay less, or from those who rent? A person who buys a 500k home in a high property tax area wins twice. Once but having more tax breaks by being able to deduct more than your average working class person who buys a house at 250k and the second time when they get nicer schools, public services etc at other people's dime. SF home prices are a combination or speculation investment and poor government control. SF prices are at Tokyo levels when the population density is at 1/10. That is a failure of local government policy to build more homes, not from lack of tax breaks. If your community wants to pay higher taxes for more local services, power to you and I encourage it, but you shouldn't be subsidized by those who dont. Imo, people shouldn't be punished for not owning property or living in a state where they think sales tax is better than income or property.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
333ee68ea0ff24b5369b33a5aa57c224
|
Why would a car company lend me money at a very low interest rate?
|
[
{
"docid": "26de817b231e2cc50fe71bdd00bf0b18",
"text": "Because the federal government won't use the money to buy a car thus generating profits for the car company. The aim of cheap loans is to drive sales of cars. The difference between the amount of interest paid on the loan, and the amount they could have got by investing it elsewhere, is simply a reduction in the profit. This is true whatever the actual interest rates are.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1109a029b9265828ac0b300a07184763",
"text": "\"This is \"\"incentive financing\"\". Simply put, the car company isn't in the business of making money by buying government bonds. They're in the business of making money by selling cars. If you are \"\"qualified\"\" from a credit standpoint, and want to buy a $20k car on any given Sunday, you'll typically be offered a loan of between 6% and 9%. Let's say this loan is for three years and you can offer $4000 down payment and/or trade. The required monthly payment on the remaining $16k at the high end of 9% is $508.80, which over 3 years means you'll pay $2,316.64 in interest. Now, that may sound like a good chunk of change, and for the ordinary individual, it is, possibly enough that you decide not to buy today. Now, let's say, all other things being equal, that the company is offering 0.9% incentive financing. Same price, same down payment, same loan term. Your payments over 3 years decrease to $450.64, and over the same loan term you would only pay $222.97 in interest. You save over $2,093.67 in interest over three years, which for you is again a decent chunk of change. Theoretically, the car company's losing that same $2,093.67 in interest by offering this deal, and depending on how it's getting the money it lends you (most financial companies are middlemen, getting money from bond-buying investors who expect a rate of return), that could be a real loss and not just opportunity cost. But, that incentive got you to walk in their door, and not their competitor's. It helped convince you to buy the $20,000 car. The gross margin on that car (price minus direct costs) is typically 20% for the dealer, plus another 20% for the manufacturer, so by giving up the $2,000 on the financing side, the dealer and manufacturer just earned themselves 4 times that much. On top of that, by buying that car, you're committing to buy the parts for the car, a side business with even higher margins, of which the car company gets a pretty big chunk. You may even be required to use dealer service while the car's under warranty in order to keep the warranty valid, another cha-ching. When you get right down to it, the loss from the incentive financing is drowned in the gross profits they make from selling the car to you. Now, in reality, it's a fine balance. The percentages I mentioned are gross margins (EBITDASG&A - Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, Amortization, Sales, General and Administrative costs; basically, just revenue minus direct cost of goods sold). Add in all these side costs and you get a net margin of only about 3.5% of revenue, so your $20k car purchase may only make the car company's stakeholders $700 on the sale, plus slightly higher net margins on parts and service over the life of the car. Because incentive financing is typically only offered through the company's own financing subsidiary, the loss isn't in the form of a cost paid, but simply a revenue not realized, but it can still move a car company from net positive to net negative earnings if the program is too successful. This is why not everyone does it, and not all at the same time; if you're selling enough cars without it, why give away money? Typically, these incentives are offered for two reasons; to clear out old cars or excess inventory, or to maintain ground against a competitor's stronger sales numbers. Keeping cars on a lot ready to sell is expensive, and so is not having your brand driving around on the street turning heads and imprinting their name on the minds of potential customers.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b12d022626f6db29928c4eaeb5b613cb",
"text": "\"Here I thought I would not ever answer a question on this site and boom first ten minutes. First and foremost I am in the automotive industry, specifically one of our core competencies is finance department management consulting and the sales process both for the sale of the care as well as the financial transaction. First and foremost new vehicle gross profits are nowhere near 20% for the dealership. In an entry level vehicle like say a Toyota Corolla there is only a few hundreds of dollars in markup from invoice to M.S.R.P. There is also something called holdback that dealers get for achieving certain goals such as sales volume. These are usually pretty easy to hit. As a matter of fact I have never heard of a dealer not getting the hold back on a deal. This hold back is there to cover overhead for the car, the cost of getting it ready to sell, having a lot to park it on, making it ready for delivery, offset some of the cost of sales labor etc. Most dealerships consider the holdback portion of the invoice to not be part of the deal when it comes to negotiations. Certain brands such as KIA and Chrysler have something called \"\"Dealer Cash\"\" these payouts are usually stair stepped according to volume and vary by dealer, location, past history, how the guys at the factory feel that day and any number of combinations. Then there is CSI or Customer Service Index payments, these payments are usually made every 1/4 are on the Parts Statement not the Sales Doc and while they effect the dealers bottom line they almost never affect the sales managers or sales persons payroll so they are not considered a part of the cost of the car. They are however extremely important to the dealer and this is why after you have your new car they want you to bring in your survey for a free oil change or something. IF you are going to give a bad survey they want to throw it away and not send it in, if you are going to give a good survey they want to make sure you fill it out correctly. This is because lets say they ask you on a scale of 1-10 how was your sales person and you put a 9 that is a failing score. Dumb I know but that is how every factory CSI score system I have seen worked. According to NADA the average New Vehicle gross profit including hold back and dealer cash is around $1000.00. No where near 20%. Dealerships would love it if they made 20% on your new F250 Supercrew Diesel at around $50,000.00. One last thing there is something on the invoice called Wholesale Finance Reserve. This is the amount of money the factory forwards to the Dealership to offset the cost of financing vehicle on the floor plan so they can have it for you to look at before you buy. This is usually equal to around 3 months of interest and while you might buy a vehicle that has been on the lot for 2 days they have plenty that have been there much longer so this equals out in a fair to middling run store. General Mangers that know what they are doing can make this really pad their net profit to statement. On to incentives, there are basically 3 kinds. Cash to customer in the form of rebates, Dealer Cash in the form of incentives to dealerships based on volume or the undesirability of a vehicle, and incentive rates or Subvented leases. The rates are pretty self explanatory as they advertised as such (example 0% for 60 Months). Subvented Leased are harder to figure out and usually not disclosed as they are hard to explain and also a source of increased profit. Subvented leases are usually powered by lower cost of money called a money factor (think of it as an interest rate) that is discounted from the lease company or a subsidized residual. Subsidized residuals are virtually verboten on domestic vehicles due to their poor resell values. A subsidized residual works like this, you buy a Toyota Camry and the ALG (automotive lease guide) says it has a residual at 36 months of 48%. Well Toyota Motor Credit says we will give you a subvented residual of 60% basically subsidizing a 2% increase in residual. Since they do not expect to be able to sell the car at auction for that amount they have to set aside the 2% as a future expense. What does this mean to you, it means a lower payment. Also a good rule of thumb if you are told a money factor by your salesperson to figure out what the interest rate is just multiply it by 2400. So if a money factor is give of .00345 you know your actual interest rate is a little bit lower than 8.28% (illustration purposes only money factors are much lower than that right now). So how does this save you money well a lease is basically calculated by multiplying the MSRP by the residual and then subtracting that amount from the \"\"Capitalized Cost\"\" which is the Price paid for the car - trade in + payoff + TT&L-Rebate-Down Payment. That is the depreciation. Then you divide that number by the term of the loan and you have the depreciation amount. So if you have 20K CC and 10K R your D = 10K / 36 = 277 monthly payment. For the rest of the monthly payment you add (I think been a long time since I did this with out a computer) the Residual plus the CC for $30,000 * MF of .00345 = 107 for a total payment of 404 ish. This is not completely accurate but you can use it to make sure a salesperson/finance person is not trying to do one thing and say another as so often happens on leases. 0% how the heck do they make money at that, well its simple. First in 2008 the Fed made all the \"\"Captive\"\" lenders into actual banks instead of whatever they were before. So now they have access to the Fed's discounting window which with todays monetary policies make it almost free money. In the past these lenders had to go through all kinds of hoops to raise funds and securitize loans even for super prime credit. Those days are essentially over. Now they get their short term money just like Bank of America does. Eventually they still bundle these loans and sell them. So in the short term YOU pay for the 0% by giving up part or all of your rebate. This is really important DO NOT GIVE up your rebate for 0% unless it makes sense to do so. When you can get the money at 2.5% and get a $7000.00 rebate (customer cash) on that F250 or 0% take the cash. First of all make the finance guy/gal show you the the difference in total cost they can do do this using the federal truth in lending disclosures on a finance contract. Secondly how long will you keep the vehicle? If you come out ahead by say $1500 by taking the lower rate but you usually trade out every three years this is not going to work. Also and this is important if you are involved in a situation with a total loss like a stolen car or even worse a bad wreck before the breakeven point you lose that price break. Finally on judging what is right for you, just know that future value of the vehicle on for resell or trade-in will take into effect all of these past rebates and value the car accordingly. So if a vehicle depreciates 20% a year for the first 3 years the starting point will essentially be $7000.00 less than you actually paid, using rough numbers. How does this help the dealers and car companies? Well while a dealer struggles to make money on new cars the factory makes all of their money on the new cars and the new car financing. While your individual loan might lose money that money is offset by the loss of rebate and I think Ford does actually pay Ford Motor Credit Company the difference in the rate. The most important thing is what happens later FMCC now has 2500 loans with people with perfect credit. They can now use those loans to budle with people with not so perfect credit that they financed at 12%-18% and buy that money with interest rates in the 2%-3% range. Well that is a hell of a lot of profit. 'How does it help the dealership, well the more super prime credit they have in their portfolio the more subprime credit the banks will buy for them. This means they have more loans originated that are more profitable for them. Say you come in for the 0% but have 590 credit score, they get FMCC to buy the deal because they have a good portfolio and you win because the dealer gets to buy the money at say 9% and sell it to you at say 12% making the spread. You win there because you actually qualified for a rate of around 18% with a subprime company like Santander or Capital One (yes that capital one) so you save a ton on your overall cost of the car. Any dealership that is half way well run makes as much or money in the finance and insurance office than the rest of the dealership. When you factor in what a good F&I Director can do to get deals done with favorable terms that really goes up. Think about that the guys sitting a desk drinking coffee making more than the service department guys all put together. Well that was long winded but there I broke down the car business for whoever read this far.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4ba0904c027d73e4cfead5e90c27a3d6",
"text": "In addition to the other answers, also consider this: Federal bond interest rates are nowhere near the rates you mentioned for short term bonds. They are less than 1% unless you're talking about terms of 5-10 years, and the rates you mentioned are for 10 to 30-years terms. Dealer financed car loans are usually 2-5 years (the shorter the term - the lower the rate). In addition, as said by others, you pay more than just the interest if you take a car loan from the dealer directly. But your question is also valid for banks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "979150f0ed4d6e0a2bded0486e3ed0a7",
"text": "\"They aren't actually. It appears to be a low interest rate, but it doesn't cover their true cost of capital. It is a sales tactic where they are raising the sticker price/principal of the car, which is subsidizing the true cost of the loan, likely 4% or higher. It would be hard to believe that the true cost of a car loan would be less than for a mortgage, as with a mortgage the bank can reclaim an asset that tends to rise in value, compared to a used car, which will have fallen in value. This is one reason why you can generally get a better price with cash, because there is a margin built in, in addition to the fact that with cash they get all their profit today versus a discount of future cash flows from a loan by dealing with a bank or other lending company. So if you could see the entire transaction from the \"\"inside\"\", the car company would not actually be making money. The government rate is also so low that it often barely covers inflation, much less operating costs and profit. This is why any time you see \"\"0% Financing!\"\", it is generally a sales tactic designed to get your attention. A company cannot actually acquire capital at 0% to lend to you at 0%, because even if the nominal interest rate were 0%, there is an opportunity cost, as you have observed. A portion of the sticker price is covering the real cost, and subsidizing the monthly payment.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "69785cfa56e360777df4467d5a7e57aa",
"text": "Well, if you can get a loan for 3.8% and reliably invest for 7% returns, then you should borrow as much as you possibly can - the whole employment/existing loan situation doesn't even enter into it! But as they say, if something is too good to be true, it probably isn't (true). The 7-8% return are not guaranteed at all, but the 3.8% interest is. And while we're at it, 3.8% for an unsecured loan sounds pretty damn low, I would be really doubtful about that. I mean, why would the bank do that if they could instead invest the money for 7-8%?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c9ce1b041cc3e4f4463bf2f83a21f155",
"text": "In the U.S., most car dealers provide lease financing through one company (usually a subsidiary of the auto manufacturer). Whereas they provide loan financing through a variety of companies, some of whom offer very high interest rate loans and sell the loans as collateralized debt obligations (CDOs). Have you checked whether Chase or First Tech Credit Union offers a suitable car lease?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa4a29677cbaabb9dbf2395e17812b4a",
"text": "I mean, at a personal level, I do this all the time. I will absolutely take advantage of low interest financing offers if I know I can make more money with the outstanding balance than will be drawn in interest. It can also make sense from a risk management perspective: I need liquidity even if I can cover the cost, I anticipate needing a large sum of cash over a short interval during the finance period. If I were to pay all upfront the cumulative expenditures would Darwin me too close to my safety threshold for my comfort level, but by financing I can distribute the risk and keep a higher margin for error over the course of the loan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "632a0ece15cf3dadbd5fe45fd5f93376",
"text": "You have a few options and sometimes challenges help us improve our situation. First, you can not borrow to buy a car. Reducing the massive depreciation that cars undergo will help you be wealthier. It is hard to find a good use car that you can buy for cash, but it will play out best for your finances in the long run. If your heart is set on borrowing, I would encourage you to go to the bank/credit union where you have your checking account. They will see your history of deposits and may grant you a loan based on that. Also you are likely to get a better deal from the bank than from the car dealer. Thirdly, you can simply go to your employer's HR department and ask them. Surely someone has applied for a loan during the company's history. What did they do for them?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f2d7cb8ce82aa73b1882a63e63724e8",
"text": "\"Yea but they might feel swindled and that you pulled a fast one on them, and not be as willing to give you good deals in the future. Like, as a totally non mathematical example, they have a car for $50k. They lower the price to 40k with a financing that will bring total payment to 60k. Their break even on that car is let's say 45k. The financier cuts them a commission on expected profits, of maybe 7k? They made an expected 2k on the car. But if you pay it all off asap, they may lose that commission, be 5k in the hole on the sale, and pretty upset. Even more upset if they finance in house. So when you go back to buy another car they'll say \"\"fuck this guy, we need to recoup past lost profits, don't go below 4K above break even.\"\" I'm not really 100% on how financing workings when it comes to cars but from my background in sales this is the bar I would set for a customer that made me take a loss by doing business with them if they tried to come back in the future. This doesn't take into account how car dealerships don't own their inventory, finance all of their cars and actually ARE willing to take a loss on a car just to get it off the lot some times.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5fd677f5148dd5e154d02cf4ee19ad1",
"text": "Dude- my background is in banking specifically dealing with these scenarios. Take my advice-look for a balance transfer offer-credit card at 0%. Your cost of capital is your good credit, this is your leverage. Why pay 4.74% when you can pay 0%. Find a credit card company with a balance transfer option for 0%. Pay no interest, and own the car outright. Places to start; check the mail, or check your bank, or check local credit unions. Some credit unions are very relaxed for membership, and ask if they have zero percent balance transfers. Good Luck!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a19a12381407a53ef09ec1a7fdea9e04",
"text": "I'd pay cash. Car loans are amortized, so sometimes you can get upside-down on the loan between 18-30 months because you are pre-paying interest. This can get you into trouble if you get into an accident. Given the low rate and the type of car you're buying, you're probably fine either way.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1f1aa4fd1d65fa135ec33d4155d334c",
"text": "\"You are correct to be wary. Car dealerships make money selling cars, and use many tactics and advertisements to entice you to come into their showroom. \"\"We are in desperate need of [insert your make, model, year and color]! We have several people who want that exact car you have! Come in and sell it to us and buy a new car at a great price! We'll give you so much money on your trade in!\"\" In reality, they play a shell game and have you focus on your monthly payment. By extending the loan to 4 or 5 years (or longer), they can make your monthly payment lower, sure, but the total amount paid is much higher. You're right: it's not in your best interest. Buy a car and drive it into the ground. Being free of car payments is a luxury!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "14fbd60f61528b74f681f6033acfc003",
"text": "The risk besides the extra interest is that you might be upside down on the loan. Because the car loses value the moment you drive off the lot, the slower you pay it off the longer it takes to get the loan balance below the resale value. Of course if you have a significant down payment, the risk of being upside down is not as great. Even buying a used car doesn't help because if you try to sell it back to the dealer the next week they wont give you the full price you paid. Some people try and split the difference, get the longer term loan, but then pay it off as quickly as the shorter term loan. Yes the interest rate is higher but if you need to drop the payment back to the required level you can do so.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "54df40bf61e056d37576ccc99111fa4c",
"text": "So many answers here are missing the mark. I have a $100k mortgage--because that isn't paid off, I can't buy a car? That's really misguided logic. You have a reasonably large amount of college debt and didn't mention any other debt-- It's a really big deal what kind of debt this is. Is it unsecured debt through a private lender? Is it a federal loan from the Department of Education? Let's assume the worst possible (reasonable) situation. You lose your job and spend the next year plus looking for work. This is the boat numerous people out of college are in (far far far FAR more than the unemployment rates indicate). Federal loans have somewhat reasonable (indentured servitude, but I digress) repayment strategies; you can base the payment on your current income through income-based and income-continent repayment plans. If you're through a private lender, they still expect payment. In both cases--because the US hit students with ridiculous lending practices, your interest rates are likely 5-10% or even higher. Given your take-home income is quite large and I don't know exactly the cost of living where you live--you have to make some reasonable decisions. You can afford a car note for basically any car you want. What's the worst that happens if you can't afford the car? They take it back. If you can afford to feed yourself, house yourself, pay your other monthly bills...you make so much more than the median income in the US that I really don't see any issues. What you should do is write out all your monthly costs and figure out how much unallocated money you have, but I'd imagine you have enough money coming in to finance any reasonable new or used car. Keep in mind new will have much higher insurance and costs, but if you pick a good car your headaches besides that will be minimal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "c59b0cebec63a91223960ef08c299029",
"text": "A lender will look at three things when giving a loan: Income. Do you make enough money each month to afford the payments. They will subtract from your income any other loans, credit card debt, student loan debt, mortgage. They will also figure in your housing costs. Your Collateral. For a mortgage the collateral is the house, for a car loan it is the car. They will only give you a loan to a specific percentage of the value of the collateral. Your money in the bank isn't collateral, but it can serve as a down payment on the loan. Your Credit score. This is a measure of how well you handle credit. The longer the history the better. Using credit wisely is better than not using the credit you have. If you don't have a credit card, get one. Start with your current bank. You have a history with them. If they won't help you join a credit union. Another source of car loans is the auto dealer. Though their rates can be high. Make sure that the purchase price doesn't require a monthly payment too high for your income. Good rules of thumb for monthly payments are 25% for housing and 10% for all other loans combined. Even a person with perfect credit can't get a loan for more than the bank thinks they can afford. Note: Don't drain all your savings, you will need it to pay for the unexpected expenses in life. You might think you have enough cash to pay off the student loan or to make a big down payment, but you don't want to stretch yourself too thin.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6ea3b8af7a6b041764f60802ed30c0f8",
"text": "Is it really worth the interest you'd pay over a year for a relatively minor and temporary bump to your credit score? I mean, you just bought a car so I'm assuming you probably aren't looking for another loan in the near future.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "230bf99815c0f1b4b3d8aea5c08f2c0f",
"text": "The car dealership doesn't care where you get the cash; they care about it becoming their money immediately and with no risk or complications. Any loan or other arrangements you make to raise the cash is Your Problem, not theirs, unless you arrange the loan through them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b39141e13117ae594047e1e04dc08ae2",
"text": "What's a good proxy for the return of the market when utilizing CAPM for a WACC build up? I know I could rip data from Domadaran, but I'd like to calculate it for myself. Maybe S&P 500 earnings yield plus the 10yr? Also don't like taking the round assumption of 7%.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
9e69ab9fb91087bd50537b8319e08a0b
|
When do I pay taxes if I'm self employed?
|
[
{
"docid": "bfc6b9e15735ccad53b4a312432b6239",
"text": "I strongly recommend that you talk to an accountant right away because you could save some money by making a tax payment by January 15, 2014. You will receive Forms 1099-MISC from the various entities with whom you are doing business as a contractor detailing how much money they paid you. A copy will go to the IRS also. You file a Schedule C with your Form 1040 in which you detail how much you received on the 1099-MISC forms as well as any other income that your contracting business received (e.g. amounts less than $600 for which a 1099-MISc does not need to be issued, or tips, say, if you are a taxi-driver running your own cab), and you can deduct various expenses that you incurred in generating this income, including tools, books, (or gasoline!) etc that you bought for doing the job. You will need to file a Schedule SE that will compute how much you owe in Social Security and Medicare taxes on the net income on Schedule C. You will pay at twice the rate that employees pay because you get to pay not only the employee's share but also the employer's share. At least, you will not have to pay income tax on the employer's share. Your net income on Schedule C will transfer onto Form 1040 where you will compute how much income tax you owe, and then add on the Social Security tax etc to compute a final amount of tax to be paid. You will have to pay a penalty for not making tax payments every quarter during 2013, plus interest on the tax paid late. Send the IRS a check for the total. If you talk to an accountant right away, he/she will likely be able to come up with a rough estimate of what you might owe, and sending in that amount by January 15 will save some money. The accountant can also help you set up for the 2014 tax year during which you could make quarterly payments of estimated tax for 2014 and avoid the penalties and interest referred to above.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "b0fe4f46c95a1af4c1c188eddc55166d",
"text": "For tax purposes you will need to file as an employee (T4 slips and tax withheld automatically), but also as an entrepreneur. I had the same situation myself last year. Employee and self-employed is a publication from Revenue Canada that will help you. You need to fill out the statement of business activity form and keep detailed records of all your deductible expenses. Make photocopies and keep them 7 years. May I suggest you take an accountant to file your income tax form. More expensive but makes you less susceptible to receive Revenue Canada inspectors for a check-in. If you can read french, you can use this simple spreadsheet for your expenses. Your accountant will be happy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8fe6f7a9cad2f4520ed898b0c39b47ba",
"text": "\"I assume your employer does standard withholding? Then what you need to do is figure what bracket that puts you in after you've done all your normal deductions. Let's say it's 25%. Then multiply your freelance income after business expenses, and that's your estimated tax, approximately. (Unless the income causes you to jump a bracket.) To that you have to add approximately 12-13% Social Security/Medicare for income between the $90K and $118,500. Filling out Form 1040SSE will give you a better estimate. But there is a \"\"safe harbor\"\" provision, in that if what you pay in estimated tax (and withholding) this year is at least as much as you owed last year, there's no penalty. I've always done mine this way, dividing last year's tax by 4, since my income is quite variable, and I've never been able to make sense of the worksheets on the 1040-ES.\"",
"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": "1d6a6791ce3ec6df6dfd451ae2ffb6d3",
"text": "Your taxable income is your total income from however many sources of income you have. If you are in employment and doing self-employed job at the same time, your taxable income will be a combination of both incomes. For example if in employment you make £10000 and self employed you make another £10000 - your total income is £20000 and this is your taxable income. And even if your self-employed job does not bring you more than personal allowance, how would HMRC know that without you filling-in tax return?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee0f34fa27cb4ca84be860d651f060f3",
"text": "You tagged with S-Corp, so I assume that you have that tax status. Under that situation, you don't get taxed on distributions regardless of what you call them. You get taxed on the portion of the net income that is attributable to you through the Schedule K that the S-Corp should distribute to you when the S-Corp files its tax return. You get taxed on that income whether or not it's distributed. If you also work for the small business, then you need to pay yourself a reasonable wage. The amount that you distribute can be one factor in determining reasonableness. That doesn't seem to be what you asked, but it is something to consider.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "37a8df9320affe0b7287c522247d716f",
"text": "If you are being paid money in exchange for services that you are providing to your cousin, then that is income, are legally you are required to declare it as self-employment income, and pay taxes when you file your tax return (and if you have a significant amount of self-employment income, you're supposed make payments every quarter of your estimated tax liability. The deposit itself will not be taxed, however.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "14473f2ac55ef0a59cf823be7856e1de",
"text": "You will need to register as self-employed aka sole trader (that's the whole point: pay taxes on income that you're not getting as wages from an employer, who would arrange PAYE/NI contributions), or set up a limited company (in the last case you would have the option of either getting paid as wages or as dividends — which one is better is a complex issue which varies from year to year). You'll find lots of advice on the HMRC website.",
"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": "18aa3fdbbe9aca96da6f7a89dc764210",
"text": "If you sell through an intermediate who sets up the shop for you, odds are they collect and pay the sales tax for you. My experience is with publishing books through Amazon, where they definitely handle this for you. If you can find a retailer that will handle the tax implications, that might be a good reason to use them. It looks like Etsy uses a different model where you yourself are responsible for the sales tax, which requires you to register with your state (looks like this is the information for New York) and pay the taxes yourself on a regular basis; see this link for a simple guide. If you're doing this, you'll need to keep track of how much tax you owe from your sales each month, quarter, or year (depending on the state laws). You can usually be a sole proprietor, which is the easiest business structure to set up; if you want to limit your legal liability, or work with a partner, you may want to look into other forms of business structure, but for most craftspeople a sole proprietorship is fine to start out with. If you do a sole proprietorship, you can probably file the income on a 1040 Schedule C when you do your personal taxes each year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a8a34d5de6f3676427fdea0189bc6428",
"text": "It would be quite the trick for (a) the government to run all year and get all its revenue in April when taxes are due and (b) for people to actually save the right amount to be able to cut that check each year. W2 employers withhold the estimated federal and state taxes along with the payroll (social security) tax from each paycheck. Since the employer doesn't know how many kids you have, or how much mortgage interest, etc you will take deductions for, you can submit a W4 form to adjust withholdings. The annual Form 1040 in April is to reconcile exact numbers, some people get a refund of some of what they paid in, others owe some money. If one is self-employed, they are required to pay quarterly estimated taxes. And they, too, reconcile exact numbers in April.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd07b9332ec0af4e8cddc1f4c558f5dc",
"text": "\"From the IRS page on Estimated Taxes (emphasis added): Taxes must be paid as you earn or receive income during the year, either through withholding or estimated tax payments. If the amount of income tax withheld from your salary or pension is not enough, or if you receive income such as interest, dividends, alimony, self-employment income, capital gains, prizes and awards, you may have to make estimated tax payments. If you are in business for yourself, you generally need to make estimated tax payments. Estimated tax is used to pay not only income tax, but other taxes such as self-employment tax and alternative minimum tax. I think that is crystal clear that you're paying income tax as well as self-employment tax. To expand a bit, you seem to be confusing self-employment tax and estimated tax, which are not only two different things, but two different kinds of things. One is a tax, and the other is just a means of paying your taxes. \"\"Self-employment tax\"\" refers to the Social Security and Medicare taxes that you must pay on your self-employment income. This is an actual tax that you owe. If you receive a W-2, half of it is \"\"invisibly\"\" paid by your employer, and half of it is paid by you in the form of visible deductions on your pay stub. If you're self-employed, you have to pay all of it explicitly. \"\"Estimated tax\"\" does not refer to any actual tax levied on anyone. A more pedantically correct phrasing would be \"\"estimated tax payment\"\". Estimated taxes are just payments that you make to the IRS to pay tax you expect to owe. Whether you have to make such payments depends on how much tax you owe and whether you've paid it by other means. You may need to pay estimated tax even if you're not self-employed, although this would be unusual. (It could happen, for instance, if you realized large capital gains over the year.) You also may be self-employed but not need to pay estimated tax (if, for instance, you also have a W-2 job and you reduce your withholding allowances to have extra tax withheld). That said, if you earn significant income from self-employment, you'll likely have to make estimated tax payments. These are prepayments of the income tax and Social Security/Medicare taxes you accrue based on your self-employment income. As Pete B. mentioned in his answer, a possible reason that your estiamtes are low is because some taxes have already been withheld from the paychecks you received so far during the year (while you were an employee). These represent tax payments you've already made; you don't need to pay that money a second time, but you may need to make estimated tax payments for your income going forward.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1f2ff5ed3f7d9d6c17bd7c358111fd09",
"text": "The amount of the income taxes you will owe depends upon how much income you have, after valid business expenses, also it will depend upon your filing status as well as the ownership form of your business and what state you live in. That said, you will need to be sure to make the Federal 1040ES quarterly prepayments of your tax on time or there will be penalties. You also must remember that you will be needing to file a schedule SE with your 1040. That is for the social security taxes you owe, which is in addition to your income taxes. With an employer/employee situation, the FICA withhoding you have seen on your paycheck are matched by the same payment by your employer. Now that you are self-employed you are responcible for your share and the employer share as well; in this situation it is known as self-employment tax. the amount of it will be the same as your share of FICA and half of the employer's share of FICA taxes. If you are married and your wife also is working self-employed, then she will have to files herown schedule SE along with yours. meaning that you will pay based on your business income and she will pay baed on hers. your 1040Es quarterly prepayment must cover your income tax and your combined (yours and hers) Self Employment taxes. Many people will debate on the final results of the results of schedule SE vrs an employee's and an employer's payments combined. If one were to provides a ball park percentage that would likely apply to you final total addition to your tax libility as a result of needing schedule SE would tend to fluctuate depending upon your total tax situation; many would debate it. It has been this way since, I first studied and use this schedule decades ago. For this reason it is best for you to review these PDF documents, Form 1040 Schedule SE Instructions and Form 1040 Schedule SE. As for your state income taxes, it will depend on the laws of the state you are based in.",
"title": ""
},
{
"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": "e0c51eea3ded591cacec119ff328abda",
"text": "Payment of taxes for your personal return filed with the IRS always come from your personal account, regardless of how the money was earned. Sales tax would be paid from your business account, so would corporate taxes, if those apply; but if you're talking about your tax payments to the IRS for your personal income that should be paid from your personal account. Also, stating the obvious, if you're paying an accountant to handle things you can always ask them for clarification as well. They will have more precise answers. EDIT Adding on for your last part of the question I missed: In virtually all cases LLC's are what's called a pass through entity. For these entities, all income in the eyes of the federal government passes directly through the entity to the owners at the end of each year. They are then taxed personally on this net income at their individual tax rate, that's the very abridged version at least. The LLC pays no taxes directly to the federal government related to your income. Here's a resource if you'd like to learn more about LLC's: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/llc-basics-30163.html",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "04bbc88a939792d7bc92dd48454f2d87",
"text": "\"Paying yourself through a corporation requires an analysis of a variety of issues. First, a salary paid to yourself creates RRSP contribution room as well as CPP contributions. Paying yourself a dividend achieves neither of those. By having a corporation, you will have to file a corporate (T2) tax return. The corporation is considered a separate legal entity from you. As an individual, you will still need to file a personal (T1) tax return. Never just \"\"draw\"\" money out of a corporation. This can create messy transactions involving loans to shareholders. Interest is due on these amounts and any amounts not paid within one calendar year are considered as wages by Canada Revenue and would need to be reported as income on your next T1 return. You should never withhold EI premiums as the sole owner of a corporation. You are considered exempt from these costs by CRA. Any amounts that have been remitted to CRA can be reclaimed by submitting a formal request. The decision on whether to take a salary or dividends normally requires some detailed analysis. Your accountant or financial advisor should be able to assist in this matter.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
4dc6f6f4352b9403ac4ea6a89761a5b7
|
Preferred vs Common Shares in Private Corporation
|
[
{
"docid": "43a8a0bd9f7e3a02c41380568ddbd89c",
"text": "\"Preferred dividends and common dividends are completely separate transactions. There's not a single \"\"dividend\"\" payment that is split between preferred and common shares. Dividends on preferred shares are generally MUCH higher than common dividends, and are generally required by the terms of the preferred shares, again unlike common dividends, which are discretionary.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c8190665ca7c86417f05ab163d11144",
"text": "To follow up on Quid's comment, the share classes themselves will define what level of dividends are expected. Note that the terms 'common shares' and 'preferred shares' are generally understood terms, but are not as precise as you might believe. There are dozens/hundreds of different characteristics that could be written into share classes in the company's articles of incorporation [as long as those characteristics are legal in corporate law in the company's jurisdiction]. So in answering your question there's a bit of an assumption that things are working 'as usual'. Note that private companies often have odd quirks to their share classes, things like weird small classes of shares that have most of the voting rights, or shares with 'shotgun buyback clauses'. As long as they are legal clauses, they can be used to help control how the business is run between various shareholders with competing interests. Things like parents anticipating future family infighting and trying to prevent familial struggle. You are unlikely to see such weird quirks in public companies, where the company will have additional regulatory requirements and where the public won't want any shock at unexpected share clauses. In your case, you suggested having a non-cumulative preferred share [with no voting rights, but that doesn't impact dividend payment]: There are two salient points left related to payout that the articles of incorporation will need to define for the share classes: (1) What is the redemption value for the shares? [This is usually equal to the cost of subscribing for the shares in the first place; it represents how much the business will need to pay the shareholder in the event of redemption / recall] (2) What is the stated dividend amount? This is usually defined at a rate that's at or a little above a reasonable interest rate at the time the shares are created, but defined as $ / share. For example, the shares could have $1 / share dividend payment, where the shares originally cost $50 each to subscribe [this would reflect a rate of payment of about 2%]. Typically by corporate law, dividends must be paid to preferred shares, to the extent required based on the characteristics of the share class [some preferred shares may not have any required dividends at all], before any dividends can be paid to common shares. So if $10k in dividends is to be paid, and total preferred shares require $15k of non-cumulative dividends each year, then $0 will be paid to the common shares. The following year, $15k of dividends will once again need to be paid to the preferred shares, before any can be paid to the common shares.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d4d2473d001e4be93bf68b6de5f0ab77",
"text": "One reason a company might choose to pay a dividend is because of the desire of influential stockholders to receive the dividend. In the case of Ford, for example, there are 70 million shares of Class B stock which receive the same dividend per share as do the common stock holders. Even though there are 3.8 billion shares of common stock, the Class B owners (which are Ford family) hold 40% of the voting power and so their desires are given much weight. The Class B owners prefer regular dividends because if enough were to sell their Class B shares, all Class B shares (as a block) would have their voting power drop from 40% to 30%, and with further sales all special voting would be lost and each Class B share would be equivalent to a common share in voting power. Hence the Class B owners, both for themselves and for all of the family members holding Class B, avoid selling shares and prefer receiving dividends.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f86a8a4bb3fa8d170e7d2cb5f67b104",
"text": "Thanks for your thorough reply. Basically, I found a case study in one of my old finance workbooks from school and am trying to complete it. So it's not entirely complicated in the sense of a full LBO or merger model. That being said, the information that they provide is Year 1 EBITDA for TargetCo and BuyerCo and a Pro-Forma EBITDA for the consolidated company @ Year 1 and Year 4 (expected IPO). I was able to get the Pre-Money and Post-Money values and the Liquidation values (year 4 IPO), as well as the number of shares. I can use EBITDA to get EPS (ebitda/share in this case) for both consolidated and stand-alone @ Year 1, but can only get EPS for consolidated for all other years. Given the information provided. One of the questions I have is do I do anything with my liquidation values for an accretion/dilution analysis or is it all EPS?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dbc54297aa25d0a851d8421cd7854b7c",
"text": "\"In the Income Statement that you've linked to, look for the line labeled \"\"Net Income\"\". That's followed by a line labeled \"\"Preferred Dividends\"\", which is followed by \"\"Income Available to Common Excl. Extra Items\"\" and \"\"Income Available to Common Incl. Extra Items\"\". Those last two are the ones to look at. The key is that these lines reflect income minus dividends paid to preferred stockholders (of which there are none here), and that's income that's available to ordinary shareholders, i.e., \"\"earnings for the common stock\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bee554ce343c9497d46a77371b98b111",
"text": "I know this has already been answered and I know its frowned upon to dump a link, however, when it comes to investments it's best to get data from an 'official' source to avoid misinterpretations and personal opinions. The attached pdf is from the S&P and provides detailed, but not overwhelming, information regarding the types of preferreds, the risks & common terminology: http://us.spindices.com/documents/education/practice-essentials-us-preferreds.pdf Page 1: PREFERRED SECURITIES DEFINED Borrowing from two worlds, a preferred security has both equity and fixed income characteristics. As such, the preferred structure offers a flexible approach to structuring a preferred offering for an issuer. Companies have many reasons to issue preferred securities. Financial institutions, for example, need to raise capital. Many times they will use the preferred market because of any required regulatory requirements, in addition to cost considerations. Banks and financial institutions are required to maintain a certain level of Tier 1 capital—which includes common equity and perpetual non-cumulative preferreds—as protection against the bank’s liabilities. Issuing more common equity comes at a cost, including the dilution of existing shares, which a company may not want to bear. Preferred securities are a cheaper alternative approach to raising the capital. Companies often use preferred stock for strategic reasons. Some of these uses include:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "debd5e40e3327e8ec70f403b0a65963c",
"text": "In the case you mentioned, where a private company owners will take debt with the purpose of buying out other owners, is this done through a share repurchases program (I understand private companies issue them, even though it's rare)? Thank you for the insights.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "41d5bfb7a9d47b8e32ca6736772ca243",
"text": "\"Yes and no. There are different classes of shares - Some have voting rights, some *don't*. Some take precedence over others in a bankruptcy. Some get larger dividends. \"\"Common\"\" isn't really a useful description of your stake in the company. You *do* have a \"\"stake\"\" in the company, but not all shares are equal.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "36347183e3c2c8963ed56ec4fa8468dc",
"text": "If the share is listed on a stock exchange that creates liquidity and orderly sales with specialist market makers, such as the NYSE, there will always be a counterparty to trade with, though they will let the price rise or fall to meet other open interest. On other exchanges, or in closely held or private equity scenarios, this is not necessarily the case (NASDAQ has market maker firms that maintain the bid-ask spread and can do the same thing with their own inventory as the specialists, but are not required to by the brokerage rules as the NYSE brokers are). The NYSE has listing requirements of at least 1.1 million shares, so there will not be a case with only 100 shares on this exchange.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5d354ffcba653ace3f0d5f2d49614d2d",
"text": "First and foremost you need to be aware of what you are comparing. In this case, HSBC as traded on the NYSE exchange is not common shares, but an ADR (American Depository Receipt) with a 5:1 ratio from the actual shares. So for most intents and purposes owning one ADR is like owning five common shares. But for special events like dividends, there may be other considerations, such as the depository bank (the institution that created the ADR) may take a percentage. Further, given that some people, accounts or institutions may be required to invest in a given country or not, there may be some permanent price dislocation between the shares and the ADR, which can further lead to discrepancies which are then highlighted by the seeming difference in dividends.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "bd1a333f0d4845d3bfc8aa0017e0da31",
"text": "\"Without any highly credible anticipation of a company being a target of a pending takeover, its common stock will normally trade at what can be considered non-control or \"\"passive market\"\" prices, i.e. prices that passive securities investors pay or receive for each share of stock. When there is talk or suggestion of a publicly traded company's being an acquisition target, it begins to trade at \"\"control market\"\" prices, i.e. prices that an investor or group of them is expected to pay in order to control the company. In most cases control requires a would-be control shareholder to own half a company's total votes (not necessarily stock) plus one additional vote and to pay a greater price than passive market prices to non-control investors (and sometimes to other control investors). The difference between these two market prices is termed a \"\"control premium.\"\" The appropriateness and value of this premium has been upheld in case law, with some conflicting opinions, in Delaware Chancery Court (see the reference below; LinkedIn Corp. is incorporated in the state), most other US states' courts and those of many countries with active stock markets. The amount of premium is largely determined by investment bankers who, in addition to applying other valuation approaches, review most recently available similar transactions for premiums paid and advise (formally in an \"\"opinion letter\"\") their clients what range of prices to pay or accept. In addition to increasing the likelihood of being outbid by a third-party, failure to pay an adequate premium is often grounds for class action lawsuits that may take years to resolve with great uncertainty for most parties involved. For a recent example and more details see this media opinion and overview about Dell Inc. being taken private in 2013, the lawsuits that transaction prompted and the court's ruling in 2016 in favor of passive shareholder plaintiffs. Though it has more to do with determining fair valuation than specifically premiums, the case illustrates instruments and means used by some courts to protect non-control, passive shareholders. ========== REFERENCE As a reference, in a 2005 note written by a major US-based international corporate law firm, it noted with respect to Delaware courts, which adjudicate most major shareholder conflicts as the state has a disproportionate share of large companies in its domicile, that control premiums may not necessarily be paid to minority shareholders if the acquirer gains control of a company that continues to have minority shareholders, i.e. not a full acquisition: Delaware case law is clear that the value of a dissenting [target company's] stockholder’s shares is not to be reduced to impose a minority discount reflecting the lack of the stockholders’ control over the corporation. Indeed, this appears to be the rationale for valuing the target corporation as a whole and allocating a proportionate share of that value to the shares of [a] dissenting stockholder [exercising his appraisal rights in seeking to challenge the value the target company's board of directors placed on his shares]. At the same time, Delaware courts have suggested, without explanation, that the value of the corporation as a whole, and as a going concern, should not include a control premium of the type that might be realized in a sale of the corporation.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3fcc98a23ecf60d847d502cb52a0209",
"text": "In this type of strategy profit is made when the shares go down as your main position is the short trade of the common stock. The convertible instruments will tend to move in about the same direction as the underlying (what it can be converted to) but less violently as they are traded less (lower volatility and lower volume in the market on both sides), however, they are not being used to make a profit so much as to hedge against the stock going up. Since both the bonds and the preference shares are higher on the list to be repaid if the company declares bankruptcy and the bonds pay out a fixed amount of interest as well, both also help protect against problems that may occur with a long position in the common stock. Essentially the plan with this strategy is to earn fixed income on the bonds whilst the stock price drops and then to sell both the bonds and buy the stock back on the market to cover the short position. If the prediction that the stock will fall is wrong then you are still earning fixed income on the debt and are able to convert it into stock at the higher price to cover the short sale eliminating, or reducing, the loss made on the short sale. Effectively the profit here is made on the spread between the price of the bond, accounting for the conversion price, and the price of the stock and that fixed income is less volatile (except usually in the junk market) than stock.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f5e070140e741eeb2fd1c0040fe4f624",
"text": "\"The difference between TMUSP and TMUS is that the \"\"with P\"\" ticker is for a TMobile Preferred Stock offering. The \"\"without P\"\" ticker is for TMobile common stock. The difference between the apparent percentage yields is due to Yahoo! Stock misreporting the dividend on the preferred stock for the common stock, which has not paid a dividend (thanks Brick for pointing this out!) Preferred stock holders get paid first in the event of liquidation, in most scenarios they get paid first. They sometimes get better returns. They typically lack voting rights, and after a grace period, they may be recalled by the company at a fixed price (set when they were issued). Common stock holders can vote to alter the board of directors, and are the epitome of the typical \"\"I own a trivial fraction of the company\"\" model that most people think of when owning stocks. As the common stock is valued at much less, it appears that the percent yield is much higher, but in reality, it's 0%.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d3de2e3532c4bf6ad539bc232c06e42",
"text": "If the first one is literally a company name, then 'company name' is fine. However, companies can issue shares more than once, and those shares might be traded separately, so you could have 'Google ordinary', 'Google preference', 'Google ordinary issue B'. Seeing the name spelled out in full like this isn't as common as just the company name, but I'd normally see it referred to as 'display name'. The second one is 'symbol', 'ticker', 'ID', and others. Globally, there are many incompatible ways of referring to a stock, depending on where it's listed (companies can have dual listings, and different exchanges have different conventions), and who's referring to it (Bloomberg and Reuters have different sets of IDs, with no predictable mapping between them). So there's no one shorthand name, and the word you use depends on the context. However, 'symbol' or 'ticker' is normally fine.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "89806c12767e3ceb53f7abd1658aa490",
"text": "\"I am a tax lawyer and ALL the RESPONSES ABOVE are 1/2 Correct but also 1/2 Wrong and in tax law this means 100% WRONG (BECAUSE ANY PART INCORRECT UNDER TAX LAW will get YOU A HUGE PENALY and/or PRISON TIME by way of the IRS! So in ESSENCE ALL the above answers are WRONG! Let me enlighten you to the correct answer in 5 parts, as people that do not practice tax law may understand (but you still probably will not understand, if you are NOT a Lawyer). 1) All public companies are corporations (shown by Ltd.), 2) only Shareholders of Public companies (ie, traded on the NYSE stock market) are never liable for debts of a bankrupt company, due to the concept of limited liability. 2) now Banks may ask a sole proprietorship (who wants to incorp. for example) to give collateral, such as owners stocks/bonds or his/her house, but then of course the loanee can tell the Bank No Thanks and find a lender that may charge higher interest rates but lend money to his company with little to NO collateral. 3) Of course not all companies are publicly traded and these are called private companies. 4)\"\"limited liability\"\" has nothing to do directly with subsequent shareholders (the above answer is inaccurate!), it RELATES rather to INITIAL OWNERS INVESTMENT in their company, limiting the amount of owner loss if the company goes bankrupt. 5) Share Face-value is usually never related to this as shares are sold at market value in real life instances (above or below face-value), or the most money Investments Banks or owners can fetch for the shares they sell (not what the stock's face-value is set at upon issuance). Never forget, stocks are sold in our Capitalistic System to whomever pays the most, as it is that Buyer who gets to purchase the stock!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eed570a057e44ec471e8eb2cbce506bf",
"text": "In the UK, this is the very definition of a Public Limited Company. A Limited Company can restrict how its stock is trades and who can buy and sell and when, a Public Limited Company cannot. Most stock exchanges will only allow Public Limited Company stock to be traded. Therefore a company can control who its stock holders are or be traded on a Stock Exchange.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
3fe33fb226abab2706321b05a39b8204
|
Borrowing money and then investing it — smart or nart?
|
[
{
"docid": "0211dc9216efb6f126168da8651e8de7",
"text": "The biggest concern is how you get $250,000 in unsecured credit. It's unlikely that you will be loaned that amount at a percentage lower than what you expect to earn. Unsecured credit lines are rarely lower than 10% and usually approach 20%. On top of that, for a bank to approve you for that credit line, you have to have a high credit score and an income to support the payments on that credit line. But lets suspend disbelief and assume that you can get the money you want on loan. You would then be expected to pay back that 10%, but investments don't go up uniformly. Some years they go up 15-20% and other years they go down 10%. What do you do if you have to sell some of your investments in a down year? That money is no longer invested, and you can't recover it with the following up year because you had to take too much out to cover the loan payments. You'll be out of money long before the loan is repaid because you can expect there will be bad years in the stock market that will eat away at your investment. There were a lot of people who took their money out of the market after the crash of 2008. If they had left their money in through 2009, they would have made all that money back, but if you have a loan to pay you have to pull money out in the bad years as well as the good years. Unless you have a lucky streak of all good years, you're doomed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1f591285e64e73b4e2f8264d0e302134",
"text": "I will use 10% of this 20K to pay the loan back on an annual basis agreement An annual payment of 0.8% ($2,000 / $250,000) is nowhere near large enough. The interest alone is going to be well over $10,000 (and probably closer to $20,000 on an unsecured loan), so you need to plan for at least a $20,000 - $30,000 annual payment, depending on the terms (length and interest rate) on the loan. But in general... is this sustainable/safe? Essentially what you are doing is using leverage to increase the amount you can invest. While this is fantastic when the market rises, it can go horribly wrong when the market goes down. Generally it is unwise to fund a risky (meaning there are large swings in return) investment with a risk-free (meaning you'll always make a payment) loan. If you want to see what could happen, forecast a 20% market drop and see what you are left with (obviously you'll need to make the loan payment out of your balance since you won't have any gains to pull from). An average of 10-12% over a long period of time is reasonable, but the variance can cause the return to be anywhere from -40% to +40% in one year. Can you afford those losses? Here's an actual example: If you were to invest $250,000 in the S&P 500 in January 2000 with an 8% interest-only loan, your next three years' returns would be: After three years, assuming an interest-only payment of $20,000, your balance would be just over $100,000, you'd still owe $250,000, and you'd still be making $20,000 in interest payments. If your loan interest rate was 25% (which is not unreasonable for an unsecured loan), you'd be bankrupt after 3 years - you'd still owe $250K but could not make the interest payment. No, this is not a good idea. The only time you should borrow money to invest in when you have control over the returns. So if you wanted to start your own business, had a stable business plan, and had much more certainty over the returns, the borrowing money might be plausible. But borrowing money to do passive investment is a huge mistake.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4bf7100c7874c779c10be1ad9e90e119",
"text": "\"Theory of Levered Investing Borrowing in order to increase investment exposure is a time-honored and legitimate activity. It's the optimal way to increase your exposure, according to finance theory (which assumes you get a good interest rate...more on this later). In your case it may or may not be a good idea. Based on the information in your post, I believe that in your case it is not a good idea. Consider the following concerns. Risk In finance, reward comes with risk and in no other way. Investing borrowed money means there is a good (not small) chance that you will lose enough money that you will need to pull significant wealth from your own savings in order to make up the difference. If you are in a position to do this and OK with that possibility, then proceed to to the next concern. If losing a lot of money means financial calamity for you, then this is a bad idea. You haven't described your financial situation so I don't know in which camp you fall. If the idea of losing, say, $100K means complete financial failure for you, then the strategy you have described simply has too much risk. Make no mistake, just because the market makes money on average does not mean it will make money, or as much money as you expect, over your horizon. It may lose money, perhaps a lot of money. Make sure this idea is very clear in your mind before taking action. Rewards Your post implies that you think you can reliably get 10%-12% on an investment. This is not the case. There are many years in which a reasonable portfolio makes this much or more, but on average you will earn less. No ones knows the true long-term market risk premium, but it is definitely less than 10%. A better guess would be 6.5% plus whatever the risk-free rate is (currently about 0%). Buying \"\"riskier\"\" investments means deviating from the optimal portfolio, meaning you took on more risk than is justified by how much extra money you expect to make. I never encourage people to invest based on optimistic or unrealistic goals. If anything, you should be conservative about how you expect things to go. And remember, these are averages. Any portfolio that earns 10%-12% also has a very good chance of losing 25% or more. People who sell or give advice on investments frequently get you charged up by pointing at times and investments that have done very well. Unfortunately, we never know whether the investments and time period in which we are investing will be a good one, a bad one, or an unexciting one. The reality of investing is...well, more realistic than what you have described. Costs I can't imagine how you could borrow that much money and only have an annual payment of $2000 as you imply--that must be a mistake. No individual borrows at a rate significantly below 1%. It sounds like it's not a collateralized loan of any kind, so unless you are some kind of prime-loan customer, your interest rate will be significant. Subtract whatever rate you actually pay from 6.5% to get a rough idea of how much you will make if things go as well as they do on average. You will pay the interest whether times are good or bad. If your rate is typical of noncollateralized personal loans, there's a good chance you will lose money on average using the strategy you have described. If you are OK with taking risk with a negative expected return, consider a trip to Las Vegas. It's more exciting. Ethics I'm not one to make people feel guilty for doing things that are legal but of questionable morality. If that's the case and you are OK with it, more power to you. I'm not sure under what pretense you expect to obtain the money, but it sounds like you might be crossing legal lines and committing actual crimes (like fraud). Make sure to check on whether what you intend is a white lie or something that can get you thrown in prison. For example, if you are proposing obtaining a subsidized education loan and using it for speculation, I could easily see you spending serious time in prison and permanently ruining your life, even if your plan works out. A judge and 12 of your peers are not going to think welfare fraud is a harmless twist of the truth. Summary I've said a lot of negative things here. This is because I have to guess about your financial situation and it sounds like you may have unrealistic expectations of the safety and generosity of investing. Quite frankly, people for whom borrowing $250K is no big deal don't normally come and ask about it on StackExchange and they definitely don't tend to lie in order to get loans. Also $18K a year doesn't change their quality of life. However, I don't know. If $250K is small relative to your wealth and you need a good way to increase your exposure to the market risk premium, then borrowing and investing may well be a good idea.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "764424eebe835faf31e4d53a218e32fb",
"text": "There are two fundamental flaws to your plan: Supposing that you can get a loan with an interest rate that is less than the profit you are likely to get from an investment. Historically, the U.S. stock market goes up by 6 to 7% per year. I just did a quick check and found rates for unsecured loans of 10 to 15%. Of course interest rates vary depending on your credit rating and all sorts of other factors, but that's probably a reasonable ball park. Borrowing money at 15% so you can invest it at 6% is not a good plan. Of course you could invest in things that promise higher returns, but such investments have higher risks. If there was a super safe investment that was virtually guaranteed to give 20% profit, the bank wouldn't loan you money at 10 or 15%: they'd put their money in this 20% investment. I don't know what your income is, but unless it's substantial, no one is going to give you an unsecured loan for $250,000. In your question you say you'll use $2,000 of your profits to make payments on the loan. That's less than 0.8% of the loan amount. If you really know a bank that will loan money at 0.8%, I'm sure we'd all like to hear about it. That would be an awesome rate for a fully secured loan, never mind for a signature loan. $250,000 for 10 years at 10% would mean payments of $3,300 per MONTH, and that's about the most optimistic terms I can imagine for a signature loan. You say you plan to lie to the bank. What are you going to tell them? A person doesn't get to be a bank loan officer with authority to make $250,000 loans if he's a complete idiot. They're going to want to know what you intend to do with the money and how you plan to pay it back. If you're making a million dollars a year, sure, they'll probably loan you that kind of money. But if you were making a million dollars a year I doubt you'd be considering this scheme. As TripeHound said in the comments, if it was really possible to get bigger returns on an investment than you would have to pay in interest on an unsecured loan, then everybody would be doing it all the time. Sorry, if you want to be rich, the realistic choices are, (a) arrange to be born to rich parents; (b) win the lottery; (c) get a good job and work hard.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f9162f509b695236db81c2266ff64e1b",
"text": "It's incredibly foolish because it fails to use the investments as collateral to secure the loan. So instead of paying 5% or less for a loan secured by liquid assets, you'll be paying 10% or more for an unsecured loan. I do leveraged investments all the time and make a reasonable amount of money doing it (at high risk, I concede). I always use the investment to secure the loan and, as a result, pay a very low interest rate (since the lender can sell of my investments if I fail to repay the loan, reducing their risk dramatically). An unsecured loan would cost several times more.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "b593f03614c9083971573077dc308db6",
"text": "Your urge to invest is a good one. If you don’t invest your money, you're probably leaving about two thirds of it on the table. By the time you need the money (without knowing your exact future withdrawals, and taking national averages into consideration), investing would have grown it by three times. As far as how much money you should invest...I invest everything I'm not going to use in the next month or two. My advisor is able to monitor my bank accounts and sweep any unused cash into investment accounts. Using AI, they're able to figure out exactly which days I'll be needing cash then put it back in my accounts before I need it. 1% of my portfolio is always kept in cash, for emergencies. With investing, there are lots of things to consider. You need to decide what to invest in - spread your money over many different asset classes - monitor market trends - have a plan for market ups and downs - regularly rebalance - maneuver the fun world of taxes. Basically - asset management. Vanguard mutual funds are an easy, affordable way to spread your money over many different assets, but they don't offer much when it comes to asset management. I'd suggest you find a flat fee advisor (no more than 1% of your managed assets) who listens to you, determines your goals, creates a plan based on upon, then executes it with no commission or execution costs. In this particular vein, robo advisors are the best bet. I don't want to come across like I'm selling something, however, I have had much satisfaction with online digital advisors. Hope this helps.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "59e752763291a9e919e89b7865c2b2dc",
"text": "\"Two things to consider: When it comes to advice, don't be \"\"Penny wise and Pound foolish\"\". It is an ongoing debate whether active management vs passive indexes are a better choice, and I am sure others can give good arguments for both sides. I look at it as you are paying for advice. If your adviser will teach you about investing and serve your interests, having his advise will probably prevent you from making some dumb mistakes. A few mistakes (such as jumping in/out of markets based on fear/speculation) can eliminate any savings in fees. However, if you feel confident that you have the resources and can make good decisions, why pay for advise you don't need? EDIT In this case, my opinion is that you don't need a complex plan at this time. The money you would spend on financial advise would not be the best use of the funds. That said, to your main question, I would delay making any long-term decisions with these funds until you know you are done with your education and on an established career path. This period of your life can be very volatile, and you may find yourself halfway through college and wanting to change majors or start a different path. Give yourself the option to do that by deferring long-term investment decisions until you have more stability. For that reason, I would avoid focusing on retirement savings. As others point out, you are limited in how much you can contribute per year. If you want to start, ROTH is your best bet, but if you put it in don't pull it out. That is a bad habit to get into. Personal finance is as much about developing habits as it is doing math... A low-turnover index fund may be appropriate, but you don't want to end up where you want to buy a house or start a business and your investment has just lost 10%... I would keep at least half in a liquid, safe account until after graduation. Any debt you incur because you tied up this money will eliminate any investment gains (if any). Good Luck! EDITED to clarify retirement savings\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "274b11caf60aa3138183436db977357a",
"text": "While others have made a good case for how you may want to save and spend I just want to take a moment to comment on Acorn and Robinhood. Having never used either of them, I would stick to the seasoned professionals for my long term investment relationship. I'm sure they have the right licensing and proper SIPC coverage etc, but I wouldn't, personally, trust my money to an entity that's almost entirely funded by venture capital. I would stick to a company that exists and is profitable on it's own. All of the major brokerage houses (Vanguard, Schwab, ETrade, Scottrade, etc) in the US give account holders access to a list of ETFs and Mutual Funds with zero load on deposits, no or low minimum account balances, no or low investment minimums, and no commissions. With access to these no cost options, I wouldn't waste time with an entity that exists because of it's investor fund raising abilities.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b463b0f734e7d008506b1e57b6c5756",
"text": "\"(Congrats on earning/saving $3K and not wanting to blow it all on immediate gratification!) I currently have it invested in sector mutual funds but with the rise and fall of the stock market, is this really the best way to prepare long-term? Long-term? Yes! However... four years is not long term. It is, in fact, borderline short term. (When I was your age, that was incomprehensible too, but trust me: it's true.) The problem is that there's an inverse relationship between reward and risk: the higher the possible reward, the greater the risk that you'll lose a big chunk of it. I invest that middle-term money in a mix of junk high yield bond funds and \"\"high\"\" yield savings accounts at an online bank. My preferences are HYG purchased at Fidelity (EDIT: because it's commission-free and I buy a few hundred dollars worth every month), and Ally Bank.\"",
"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": "adc62f6f0972b5dc3eb86197c5981b47",
"text": "I agree with the advice given, but I'll add another angle from which to look at it. It sounds like you are already viewing the money used to either pay off the loan early or invest in the market as an investment, which is great. You are wise to think about opportunity cost, but like others pointed out, you are overlooking the risk factor. The way I would look at this is: I could take a guaranteed 6.4% return by paying off the loan or a possible 7% return by investing the money. If the risk pays off modestly, all you've done is earned 0.6%, with a huge debt still hanging over you. Personally, I would take the guaranteed 6.4% return by paying off the debt, then invest in the stock market. Now this is looking at the investment as a single, atomic pool of money. But you can split it up a bit. Let's say the amount of extra disposable income you want to invest with is $1,000/mo. Then you could pay an extra $500/mo to your student loan and invest the other $500 in the stock market, or do a 400/600 split, or whatever suits your risk tolerance. You mentioned multiple loans and 6.4% is the highest loan. What I would do, based on what I value personally, is put every extra penny into paying off the 6.4% loan because that is high. Once that is done, if the next loan is 4% of less, then split my income between paying extra to it and investing in the market. Remember, with each loan you pay off, the monthly income that previously went to it is now available, and can be used for the next loan or the other goals.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd01dc792e5e107c7aa7065b5a85f17e",
"text": "I would read any and all of the John Bogle books. Essentially: We know the market will rise and fall. We just don't know when specifically. For the most part it is impossible to time the market. He would advocate an asset allocation approach to investing. So much to bonds, tbills, S&P500 index, NASDAQ index. In your case you could start out with 10% of your portfolio each in S&P500 and NASDAQ. Had you done that, you would have achieved growth of 17% and 27% respectively. The growth on either one of those funds would have probably dwarfed the growth on the entire rest of your portfolio. BTW 2013 and 2014 were also very good years, with 2015 being mostly flat. In the past you have avoided risk in the market to achieve the detrimental effects of inflation and stagnant money. Don't make the same mistakes going forward.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f0662076b1674fa6b76dfec12a25d62e",
"text": "\"Which option will save you the most money in the long run? That is tough. Assuming you stay healthy, don't lose your job, don't experience a pay cut or any major emergency that drains your savings, then applying the $6000 to the higher interest loan will save you more money in the long run. However, the difference in savings is a few hundred dollars. Not much really. So, in this case, I'd put the $6k towards the smaller loan. Why? Because then you'd pay it off faster. Once that's done, you open up your cash flow by the minimum monthly payment you would have had on that loan. Assuming they both have the same or similar number of months left, by paying the smaller loan off sooner, you'd open up $X month, where $X is your minimum monthly payment. This could be useful to you if you want to take on some other debt (like buying a house) because it lowers your debt to income ratio. If you put that money towards the higher loan, your DTI won't change until the normal time you would have paid off the smaller loan. Even if you are not looking to purchase anything that requires you to have a lower DTI, paying the smaller loan off sooner increases your cash flow sooner (because your monthly payment on the higher loan doesn't change just because you lowered the balance by $6k). So you'd be more robust to emergencies if your current income doesn't allow for much savings. A major emergency could wipe out all savings from paying down the bigger balance. So, I'd suggest: Edit: TripeHound asked a question, pretty much requesting more details for why I was biased towards paying off the smaller loan first. What follows is my response, with a bit of reorganization: Typically, people asking these questions don't have so much wealth that \"\"which loan to pay first?\"\" is an academic question. They need to make smart financial decisions. While paying the highest interest loan saves the most money in interest - that only occurs under the assumption that nothing bad will ever happen to you until the loans are paid off. In reality, other things happen. Tires blow out, children get sick, you get laid off and so the \"\"best\"\" thing to do is the one that maximizes your long term financial health, even if it comes at the expense of a few $k more interest. Each loan has a minimum monthly payment. Let's assume, barring any windfalls of additional cash, you will just make the minimum payments each month towards a loan. If you pay off the smaller loan first, that increases your available monthly cash flow. At that point, you can put extra towards the other loan. However, if an emergency should come up, or you need to save for a vacation, you can do that, without negatively impacting the second loan, because you'd just drop back to its minimum payment. Putting the money towards the higher balance loan would mean it takes you longer to reach this point as the time to reach payoff on the first loan will not change ($6k only reduces the $25.6k loan to $19.6k) so you never gain the flexibility of additional cash flow until the time you would have paid off the $13.5k originally. I'd rather have a few hundred dollars each month that I can choose to use to make additional loan payments, eat out, pay for car repairs, pay for emergencies than be forced to dip into credit or worse, pay day loans, should an emergency happen.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4b9b7a9442c2fc7ba68d446c2c09c18b",
"text": "\"You're talking about modern portfolio theory. The wiki article goes into the math. Here's the gist: Modern portfolio theory (MPT) is a theory of finance that attempts to maximize portfolio expected return for a given amount of portfolio risk, or equivalently minimize risk for a given level of expected return, by carefully choosing the proportions of various assets. At the most basic level, you either a) pick a level of risk (standard deviation of your whole portfolio) that you're ok with and find the maximum return you can achieve while not exceeding your risk level, or b) pick a level of expected return that you want and minimize risk (again, the standard deviation of your portfolio). You don't maximize both moments at once. The techniques behind actually solving them in all but the most trivial cases (portfolios of two or three assets are trivial cases) are basically quadratic programming because to be realistic, you might have a portfolio that a) doesn't allow short sales for all instruments, and/or b) has some securities that can't be held in fractional amounts (like ETF's or bonds). Then there isn't a closed form solution and you need computational techniques like mixed integer quadratic programming Plenty of firms and people use these techniques, even in their most basic form. Also your terms are a bit strange: It has correlation table p11, p12, ... pij, pnn for i and j running from 1 to n This is usually called the covariance matrix. I want to maximize 2 variables. Namely the expected return and the additive inverse of the standard deviation of the mixed investments. Like I said above you don't maximize two moments (return and inverse of risk). I realize that you're trying to minimize risk by maximizing \"\"negative risk\"\" so to speak but since risk and return are inherently a tradeoff you can't achieve the best of both worlds. Maybe I should point out that although the above sounds nice, and, theoretically, it's sound, as one of the comments points out, it's harder to apply in practice. For example it's easy to calculate a covariance matrix between the returns of two or more assets, but in the simplest case of modern portfolio theory, the assumption is that those covariances don't change over your time horizon. Also coming up with a realistic measure of your level of risk can be tricky. For example you may be ok with a standard deviation of 20% in the positive direction but only be ok with a standard deviation of 5% in the negative direction. Basically in your head, the distribution of returns you want probably has negative skewness: because on the whole you want more positive returns than negative returns. Like I said this can get complicated because then you start minimizing other forms of risk like value at risk, for example, and then modern portfolio theory doesn't necessarily give you closed form solutions anymore. Any actively managed fund that applies this in practice (since obviously a completely passive fund will just replicate the index and not try to minimize risk or anything like that) will probably be using something like the above, or at least something that's more complicated than the basic undergrad portfolio optimization that I talked about above. We'll quickly get beyond what I know at this rate, so maybe I should stop there.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0cb4a3e7c9c7595824aee3a2a06a1aea",
"text": "The advice you were given in the other question was don't do it. The math is not the issue. The interest structure is not the issue. But there is a significant chance that you could lose money on the deal. If you invested your money in a NASDAQ heavy position in January 2000, you are still waiting to break even in November of 2013; Invest in almost anything in August 2001 and you will be down for a long time. Invest just before the housing collapse in 2007 and only now returning back to where you were. If you take money on a monthly basis and invest it you will be better off. If want to get the loan; then set up a stream of money into a bank account to make sure that when payments are due you have the cash to do so. When the two years are up you will have cash to repay the loan, and no need to sell the investments. Also if you are a bad judge of investments you won't have a problem repaying the loan. Using a loan to purchase stock reduces your gains and increases your losses. Use the power of Dollar cost averaging by making periodic purchases.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e14660d08b4b2fa45f1d81f43002d2c7",
"text": "\"Wow, this turns out to be a much more difficult problem than I thought from first looking at it. Let's recast some of the variables to simplify the equations a bit. Let rb be the growth rate of money in your bank for one period. By \"\"growth rate\"\" I mean the amount you will have after one period. So if the interest rate is 3% per year paid monthly, then the interest for one month is 3/12 of 1% = .25%, so after one month you have 1.0025 times as much money as you started with. Similarly, let si be the growth rate of the investment. Then after you make a deposit the amount you have in the bank is pb = s. After another deposit you've collected interest on the first, so you have pb = s * rb + s. That is, the first deposit with one period's growth plus the second deposit. One more deposit and you have pb = ((s * rb) + s) * rb + s = s + s * rb + s * rb^2. Etc. So after n deposits you have pb = s + s * rb + s * rb^2 + s * rb^3 + ... + s * rb^(n-1). This simplifies to pb = s * (rb^n - 1)/(rb - 1). Similarly for the amount you would get by depositing to the investment, let's call that pi, except you must also subtract the amount of the broker fee, b. So you want to make deposits when pb>pi, or s*(ri^n-1)/(ri-1) - b > s*(rb^n-1)/(rb-1) Then just solve for n and you're done! Except ... maybe someone who's better at algebra than me could solve that for n, but I don't see how to do it. Further complicating this is that banks normally pay interest monthly, while stocks go up or down every day. If a calculation said to withdraw after 3.9 months, it might really be better to wait for 4.0 months to collect one additional month's interest. But let's see if we can approximate. If the growth rates and the number of periods are relatively small, the compounding of growth should also be relatively small. So an approximate solution would be when the difference between the interest rates, times the amount of each deposit, summed over the number of deposits, is greater than the fee. That is, say the investment pays 10% per month more than your bank account (wildly optimistic but just for example), the broker fee is $10, and the amount of each deposit is $200. Then if you delay making the investment by one month you're losing 10% of $200 = $20. This is more than the broker fee, so you should invest immediately. Okay, suppose more realistically that the investment pays 1% more per month than the bank account. Then the first month you're losing 1% of $200 = $2. The second month you have $400 in the bank, so you're losing $4, total loss for two months = $6. The third month you have $600 in the bank so you lose an additional $6, total loss = $12. Etc. So you should transfer the money to the investment about the third month. Compounding would mean that losses on transferring to the investment are a little higher than this, so you'd want to bias to transferring a little earlier. Or, you could set up a spreadsheet to do the compounding calculations month by month, and then just look down the column for when the investment total minus the bank total is greater than the broker fee. Sorry I'm not giving you a definitive answer, but maybe this helps.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a33d5eb9bc725b18b470d8583fd3aa9",
"text": "\"I don't know whether you'd consider buying a single bond instead of a fund. Strips are Treasuries where the coupons have been \"\"stripped\"\" to produce debt instruments with a fixed maturity date. They pay zero interest. Their value comes from the fact that you buy them at a price less than 100 and they are worth exactly 100 at some point in the future. You can buy them with any year/month that you wish. They are backed by the federal government and are considered to have no default risk. Like most bonds the price is actually a percentage and they mature at a 100. The one that expires 9/30/2018 costs 91.60 and returns 100 on the expiration date. The price list is here There's more information about them here First of all, they are still T-bonds (in all but the most legalistic sense) which means they are the safest, most risk-free investment possible. The U.S. federal government has stellar credit and a record of never defaulting. These bonds have no call features, so the timing and distribution of bond payments cannot be altered by any foreseeable occurrence. They are sold at a known - and generally deep - discount off a known face value that can be redeemed at a known date, so buyers know exactly how much they will earn from an investment in STRIPS.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f8554a5d464fd4241fd41c7cffee70ac",
"text": "Yeah, after considering your advice from before, I did a bit of research, and I see that the market average return each year is about 7%, which beats the rate at which my car is financed by 2% and my student loans by 1%, so maybe I should be less concerned about paying those down and more concerned about starting to invest well. Again, your advice is very much appreciated.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d260390122c29d523b7a720197f3b5a8",
"text": "I am voting you up because this is a legitimate question with a correct possible answer. Yes, you shouldn't buy penny stocks, yes you shouldn't speculate, yes people will be jealous that you have money to burn. Your question: how to maximize expected return. There are several definitions of return and the correct one will determine the correct answer. For your situation, $1,000 sounds like disposable income and that you have the human capital to make more income in the future with your productive years. So we will not assume you want to take this money and reinvest the remains until you are dead. This rules out #2. It sounds like you are the sole beneficiary of this fund and that your value proposition is regardless of asset class and competition to other investment opportunities. In other words, you are committed to blowing this $1,000 and would not consider instead putting the money towards paying down credit card debt or other valuable uses. This rules out #3. You are left with #1, expected value. Now there is already evidence that penny stocks are a losing proposition. In fact, some people have been successful in setting up honeypot email accounts and waiting for penny stock spam... then shorting those stocks. So to maximize expected return, invest 0% of your bankroll. But that's boring, let's ignore it. As you have correctly identified, the transaction costs are significant, $14 in tolls on crossing the bridge both ways on a $1,000 investment already exceeds the 5-year US bond rate. Diversification will affect the correlation and overall risk (Kelly Criterion) of your portfolio -- but it has no effect on your expected return. In summary, diversification has zero effect on your expected return and is not justified by the cost.",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
67c9c2ab878474f93ee80de380bebd55
|
Bonus issue - Increasing share capital
|
[
{
"docid": "9abfc64181ca579f248d202f1c5b5194",
"text": "Fully Paid up Partly Paid up: A company may issue stock to you which is only partly paid up, for example, a company may issue a stock of face value 10 to you and ask you to pay 5 now and other 5 will be adjusted later by some other mechanism. This stock shall be partly paid up. Usually, these stocks are issued in different circumstances, for example as part payment for debentures, preference shares or other capital structuring. On the other hand for a fully paid up share no more money needs to be paid by you or no other adjustments need to be made. So, above, the company is issuing you with stocks for which you will need to pay no further money, they are fully paid for. Authorized Capital: Authorized capital of a company is the amount of money a company can raise by selling stock (not debt, equity). This number is registered when the company is incorporated, subsequently, this number can be revised upward by applying to the registrar of companies. Now, this means that at max. the company is authorized to raise this much capital and no more. However, a company may raise less than this, which is called Issued Capital. In your case, the company is raising its authorized capital by applying to the registrar of companies, though in this case they are looking at their full authorized capital to be issued capital, it was not necessary to do so. Increase of Authorized capital: The main benefit is that the company can get more money in form of equity and utilize the same, perhaps, for expansion of business etc., that is the primary benefit. Bonus Share: Usually, companies keep some surplus as reserve, this money comes out of the profit the company makes and is essentially money of the shareholders. This reserve surplus is maintained for situations, when the money may be required for exigencies. However, this surplus grows over a few years and the company usually the company plans for an expansion of business. However, this money cannot be just taken, as it belongs to the shareholder, so shareholders are issued extra equity in proportion to their current holding and this surplus is capitalized i.e. used as part of the company's equity capital. Bonus declaration does not add t o the value of the company and the share prices fall in proportion (but not quite) to the bonus.",
"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": "5c593975ffa2ede5162cf04bb3453c81",
"text": "Fully paid up Shares issued in which no more money is required to be paid to the company by shareholders on the value of the shares. When a company issues shares upon incorporation or through an issuance, either initial or secondary, shareholders are required to pay a set amount for those shares. Once the company has received the full amount from shareholders, the shares become fully paid shares. authorised share capital The number of stock units that a publicly traded company can issue as stated in its articles of incorporation, or as agreed upon by shareholder vote. Authorized share capital is often not fully used by management in order to leave room for future issuance of additional stock in case the company needs to raise capital quickly. Another reason to keep shares in the company treasury is to retain a controlling interest in the company. If so, why not just give the existing shareholders the $500 million, (and do a stock split if desired)? Stock splits, bonus issues doesn't generate any capital for the firm, which it required.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d0a2318dbe330a337cc248d14891c147",
"text": "Excess capital is the primary means of navigating around a trade which is moving against you. In a very basic case, consider a long position moving against you. With additional capital you could average in as the price drops or you could write options against your position. If you don't have the capital to handle when (not if) a trade move against you then you're at a significant disadvantage as your only option may be a liquidation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "651f0068eeb897a2615880fe252207ee",
"text": "\"In an IPO (initial public offering) or APO (additional public offering) situation, a small group of stakeholders (as few as one) basically decide to offer an additional number of \"\"shares\"\" of equity in the company. Usually, these \"\"shares\"\" are all equal; if you own one share you own a percentage of the company equal to that of anyone else who owns one share. The sum total of all shares, theoretically, equals the entire value of the company, and so with N shares in existence, one share is equivalent to 1/Nth the company, and entitles you to 1/Nth of the profits of the company, and more importantly to some, gives you a vote in company matters which carries a weight of 1/Nth of the entire shareholder body. Now, not all of these shares are public. Most companies have the majority (51%+) of shares owned by a small number of \"\"controlling interests\"\". These entities, usually founding owners or their families, may be prohibited by agreement from selling their shares on the open market (other controlling interests have right of first refusal). For \"\"private\"\" companies, ALL the shares are divided this way. For \"\"public\"\" companies, the remainder is available on the open market, and those shares can be bought and sold without involvement by the company. Buyers can't buy more shares than are available on the entire market. Now, when a company wants to make more money, a high share price at the time of the issue is always good, for two reasons. First, the company only makes money on the initial sale of a share of stock; once it's in a third party's hands, any profit from further sale of the stock goes to the seller, not the company. So, it does little good to the company for its share price to soar a month after its issue; the company's already made its money from selling the stock. If the company knew that its shares would be in higher demand in a month, it should have waited, because it could have raised the same amount of money by selling fewer shares. Second, the price of a stock is based on its demand in the market, and a key component of that is scarcity; the fewer shares of a company that are available, the more they'll cost. When a company issues more stock, there's more shares available, so people can get all they want and the demand drops, taking the share price with it. When there's more shares, each share (being a smaller percentage of the company) earns less in dividends as well, which figures into several key metrics for determining whether to buy or sell stock, like earnings per share and price/earnings ratio. Now, you also asked about \"\"dilution\"\". That's pretty straightforward. By adding more shares of stock to the overall pool, you increase that denominator; each share becomes a smaller percentage of the company. The \"\"privately-held\"\" stocks are reduced in the same way. The problem with simply adding stocks to the open market, getting their initial purchase price, is that a larger overall percentage of the company is now on the open market, meaning the \"\"controlling interests\"\" have less control of their company. If at any time the majority of shares are not owned by the controlling interests, then even if they all agree to vote a certain way (for instance, whether or not to merge assets with another company) another entity could buy all the public shares (or convince all existing public shareholders of their point of view) and overrule them. There are various ways to avoid this. The most common is to issue multiple types of stock. Typically, \"\"common\"\" stock carries equal voting rights and equal shares of profits. \"\"Preferred stock\"\" typically trades a higher share of earnings for no voting rights. A company may therefore keep all the \"\"common\"\" stock in private hands and offer only preferred stock on the market. There are other ways to \"\"class\"\" stocks, most of which have a similar tradeoff between earnings percentage and voting percentage (typically by balancing these two you normalize the price of stocks; if one stock had better dividends and more voting weight than another, the other stock would be near-worthless), but companies may create and issue \"\"superstock\"\" to controlling interests to guarantee both profits and control. You'll never see a \"\"superstock\"\" on the open market; where they exist, they are very closely held. But, if a company issues \"\"superstock\"\", the market will see that and the price of their publicly-available \"\"common stock\"\" will depreciate sharply. Another common way to increase market cap without diluting shares is simply to create more shares than you issue publicly; the remainder goes to the current controlling interests. When Facebook solicited outside investment (before it went public), that's basically what happened; the original founders were issued additional shares to maintain controlling interests (though not as significant), balancing the issue of new shares to the investors. The \"\"ideal\"\" form of this is a \"\"stock split\"\"; the company simply multiplies the number of shares it has outstanding by X, and issues X-1 additional shares to each current holder of one share. This effectively divides the price of one share by X, lowering the barrier to purchase a share and thus hopefully driving up demand for the shares overall by making it easier for the average Joe Investor to get their foot in the door. However, issuing shares to controlling interests increases the total number of shares available, decreasing the market value of public shares that much more and reducing the amount of money the company can make from the stock offering.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8592a563001667b5d7ee8dc2edd53b11",
"text": "If Jack owns all of the one million founding shares (which I assume you meant), and wants to transfer 250,000 shares to Venturo, then he is just personally selling shares to Venturo and the corporation gains nothing. If Jack does not own all of the founding shares, and the corporation had retained some, then the corporate shares could be sold to raise cash for the corporation. Usually in situations like this, the corporation will create more shares, diluting existing shareholders, and then sell the new shares on the open market to raise cash.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "94ca522ac3e692fc40a81e334445cace",
"text": "\"Many companies (particularly tech companies like Atlassian) grant their employees \"\"share options\"\" as part of their compensation. A share option is the right to buy a share in the company at a \"\"strike price\"\" specified when the option is granted. Typically these \"\"vest\"\" after 1-4 years so long as the employee stays with the company. Once they do vest, the employee can exercise them by paying the strike price - typically they'd do that if the shares are now more valuable. The amount they pay to exercise the option goes to the company and will show up in the $2.3 million quoted in the question.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fefbfd0d0f389f36234a8dfca1e4479a",
"text": "Let's say the company has a million shares valued at $10 each, so market caps is $10 million dollar = $10 per share. Actual value of the company is unknown, but should be close to that $10 million if the shares are not overvalued or undervalued. If they issue 100,000 more shares at $10 each, the buyers pay a million dollar. Which goes into the bank account of the company. Which is now worth a million dollar more than before. Again, we don't know what it is worth, but the market caps should go up to $11 million dollar. And since you have now 1,100,000 shares, it's still $10 per share. If the shares are sold below or above $10, then the share price should go down or up a bit. Worst case, if the company needs money, can't get a loan, and sells 200,000 shares for $5 each to raise a million dollars, there will be suspicion that the company is in trouble, and that will affect the share price negatively. And of course the share price should have dropped anyway because the new value is $11,000,000 for $1,200,000 shares or $9.17 per share.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e9f9702bd2960149e3b61757d75adc00",
"text": "After a company goes public, if it wants to raise more money, then it does this by secondary public offering or rights issue. In subscription rights issue gives the right to existing share holders to buy new shares at equal proportion. So if every one buys, they maintain the same percentage of ownership. Generally the pricing is at discount to current market price. Not sure why the price is high, unless the price for this stock fell sharply recently.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd66ed1d90d3a1b1ed76cbf6bd7a73e4",
"text": "\"In the case of an \"\"initial public offering\"\", the brokers underwriting the share issue will look at the current earnings being generated by the company and compare these to those of other competitor companies already listed in the stock market. For example, if a new telephone company is undertaking an initial public offering, then the share price of those telephone companies which are already traded on the stock market will serve as a reference for how much investors will be willing to pay for the new company's shares. If investors are willing to pay 15 times earnings for telecom shares, then this will be the benchmark used in determining the new share price. In addition, comparative growth prospects will be taken into account. Finally, the underwriter will want to see a successful sale, so they will tend to \"\"slightly under price\"\" the new shares in order to make them attractive. None of this is an exact science and we often see shares trading at a large premium to the initial offer price during the first few days of trading. More often that not, prices then settle down to something closer to the offer price. The initial price spike is usually the result of high demand for the shares by investors who believe that past examples of a price spike will repeat with this initial public offering. There will also usually be high demand for the new shares from funds that specialise in shares of the type being issued. In the case of a \"\"rights issue\"\", where an existing publicly traded company wishes to raise capital by issuing new shares, the company will price the new shares at a significant discount to the current market price. The new shares will be initially offered to existing shares holders and the discounted price is intended to encourage the existing shareholders to exercise their \"\"rights\"\" since the new shares may have the effect of diluting the value of their shares. Any shares which are not purchased by existing share holder will then be offered for sale in the market.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "08517cf374549c107ac72e13d34e672f",
"text": "\"It sounds like \"\"bonus shares\"\" are the same as a stock dividend. Stock dividends are equivalent to a stock split except for accounting treatment (good explanation here: http://www.accountingcoach.com/online-accounting-course/17Xpg05.html). As an investor, the only likely effect of a stock dividend is to make it more complex to keep track of cost basis and do your taxes. There's no economic effect, it's just rearranging accounting numbers.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "875dad8f95dc8fdbe28434eb61a793ed",
"text": "You only got 75 shares, so your basis is the fair market value of the stock as of the grant date times the number of shares you got: $20*75. Functionally, it's the same thing as if your employer did this: As such, the basis in that stock is $1,500 ($20*75). The other 25 shares aren't yours and weren't ever yours, so they aren't part of your basis (for net issuance; if they were sell to cover, then the end result would be pretty similar, but there'd be another transaction involved, but we won't go there). To put it another way, suppose your employer paid you a $2000 bonus, leaving you with a $1500 check after tax withholding. Being a prudent person and not wishing to blow your bonus on luxury goods, you invest that $1500 in a well-researched investment. You wouldn't doubt that your cost basis in that investment at $1500.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "27d83315f8e45e6db653a969a21b4a09",
"text": "This isn't exactly the answer you were looking for, but it is something else to consider. Rather than just running money through the card to get the bonus, have you considered spending that $5,000 in the form of good debt? In other words, can you purchase some asset that will create more cashflow than you would be paying on the card with the $5,000 balance? The idea is instead of running up the balance and paying it back off to get the bonus, maybe you could buy an asset for $5,000, create positive cashflow with the opportunity for long term capital gains, and get the credit card bonus. You could even turn around and use the bonus to pay back part of the credit card balance, thus reducing the payments and widening the profit margin on the asset.",
"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": "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": "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": "0390f2d24db9cccefd2200541646e809",
"text": "\"Market cap is the current value of a company's equity and is defined as the current share price multiplied by the number of shares. Please check also \"\"enterprise value\"\" for another definition of a company`s total value (enterprise value = market cap adjusted for net nebt). Regarding the second part of your question: Issuing new shares usually does not affect market cap in a significant way because the newly issued shares often result in lower share prices and dilution of the existing share holders shares.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "53dd714fdcde93886c79bef5635ec6a9",
"text": "\"First, please allow me to recommend that you do not try gimmickry when financials do give expected results. It's a sure path to disaster and illegality. The best route is to first check if accounts are being properly booked. If they are then there is most likely a problem with the business. Anything out of bounds yet properly booked is indeed the problem. Now, the reason why your results seem strange is because investments are being improperly booked as inventory; therefore, the current account is deviating badly from the industry mean. The dividing line for distinguishing between current and long term assets is one year; although, modern financial accounting theorists & regulators have tried to smudge that line, so standards do not always adhere to that line. Therefore, any seedlings for resale should be booked as inventory while those for potting as investment. It's been some time since I've looked at the standards closely, but this used to fall under \"\"property, plant, & equipment\"\". Generally, it is a \"\"capital expenditure\"\" by the oldest definition. It is not necessary to obsess over initial bookings because inventory turnover will quickly resolve itself, so a simple running or historical rate can be applied to the seedling purchases. The books will now appear more normal, and better subsequent strategic decisions can now be made.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ce784b40c6b431d48c8e292aa4b79aea
|
Proper etiquette for loans from friends
|
[
{
"docid": "231c8283c9656c1c1a24480712f7b79b",
"text": "The standard approach is to reach an agreement and put it in writing. What you agree upon is up to you, but in the US if you want to avoid gift taxes larger loans need to be properly documented and must charge at least a certain minimal interest rate. (Or at least you must declare and be taxed upon that minimal income even if you don't actually charge it. Last I looked, the federal requirement was somewhere under 0.3%, so this isn't usually an issue. There may also be state rules.) When doing business with friends, treat it as business first, friendship second. Otherwise you risk losing both money and friendship. Regarding what rate to charge: That is something you two have to negotiate, based on how much the borrower needs the money, how much lending the money puts the lender at risk, how generous each is feeling, etc. Sorry, but there is no one-size-fits-all answer here. What I charge (or insist on paying to) my brother might be different from what I charge my cousin, or a co-worker, or best friend, or... If both parties think it's fair, it's fair. If you can't reach an agreement, of course, the loan doesn't happen.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d8793d06c2f638210aad99902e013eb1",
"text": "Banks worry that the large gift might be a loan that is ultimately expected to be repaid. If so, that affects the cash flow of the recipient, and makes it more difficult to make the mortgage payments to the bank. In some cases, of course, it is an informal loan: Dad advances a large $X to son to use as a downpayent, but does not charge interest and the expectation is that the money will be returned in smaller chunks as and when the son can afford to repay Dad. In some cases, Dad truly means it as a gift, but son feels an obligation to repay the money, if not explicitly, then by paying for the first few months of Dad's nursing home stay, etc. So, banks like to have an explicit document such as a copy of a letter from Dad saying that this money is a gift, and some assurance that this is on the up and up. If the amount is larger than the maximum gift that can be given each year without having to file a gift tax return, then some assurance that a gift tax return will be filed is helpful. Mentioning this in the letter is good: it indicates that there are no secret handshakes or secret agreements to the effect that this is in fact a loan, with or without regular repayments.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "135b37b7948dbd97c8af6da4003abfa7",
"text": "In terms of preserving good relationships one approach is to charge a nominal rate of interest. maybe a few percent of the total and agree a time when it should be paid back. This may actually make them feel better about borrowing them money, especially, especially if it is something like business loan or buying a house or car. If they need the money for a real crisis and they have no clear strategy for paying it back then it may just be better all around if you make it clear that it is a gift. What you don't want to do is set up a situation where you are creating unnecessary problems down the road and that will very much depend on your individual relationship and how seriously you take the loan. Here it is important that you are completely open and honest about the arrangement so take the time to make sure that both parties understand exactly what they expect from each other.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b54546c7819bdf923482fc996944adb5",
"text": "\"Does the money lending between us need to be reported in our tax reports? No. Will he be taxed more because of lending the money to me? Yes. Will I be taxed more because of borrowing the money from him? No. How shall we report it so as to minimize our taxes? You cannot. What is reported on your tax returns is the income. A loan is not an income, so nothing gets reported. However, when you repay the loan, assuming it has interest, the lender has income: the interest. Interest income is reported on schedule B of the regular (1040/1040A) tax return (or, in the case of non-resident for tax purposes, on line 9 of 1040NR). It is taxed as ordinary income, and since you're both foreigners - the lender should look into the treaty provisions that might be relevant. Generally it is not exempt from taxable income based on treaty exemptions for students (which is only for earned income), but there might be other rules in the treaty regarding interest income. If there's no (fair market or higher) interest, then there's \"\"assumed\"\" interest at the IRS mandated rates, which is considered a gift. If it amounts to more than the yearly gift exemption, the lender may be liable for gift tax (depending on the lender's and your status, and again - see treaties). \"\"Loan\"\" without an obligation to repay and without actual repaying will also be considered a gift for tax purposes. If the lender has no intentions of having the loan repaid (i.e.: making a gift), it will be better to pay your tuition bills instead of actually giving you the money: tuition is exempt from gift tax. Talk to a CPA/EA licensed in your state for a proper tax advice on this issue.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "41f0b1acb57b7544bd49bad2965c8fb9",
"text": "\"Should is a very \"\"strong\"\" word. You do what makes most sense to you. Should I be making a single account for Person and crediting / debiting that account? You can do that. Should I be creating a loan for Person? And if so, would I make a new loan each month or would I keep all of the loans in one account? You can create a loan account (your asset), you don't need to create a new account every time - just change the balance of the existing one. That's essentially the implementation of the first way (\"\"making a single account for a Person\"\"). How do I show the money moving from my checking account to Company and then to Person's loan? You make the payment to Company from your Checking, and you adjust the loan amount to Person from Equity for the same amount. When the Person pays - you clear the loan balance and adjust the Checking balance accordingly. This keeps your balance intact for the whole time (i.e.: your total balance sheet doesn't change, money moves from line to line internally but the totals remain the same). This is the proper trail you're looking for. How do I (or should I even) show the money being reimbursed from the expense? You shouldn't. Company is your expense. Payment by the Person is your income. They net out to zero (unless you charge interest). Do I debit the expense at any point? Of course. Company is your expense account. Should I not concern myself with the source of a loan / repayment and instead just increase the size of the loan? Yes. See above.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "512d7c4e1f8831007a9b824440f78073",
"text": "Only if (or to put it even more bluntly, when) they default. If your friend / brother / daughter / whoever needs a cosigner on a loan, it means that people whose job it is to figure out whether or not that loan is a good idea have decided that it isn't. By co-signing, you're saying that you think you know better than the professionals. If / when the borrower defaults, the lender won't pursue them for the loan if you can pay it. You're just as responsible for the loan payments as the original borrower, and given that you were a useful co-signer, probably much more likely to be able to come up with the money. The lender has no reason to go after the original borrower, and won't. If you can't pay, the lender comes after both of you. To put it another way: Don't think of cosigning as helping them get a loan. Think of it as taking out a loan and re-loaning it to them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f095485f8cb5da37475c27ba9a17d51",
"text": "I say to always say yes when asked to loan money to a friend or family member as long as you have the money to do it with. That is the key: having th emoney to do it with. And - don't expect to get it back ever. If you do, great. When you don't, your expectation was met. Although not often, I've lent money to friends and most of the time have been paid back. $10, $300, more. For the times when I was not, I do remember but I don't hold it against the person. Money is only money, after all. Friends are precious and worthy of your aid, support, and respect. If they weren't, then one must ask if they are really a friend. - I have also had to borrow money once for a non-trivial amount. My family, who can easily afford it, refused but a friend helped me at a critical juncture. I offered to make a contract but my friend said no, pay me back when you can. I have tried to start paying back a couple of times but my friend refused telling me to wait until I was more financially stable. - If I am ever lucky enough to be in the position my friend is in, I will emulate this behavior and do the very same thing - and love doing it all the while.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fea990d65f8be890630604a5a90a96da",
"text": "JohnFx is more experienced than I am but I have paid off friends cards before. It was as simple as asking them the routing number of the bank that gave them the card and setting up an ACH with their card number. I guess this might be against some banks T&C but the CU I used to carry out the ACH gave me the go ahead as long as I did not dispute the payment later.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ea12d08b27c305c365845315d008efb",
"text": "This is called a fraudulent conveyance because its purpose is to prevent a creditor from getting repaid. It is subject to claw back under US law, which is a fancy way of saying that your friend will have to pay the bank back. Most jurisdictions have similar laws. It is probably a crime as well, but that varies by jurisdiction.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab8e356652d6730d50ad291d5fb51e4c",
"text": "The big problem with lending money to friends and family is that if things go sour with the deal than you can lose something a lot more valuable than the money associated with the deal. As a result of that I no longer lend money to friends and family. If I have the extra money available and I know someone is really in need I'll give them the money no strings attached before I'll lend any. If they decide to give back the amount given at some point in the future so be it, but there will be no expectations. Thanksgiving dinner just has a different taste to it when someone at the table owes someone else money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f57a878a88292aa455a9f951063ebb0",
"text": "Standard advice for these scenarios: Stay out of it unless asked specifically for advice, and even then, be wary of being too harsh. You'll damage your relationship with your friend if you get involved.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5620c024950487dff9344ee03c171ec5",
"text": "I came across such a situation and I am still facing it. My friend borrowed my credit card for his expenses as he had misplaced his debit card and for the time being had asked for my credit card to handle the expenses he does. He paid for initial 2 months and then was not able to make payments, mainly due to not being able to arrange money or if it was a contri party, he would collect cash from friends but again spend the same. Months passes by... the bill had come upto 65k and calls from bank and other respective organizations Finally my dad came into picture and slowly the issue is resolving he has paid 50K remaining is still pending. So basically, the reason I shared this part of story was he is my Best friend and in order to not spoil our friendship I did not want to take any such step which would later on affect our friendship. This completely depends on the individuals how they react to the situation. Keeping Ego, superiority, favour sort of feelings and words apart things can be resolved between friends. You do not know what is the situation on the other side. Probably you can connect with him ask him to explain you why is not able to pay the debts and take action accordingly. If he is not able to provide a proper reason then you may take some actions like mentioned in initial answers, run after the assets he own or anything else.Stay Calm and patient. Do not take any such step which you would regret later on...!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "edba9615a6bb1cd4c4198604e9497c9d",
"text": "If you really want to help your friend buy a house, make a counter-offer to buy the house yourself and lease it to your friend, with the option to buy for original purchase cost, plus all interest paid so far to the bank, plus closing costs and other expenses incurred by you, minus payments made so far by the friend. Otherwise, just no. The other answers already detail why.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b9d1cac00c18cae042e4afd946a53db0",
"text": "You should only loan money to friends or relatives if you are fully accepting the possibility of never ever getting that money back. And in this situation it can happen that you will be forced to give him a very large loan if something bad ever happens to him. (Paying the monthly rates instead of him and expecting he will someday pay it back to you is technically the same as loaning him money). Something might happen in the future which will result in him not paying his monthly payments. Maybe not now, but in 5 years. Or 10. The economy might change, he might be out of a job, his personal values might change. A house mortgage is long term, and during that time a lot can happen.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b74b01f700c046fa5658bca7ef5ff164",
"text": "Legally, I can't find any reason that the LLC could not lend money to an individual. However, I believe the simplest course of action is to first distribute money from your company to your personal account, and then make it a personal loan. Whether the loan is done through the business or personally, financially I don't think there is much difference as to which bucket the interest income goes into, since your business and personal income will all get lumped together anyway with a single person LLC. Even if your friend defaults on the loan, either the business or you personally will have the same burden of proof to meet that the loan was not a gift to begin with, and if that burden is met, the deduction can be taken from either side. If a debt goes bad the debtor may be required to report the debt as income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c06409db3a289957c3d619a503dadff6",
"text": "It's been a long time since I've used MS Money and/or Quickbooks (never Quicken), but I've used GnuCash over the past year or so. It works, but it does suffer from some usability problems. Some of the UI is clunky. Data entry sequences are a little harder than they should be. Reports could be a little prettier. But overall it does work, and it's the best I've found on linux. (I would definitely appreciate pointers to something better.)",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
d752a1164d451023b62af03a0d675f6a
|
Merchant dispute with airline over missed flight, and which credit cards offer protection?
|
[
{
"docid": "1a86555afcb0f8a100e5a3f3ed5e3df3",
"text": "You have no grounds for a refund. The flight took off on time, and you chose not to be on board. The fact that the airline could not guarantee ahead of time that the flight would leave on time is not relevant. You can certainly try to dispute the charge with the airline, and it sounds like you have done so. The airline correctly indicates that your dispute is unfounded. You can call up your credit card company and explain the situation, and they may accept your dispute. However, I am not aware of any credit card that would reimburse you (that is, issue a chargeback) in this situation. I'm not trying to be unsympathetic. It sucks that you felt you could not rely on the airline, and are now out some money. Fundamentally, though, this was your choice. The airline would be obligated to reimburse you the cost of your flight, or book you on another flight, if the flight was cancelled due to bad weather or other issues, but they owe you nothing if the flight took off on schedule.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3102f067518c846189dee45ea910dc3f",
"text": "What you are looking for is travel insurance. I have never heard of this being offered as a credit card perk, but there might be something out there. You can buy this separately, but only you can decide if it is worth the costs. To me, it would seem to only be worth it for something quite expensive, like a cruise that costs thousands of dollars. The more you travel, the less likely it is to be worth it, since at some point the cost of one canceled trip is less than the insurance paid on the rest of the trips that went through fine. As a frequent traveller, I recommend that you build some flexibility into your plans, especially during the winter. It is not always possible, but try not to need to be somewhere the day of or the day after your flight. Try to book flights early in the day, as they are less likely to be delayed by problems in flights before them, and you have more options for rebooking. Flight delays due to weather and mechanical problems are not uncommon, and with generally full flights it is sometimes hard to be rebooked in a reasonable amount of time. Finally, be nice to the gate agents and other airline personel. In general, they aren't any happier about delays than you are (flight crews want to get home too) and don't have any power over weather or mechanical delays. Being rude to them will not help, and will make them less likely to go out of their way to find a solution. Be assertive in asking for what you want, but a smile and a kind word goes a long way.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cf9d95c787b2c0106d8963f90e4b7de0",
"text": "EDIT To answer what I think you question is: I do not know of anything other than trip cancellation insurance. And you must be very careful that the policy you purchase for your trip covers the circumstance you described. Essentially, you opted not to take the flight. Not all trip cancellation policies will cover that. How to Find Trip Cancellation Insurance Getting Your Money Back Now This is an Act of God in the insurance world. You cannot reasonably expect the airline to know the future weather pattern anymore than you could, and therefore, since the plane did fly, you owe them the money based on the ticket you bought. You didn't just buy a ticket, there is a contract with rules about refunds and transferring and such. It is a bummer situation, and I understand you point of view, but this isn't the airline's fault. If anybody is to blame for you missing your flight, and therefore not getting a refund, it is your employer. Their requirements for you be in one city and then another are the cause. While your employer cannot predict the weather, they are ultimately the ones who could give you the okay to be late. If you absolutely cannot be late, and it was critical that you drive out and miss your flight, then your company gets to pay for the flight AND the car. That is the cost of doing business for them. This is also why, when flying for business, that you pay the higher price and get the refundable / transferable ticket. They cost more, but situations like these illustrate they are worth it for the company.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7e8c76ba62572ca0f714d3b8568c6417",
"text": "\"Your biggest risk with a vendor like this is not that your Credit Card Number will be stolen in transit, it is that it will be stolen from the vendor. I agree with @mhoran that using a one-time number is the best plan, provided you have a bank that offers such numbers. Bank of America calls it \"\"Shop Safe\"\" while Citibank calls it \"\"Virtual Account Numbers\"\". I think Discover card has something similar, but less useful, in that they aren't really one-time use, and I think American Express discontinued their service. AFAIK no one else offers anything like it. If you can't get a one-time number, then I was going to suggest buying a Visa gift card, until I put together the fact that you are making a purchase in Asia and the gift cards are not authorized for international payments (due to PATRIOT act restrictions). Visa does offer the V.me service which might help, but I doubt your vendor participates (or would even be allowed to participate) if they don't offer a secure order form. You can open a pre-paid Visa card account, which is probably what I'd do. You can buy pre-paid Visa cards the same way you buy Visa gift cards, the difference being you have to register the pre-paid cards (thanks, PATRIOT act) before you can use them. But it's not that big a deal to register one, you just fill out the online form your your SSN etc and you're good to go. Load it up with enough money to cover your purchase and the FX fees and then cut it up.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3f2fe213073a0ef09e9a491cd875a15",
"text": "Believe it or not, what they're asking you is not as unusual as you might think. Our company sells a tremendous amount of expensive merchandise over the Internet, and whenever there's something odd or suspicious about the transaction, we may ask the customer to provide a picture of the card simply to prove they have physical possession of it. This is more reassurance to us (to the extent that's possible) that the customer isn't using a stolen card number to order stuff. It doesn't help too much, but if the charge is disputed, at least we have something to show we made reasonable efforts to verify the ownership of the card. I think it's pretty thin, but that's what my employer does.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e817c6ac14aee27f38a313a4b564c0ad",
"text": "I'm pretty sure it's merchant-dependent. If a credit card transaction doesn't go through, PayPal will automatically charge your bank account. Some merchants may want that extra insurance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "210e15d394147f5ca9e4fb0edc0f6403",
"text": "Oh I don't think I have the right to the person's stolen money, I've had this happen before and the CC owner wasn't charged anything and the CC company reimbursed us and we made a report about the thefts. I'm just asking why the situation changed this time around.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "39ce77a9a6f73da8194f996943405e13",
"text": "\"It's very straightforward for an honest vendor to refund the charge, and the transaction only costs him a few pennies at most. If you initiate a chargeback, the merchant is immediately charged an irreversible fee of about $20 simply as an administrative fee. He'll also have to refund the charge if it's reversed. To an honest merchant who would've happily refunded you, it's unfair and hurtful. In any case, now that he's out-of-pocket on the administrative fee, his best bet is to fight the chargeback - since he's already paid for the privilege to fight. Also, a chargeback is a \"\"strike\"\" against the merchant. If his chargeback rate is higher than the norm in his industry, they may raise his fees, or ban him entirely from taking Visa/MC. For a small merchant doing a small volume, a single chargeback can have an impact on his overall chargeback rate. The \"\"threshold of proof\"\" for a chargeback varies by patterns of fraud and the merchant's ability to recover. If you bought something readily fungible to cash - like a gift card, casino chips, concert tickets etc., forget it. Likewise if you already extracted the value (last month's Netflix bill). Credit card chargeback only withdraws a payment method. Your bill is still due and payable. The merchant is within his rights to \"\"dun\"\" you for payment and send you to collections or court. Most merchants don't bother, because they know it'll be a fight, an unpleasant distraction and bad for business. But they'd be within their rights. Working with the merchant to settle the matter is a final resolution.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc28dfa716f66d5aff573a4d995cbf1a",
"text": "\"Executive summary: It sounds like the merchant just did an authorization then cancelled that authorization when you cancelled the order, so there was never an actual charge so you'll never see an actual refund and there's no money to \"\"claim\"\". More detail: From your second paragraph, it sounds like they just did an authorization but never posted the transaction. A credit card authorization is basically the merchant asking your credit card company \"\"Does sandi have enough credit to pay this amount and if so please reserve that amount for a bit.\"\" The authorization will decrease the total credit you have available on the card, but it's not actually a charge, so if your billing cycle ends, it won't show up on your statement. Depending on which company issued your credit card, you may be able to see the authorization online, usually labelled something like \"\"Pending transactions\"\". Even if your credit card company doesn't show pending transactions, you'll see a decrease in your available credit, however you shouldn't see an increase in your balance. The next step, and the only way the original merchant gets paid, is for the merchant to actually post a transaction to your card. Then it becomes a real charge that will show up on your next credit card statement and you'll be expected to pay it (unless you dispute the charge, but that's a different issue). If the charge is for the same amount as the authorization, the authorization will go away (it's now been converted to an actual charge). If the amounts are different, or the merchant never posts a transaction, the authorization will be removed by your credit card company automatically after a certain amount of time. So it sounds like you placed the order, the merchant did an authorization to make sure you could pay for it and to reserve the money, but then you cancelled the order before the merchant could post the transaction, so you were never really charged for it. The merchant then cancelled the authorization (going by the start of your third paragraph). So there was never an actual transaction posted, you were never charged, and you never really owed any money. Your available credit went down for a bit, but now should be restored to what it was before you placed the order. You'll never see an actual refund reflected on your credit card statement because there was no actual transaction.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "91f34247bc67b655147818357c2d75d3",
"text": "Not clear what you're asking. Are you trying to figure out their SIC/NAISC classification? That tells you the business category they fall into, but there's no simple, instant way to find that out. Much also depends on how the credit card issuer has classified them and how they arrived at that information. They may have a different means of classifying merchants, so you might try to call your bank and ask them, if they're able/willing to tell you. That'll give you a starting point to figure it out, anyway.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "99560b2878dc01ae12ee6c5764a9c92b",
"text": "Security in the merchant services system is mainly handled in two ways: 1) Before transactions are done, the business itself must go through an application process similar (but not identical) to getting a loan. Some high risk businesses must pay higher fees due to the increased likelihood of customer complaints. 2) When a customer disputes a transaction, that's a mark against the business. Get too many of these disputes, and your priviledge of accepting credit cards will be revoked, meaning you won't be able to again. It's in the merchant's best interest to verify customer's identity, because disputes cost them money directly. It's in the servicer's best interest to verify the businesses integrity, because fraud drives up the cost for everyone else. As a whole, it's quite a reactionary system, yet in practice it works remarkably well.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1035449fef85470de7ed1620ac9924fc",
"text": "Of course, as a 'good' person (or maybe a 'stupid' person), I should call them, (wait 30 minutes in the queue), and then try to explain the issue to the service desk. I actually did that, and the guy thought I am nuts to even call, and told me to 'just use them they are yours now'. I don't feel like calling again and again until I get someone that believes it, just to return them their points. Calling generally does not solve this problem. You would need to write a letter using certified mail and send some reminders. Hopefully they should notice it, if not you at least have evidence that you have communicated. I could just toss the card and forget about it. However, I had quite some points on it that really belong to me, so that feels like I pay for their fault. There is no need. You can continue to use the card as usual. Use them and play stupid. This is not a good idea. They are clearly not yours. Somewhere in Terms and Conditions you will find some fine print about notifying Bank/Financial Institution about the errors. Best course, after intimating informing them via letters, keep using your card as normal and use your points as normal. You would roughly know your points balance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e2869ed77f1c671a95cb9d46ce27d144",
"text": "There are thousands of processors. But I explicitly mentioned the customer experience, which is completely different and no matter how much you want your industry experience to matter for that, it doesn't affect it. This you did not read and comprehend. Could you clarify for me how VISA/MasterCard managed to block a merchant, who presumably wasn't a direct customer (but instead a payment processor customer), but cannot block a card holder? (yes, this is an honest question) > 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? The WikiLeaks blockade was clearly political. What makes you say otherwise? And this is political. > No one is unable to accept payments if they're barred from PayPal. In this case, yes. So who is morally and/or legally responsible when everyone does the same thing?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "386fd11dd18a3fd9cb22b2a151054c16",
"text": "As noted above, this is likely going to need (several) lawyers to straighten out. I am not a lawyer, but I think one should be retained ASAP. However, in the meantime: The authorized user should not be making any charges. Continuing to do so at this point may be a criminal offense. For the protection of any other heirs, this should be brought to the attention of the credit card issuer and law enforcement authorities. As it stands, the account holder's estate will be liable for the full debt, and the authorized user's estate would be untouched. Of course, all this could change if other heirs challenge the estate and file civil suits, in which case it's likely that both estates will be eaten up with legal fees anyway.",
"title": ""
},
{
"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": "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": "3676ef92f760af7d37a1107c411add97",
"text": "\"I think this stuff was more valid when grace periods were longer. For example, back in the 90's, I had an MBNA card with a 35 day grace period. Many business travellers used Diner's Club charge cards because they featured a 60 day grace period. There are valid uses for this: As JoeTaxpayer stated, if you are benefiting from \"\"tricks\"\" like this, you probably have other problems that you probably ought to deal with.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b324d756f11286a3f2de6da4a67af60b",
"text": "\"In the UK, using a credit card adds a layer of protection for consumers. If something goes wrong or you bought something that was actually a scam, if you inform the credit card company with the necessary documents they will typically clear the balance for that purchase (essentially the burden of 'debt' is passed to them and they themselves will have to chase up the necessary people). Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act I personally use my credit card when buying anything one would consider as \"\"consumer spending\"\" (tvs, furniture ect). I then pay off the credit card immediately. This gives me the normal benefits of the credit card (if you get cashback or points) PLUS the additional consumer credit protection on all my purchases. This, in my opinion is the most effective way of using your credit card.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ab958f97e8daad4ad0303ab42971a604
|
Why is the highest quintile the only quintile whose wealth exceeds its income?
|
[
{
"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": "97dd95216f61b7b4ca84a94b66c47844",
"text": "There are a lot of forces at play here, one of which is addressed in your second bullet point. Housing, transportation, food, and healthcare are pretty much the staple expenses of a modern day human. While these expenses all have a range from minimum required to function and luxurious all humans incur these costs. The lower rung wage earners earn an amount closer to their actual costs than higher earners. As income scales up these expenses typically also scale up with different lifestyle choices. There reaches a breaking point though where is so much excess to your income that you begin meaningfully spending on investments; you may also begin to take a meaningful portion of your compensation in securities rather than currency. In times where the economy is booming, folks who hold assets in securities rather than currency really win. In 2008 people in that highest rung really took a wealth hit (and probably an income hit).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0943efcc83439fa03b5ee014a3ce8fbf",
"text": "In a business environment, this phenomenon could be easily explained by 'operational leverage'. Operational leverage is the principle that increasing revenues by a small amount can have a disproportionately large impact on net income. Consider this example: you run a business that rents out a factory and produces goods to sell to consumers. The rent costs you $10k / month, and all of your other costs depend on how many goods you produce. Assume each good gives you $10 in profit, after factoring your variable costs. If you sell 1,000 units, you break-even, because your variable profit will pay for your rent. If you sell 1,100 units, you make $1,000 net profit. If you sell 1,200 units, you double your overall profit, making $2,000 for the month. Operational leverage is the principle that adding incremental revenue will have a greater impact than the revenue already received, because your fixed costs are already 'paid for'. Similarly in personal finance, consider these scenarios: You have $1,000 in monthly expenses, and make $1,000 - your monthly savings (and therefore your wealth) will be zero. You have $1,000 in monthly expenses, and make $1,100 - your monthly savings will be $100 per month. You have $1,000 in monthly expenses, and make $1,200 - increasing your income by ~10% has allowed your monthly savings double, at $200 per month. You have $1,000 in monthly expenses, and make $2,000 - your monthly savings are 5 times higher, when your income only increased by ~80%. Now in the real world, when someone makes more money, they will increase their expenses. This is because spending money can increase one's quality of life. So the incline does not happen quite so quickly - as pointed out by @Pete & @quid, there comes a point where increased spending provides someone with less increase in quality of life - at that point, savings really would quickly ramp up as income increases incrementally. But assuming you live the same making $2,000 / month as $1,000 / month, you can save, every month, a full month's worth of living expenses. This doesn't even factor in the impact of earning investment income on those savings. As to why the wealth exceeds income at that specific point, I couldn't say, but what I've outlined above should show how it is quite reasonable that the data is as-reported.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c2f67d30263121ee023c4e9234794cc1",
"text": "TL;DR: Income is how much you make, net worth is the value of all your assets: cash, real estate, stocks, etc. With the case of Buffett: Berkshire Hathaway's - Buffett's company - market capitalisation is ~$460 Billion. Buffett controls 18% of shares. $460B x 18%: ~$80 Billion. So we can estimate that a large part of his net worth is tied up in BH stock (obviously this isn't perfect either as there are other factors at play here). BUT this is only on paper. Ie yes he's worth that, but he doesn't really have $80 Billion somewhere in a bank. He gets the money to live from other personal investments and business means.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6f071e945bba3472b76c827d82dfbd1d",
"text": "[Here's](http://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-is-how-much-money-exists-in-the-entire-world-in-one-chart-2015-12-18) and explanation. The broadest interpretation is that there are quadrillions (1,000,000,000,000,000) of dollars in various markets. Bill Gates could become a Trillionaire, so even his wealth is a drop the ocean. Well, not really, but you get the idea. A lot of this money is constantly on the move, it is impossible to track down all the movements. Value is increasing, Value is destroyed etc. Your bank account can be tallied, but it's impossible to track down the money of the world, a continent or even a small country. Even bigger companies have trouble tracking down their money. The idea of the 'tally' is a bit of an outdated one, it came from a time when there was a gold standard, and when old fashioned marxism was still a thing. //edit: words, English, difficult",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b31565f39a22a3c38bad6baeab2848a1",
"text": "You can say it's a bad proxy but practically all the richest people have their money tied up in equities, and it would be foolish for them not to. You have to include that somehow. Net worth is not just liquid assets",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "49992736fd22c5c34efdd7992ee2229c",
"text": "The logic is that the value of America could be determined by adding up the assets of all Americans. If houses are more expensive then America is richer (we own a large number of more expensive houses), even though no additional real assets have been created (as if more houses were built).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "89027dae39e2b8fc85a969a574124174",
"text": "And most wealth is squandered by the third generation. Someone has to become independently wealthy for the cycle to start over. Many will read this headline and use it as an excuse for their own lack of will to succeed. Someone had to succeed independently at some point, to earn the original wealth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6c2b6ce53f3c3f98d525ff6c730df800",
"text": "[Nope] (https://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2010/07/13/worlds-rich-are-hording-10-trillion-in-cash/). It's all hoarded in various index accounts, mostly off-shore for obvious reasons. They want to protect their wealth, which is fine. But if you want to protect wealth you don't invest it all in means of production or real-state, which are both vulnerable to heavy crashes. You keep it protected interest-yielding accounts, in places like the Cayman Islands, or Switzerland.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ae4d07bfbe8ca228742be94731ed1111",
"text": "It all depends on the country. In the US, mobility at the top is reasonably high (ie first generation millionaires, first generation billionaires, etc). In other western countries, mobility at the top is very poor. This is typically due to regulation and taxes that make it incredibly difficult for small businesses to be compliant and compete (ie hire a bad employee as a small startup, and it can cripple the business if you cannot easily fire them). Mobility at the bottom is reversed. Getting out of abject poverty in the US is incredibly difficult, almost impossible. In other western countries it is not easy, but far easier than the US thanks to those social safety nets.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b035ad6a97d41e25812effa927950f2",
"text": "In addition to those who are wealthy (not the same as high income), there are also a certain number of people whose professional livelihood is enhanced by projecting wealth/income they may or may not have. For example, some consultants, lawyers, financial advisors or other salespeople. The same is true of luxury homes for industries where entertaining clients and associates is expected. These people are essentially making an educated bet that the additional sales they expect to make will outweigh the additional expense of the luxury items, similar to purchasing advertising. But in many cases, people are either living beyond their current income, or living beyond their long-term income by failing to save for when they are too old/sick to work. Additionally, many car brands that we traditionally associate with luxury have created mid-priced lines in the $30-40K range recently, so it is possible that some of the cars you are seeing are not as expensive as you might expect.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d9948dd52d6c2486e3016ceaefb19cd",
"text": "I don't really understand the paper. To me, the top 1% do not make their income from salary, but rather from equity or various other asset-based income. Mixing both in the paper to assume that if you don't make $100k/y on salary by 25 you're a loser (sorry, part of the 99%) is dishonest.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "00ebe675aa3b9e72368efc6cbd63f1b1",
"text": "Yes, but, that math is still inconsistent. . . . . . . . If you haven't figured out, I'm just messing with you. :D But, to answer your question. The highest GDP is not being even accessed by all members of our nation. Hence, some people are living a top 1st world nation, some are in moderate 2nd level nation; while a good chunk are living as though they are in a 3rd world/developing nation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "75056fd07d30862bad206916f2cc6322",
"text": "\"As was stated, households earning over $250k/yr don't all get their income one way. Below that threshold, even in the six figure range, most households are in one of two categories; salary/wage/commission workers, and those living off of nest eggs/entitlements (retired, disabled, welfare). Above $250k, though, are a lot of disparate types of incomes: Now, you specifically mentioned wage earners above $250k. Wage earners typically have the same \"\"tax havens\"\" that most of us do; the difference is usually that they are better able to make use of them: In other words, there are many ways for a high-end wage earner to live the good life and write a lot of it off.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "14cbea4564e47ff4109b0975795473d6",
"text": "\"Thats why I think its really funny when everyone says Bill Gates or Carlos Slim or anyone else like that is the \"\"richest\"\" in the world. It's all a floating benchmark based on that day's stock valuations and known stock holdings and has nothing to do with liquid cash or assets. I'd be more curious to know about old European money such as Rothschilds, old country royalty and the true value of Rockerfellers assets.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4e73ccf77803714df5c45a597cf7a9e4",
"text": "In fairness decline of velocity of wealth might not be entirely explained by wealth disparity but environmental decline. (Or the low hanging fruit theory if you will.) This is is the socialist belief. If true economists have a lot to answer for. Beyond that the implementation of truly progressive tax rates could significantly help as the writer alludes to. The top is not anywhere near adequately sampled with such a low number of sample sizes which the IRS calls tax brackets.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b309d8497110987412f3ebce00f7f42f",
"text": "There are two main reasons for the difference between these two numbers: While there are a few people that are wildly wealthy, most of the people with more than 10 million have between 10-50 million dollars. These people shield most of their estate and in the end the tax only effects a small portion of even the wealthy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9d7b55389bc2acad8bedf354250ef0ce",
"text": "\"Really this is no different from any kind of large lump sum and having a mortgage. There are probably many questions and answers on this subject. It really doesn't matter that the proceeds were the result of a sale, an inheritance would not change the answer. I think it is important to note that the proceeds will not eliminate the house 2 mortgage. A high level choice of investment one makes is between equity (such as stock) and debt investments (such as bonds and mortgages). You are in a unique case of being able to invest in your own mortgage with no investment fee. This may tip the scales in favor of paying down the mortgage. It is difficult to answer in your specific case as we don't know the rest of your finances. Do you have a sizable 401K that is heavily invested in stocks? Do you have the need for a college fund? Do you have an emergency fund? Do you have a desire to own several homes generating income property? If it was me I'd do the following in order, skipping steps I may have already completed: I've heard that the bank may agree to a \"\"one time adjustment\"\" to lower the payments on Mortgage #2 because of paying a very large payment. Is this something that really happens? I really kind of hate this attitude. Your goal is to get rid of the mortgage in a timely manner. Doing such makes paying for kids college a snap, reduces the income one might need in retirement, basically eliminates the need for life insurance, and gives one a whole lot of money to have fun with.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
5725552036d5e3fc805427013be71153
|
Is there any advantage to owning equity in a company compared to a royalty agreement?
|
[
{
"docid": "d05fc33bb41d52ddcd24e1d0ce1c13e9",
"text": "Each way you go is a little bit of a gamble. Owning equity in the company is best in situations where you can trade and sell that equity, or where the dilution of your royalty product would affect your returns, or if you can maintain a certain equity stake without working at the company or if you can hold out on taking equity to reinvest profits for the purposes of growth. The royalty is best in situations where you're getting a portion of the gross, since you get paid as a creditor, no matter how the company is performing, or if you intend to collect royalties after you leave the company. Now for your situation: if your royalties are fluctuating with profit instead of gross and your equity is tied to your continued partnership and not subject to potential growth... then they're pretty much both workarounds for the same thing, you've removed the particular advantages for each way of receiving payment. If the company ever does buy out or go public, how much of your additional X earning a month would you have to then re-invest to get an equity stake? And for royalties, if another developer came aboard, or your company bought another company, how much would this dilute your IP contribution? So, aside from the gambling nature of the issue, I'm not sure your tax calculation is right. You can take equity profit as dividend, as long as you're collecting a sufficient salary (this prevents a business from declaring all profits as a dividend). This would put those profits into a different tax bracket, 15% capital gains. Or if all profits are equitably split, you could take part as salary, part as dividend. As well, as someone who's making active income off of their IP, not passive income, you're supposed to file a Schedule C, not a Schedule E, so your royalties would include your self employment taxes. The schedule E is for royalties where the author isn't actively in the field or actually self employed in that area, or if you own royalties on something you didn't create. Should you keep the royalties then go to another job field or retire then your royalties could go on a Schedule E. Now, a tax advantage may exist on a Schedule C if you can write off certain health and business expenses reducing your income that you can't on a Schedule E, though it'd probably be difficult to write off more than the adjusted self employment cost savings of a Schedule E.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "909417d8d10021a49861245cd34381e3",
"text": "\"Not to detract from the other answers at all (which are each excellent and useful in their own right), but here's my interpretation of the ideas: Equity is the answer to the question \"\"Where is the value of the company coming from?\"\" This might include owner stakes, shareholder stock investments, or outside investments. In the current moment, it can also be defined as \"\"Equity = X + Current Income - Current Expenses\"\" (I'll come back to X). This fits into the standard accounting model of \"\"Assets - Liabilities = Value (Equity)\"\", where Assets includes not only bank accounts, but also warehouse inventory, raw materials, etc.; Liabilities are debts, loans, shortfalls in inventory, etc. Both are abstract categories, whereas Income and Expense are hard dollar amounts. At the end of the year when the books balance, they should all equal out. Equity up until this point has been an abstract concept, and it's not an account in the traditional (gnucash) sense. However, it's common practice for businesses to close the books once a year, and to consolidate outstanding balances. When this happens, Equity ceases to be abstract and becomes a hard value: \"\"How much is the company worth at this moment?\"\", which has a definite, numeric value. When the books are opened fresh for a new business year, the Current Income and Current Expense amounts are zeroed out. In this situation, in order for the big equation to equal out: Assets - Liabilities = X + Income - Expeneses the previous net value of the company must be accounted for. This is where X comes in, the starting (previous year's) equity. This allows the Assets and Liabilities to be non-zero, while the (current) Income and Expenses are both still zeroed out. The account which represents X in gnucash is called \"\"Equity\"\", and encompasses not only initial investments, but also the net increase & decreases from previous years. While the name would more accurately be called \"\"Starting Equity\"\", the only problem caused by the naming convention is the confusion of the concept Equity (X + Income - Expenses) with the account X, named \"\"Equity\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4cf93f14c4c9dbe35734cc4af063d42a",
"text": "As others have said, it simply makes you a part owner. Even if you have ethical objections to a company's behavior, I'd argue that investing in it and using the proxy votes to influence the company's decisions might be even more ethical than not investing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a0b627c9da236657a47dd6eddb5215c",
"text": "Ownership vs loanership. You can either own the factors of production, and so directly recieve the dividends of that production, or you can loan your wealth to someone who will use it to buy ownership in the factors of production, and give you a portion. Guess which one grows faster? One thing that was missed in this article, is that the political climate towards equity ownership has been very favorable since the 1980's, encouraging and simplifying the ownership of equity. The problem is that the middle class didn't take advantage of it, and now it's essentially too late.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cc3613b07125009c56b2b3899676fdf8",
"text": "If you own 100% of the shares of a company, then you own those shares personally. They are not owned by the company. If you sell 50% of you shares to a third party, then you receive the proceeds of the sale, not the company. In this case, the company's net equity is unchanged but you have exchanged 50% of your equity for cash. If you wish the company to receive the proceeds of the sale of shares, then you would have the company issue new shares in the company. In this case, your company's net equity would increase by the cash amount received and your personal equity would change accordingly. EDIT In order to fairly sell 50% of equity by issuing new shares it would be necessary for the new investor to invest 50K. This is because the new equity would be the original 50K of equity plus the cash received for new shares. Thus : cost of 50% of equity = 50% of (50K + cash recieved) = cash received. Solving for cash received gives 50K, so that is the correct amount to charge the new investor.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1f18a170ac1d92e77e5a4792ddf675b6",
"text": "Equity can be diluted by future investors, royalties get paid on each sale, companies can continue selling things even when operating at negative profit, back royalties due can be negotiated and at least partially paid in a bankruptcy. From the standpoint of the investor: If it doesn't look like the company will likely have commercial success with a second product, it may be wise to simply take a portion of the product that is actually selling rather than risk your capital on the company's future successes (or failures). From the standpoint of the business owner/entreprenuer, if you believe you have a second product close to the end of the development pipeline it would be wise not to give up equity in the entire enterprise simply to gain required financing to ramp up production and marketing on an existing product. Paying a royalty may be advantageous compared to paying interest on a loan as well (royalty payments are contingent on the occurrence of a sale while interest is due regardless).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "74ef942d4e73c953544714a81f8b0383",
"text": "Paying out dividends and financing new projects with debt also lessens the agency problem. The consequences of a failed project are greater when debt is used, so the manager now has a greater incentive to see that the project is a success. This, in addition to the paid divided is a benefit to the shareholder. If equity wasn't paid out and instead used for the project then the manager may not be so interested in its success. And if it's a failure then the shareholders are worse off.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b573ff1763f664a030871b1be7801af5",
"text": "Could be misunderstanding your context. But ev = equity + debt - cash. So don't think it makes sense for an equity holder to have an individual ev/ebitda different from the company's. Are you asking in context of valuing equity and debt from an ev/ebitda multiple?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5113b7444d0fc0998ef14da59956b5ec",
"text": "I agree with the other comments that you should not buy/hold your company stock even if given at a discount. If equity is provided as part of the compensation package (Options/Restrictive Stock Units RSU)then this rule does not apply. As a matter of diversification, you should not have majority equity stake of other companies in the same sector (e.g. technology) as your employer. Asset allocation and diversification if done in the right way, takes care of the returns. Buying and selling on the same day is generally not allowed for ESPP. Taxation headaches. This is from personal experience (Cisco Systems). I had options issued in Sept 2008 at 18$ which vested regularly. I exited at various points - 19$,20$,21$,23$ My friend held on to all of it hoping for 30$ is stuck. Options expire if you leave your employment. ESPP shares though remain.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "79f388d2574f818e5c8512003c48d607",
"text": "This really comes down to tax structuring (which I am not an expert on), for public companies the acquiror almost always pays for the cash to prevent any taxable drawdown of overseas accounts, dividend taxes suck, etc. For a private company, first the debt gets swept, then special dividend out - dividends received by the selling corporate entity benefit from a tax credit plus it reduces the selling price of the equity, reducing capital gains taxes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a2569304fbab4b2df0d16e3d0e3223be",
"text": "With LLCs, the operation agreement can define different shares for different kinds of income or equity, and different partners may be treated differently. In essence, you can end up with a different stock class for each partner/member. So you need to read the grant document and the OA really carefully to know what you're getting. You may want to have a lawyer read through it for you. This may be way more complicated than classes of shares in a corporation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "65341cfd9b4397498cdd8102ad2dbd20",
"text": "No. Share are equity in companies that usually have revenue streams and/or potential for creating them. That revenue can be used to pay out dividends to the shareholders or to grow the company and increase its value. Most companies get their revenue from their customers, and customers rarely give their money to a company without getting some good or service in exchange.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2e93cddcced62dfdb09049d2d96c932b",
"text": "What you will probably get is an option to buy, for £10,000, £10,000 worth of stock. If the stock price on the day your option is granted is £2.50, then that's 4,000 shares. Companies rarely grant discounted options, as there are tax disincentives. The benefit of the stock option is that when you exercise it, you still only pay £10,000, no matter what the 4,000 shares are now worth. This is supposed to be an incentive for you to work harder to increase the value of the company. You should also check the vesting schedule. You will typically not be able to exercise all your options for some years, although some portion of it may vest each year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f48115d3d43eea8f5b9323be4de730af",
"text": "\"This is an excellent question, one that I've pondered before as well. Here's how I've reconciled it in my mind. Why should we agree that a stock is worth anything? After all, if I purchase a share of said company, I own some small percentage of all of its assets, like land, capital equipment, accounts receivable, cash and securities holdings, etc., as others have pointed out. Notionally, that seems like it should be \"\"worth\"\" something. However, that doesn't give me the right to lay claim to them at will, as I'm just a (very small) minority shareholder. The old adage says that \"\"something is only worth what someone is willing to pay you for it.\"\" That share of stock doesn't actually give me any liquid control over the company's assets, so why should someone else be willing to pay me something for it? As you noted, one reason why a stock might be attractive to someone else is as a (potentially tax-advantaged) revenue stream via dividends. Especially in this low-interest-rate environment, this might well exceed that which I might obtain in the bond market. The payment of income to the investor is one way that a stock might have some \"\"inherent value\"\" that is attractive to investors. As you asked, though, what if the stock doesn't pay dividends? As a small shareholder, what's in it for me? Without any dividend payments, there's no regular method of receiving my invested capital back, so why should I, or anyone else, be willing to purchase the stock to begin with? I can think of a couple reasons: Expectation of a future dividend. You may believe that at some point in the future, the company will begin to pay a dividend to investors. Dividends are paid as a percentage of a company's total profits, so it may make sense to purchase the stock now, while there is no dividend, banking on growth during the no-dividend period that will result in even higher capital returns later. This kind of skirts your question: a non-dividend-paying stock might be worth something because it might turn into a dividend-paying stock in the future. Expectation of a future acquisition. This addresses the original premise of my argument above. If I can't, as a small shareholder, directly access the assets of the company, why should I attribute any value to that small piece of ownership? Because some other entity might be willing to pay me for it in the future. In the event of an acquisition, I will receive either cash or another company's shares in compensation, which often results in a capital gain for me as a shareholder. If I obtain a capital gain via cash as part of the deal, then this proves my point: the original, non-dividend-paying stock was worth something because some other entity decided to acquire the company, paying me more cash than I paid for my shares. They are willing to pay this price for the company because they can then reap its profits in the future. If I obtain a capital gain via stock in as part of the deal, then the process restarts in some sense. Maybe the new stock pays dividends. Otherwise, perhaps the new company will do something to make its stock worth more in the future, based on the same future expectations. The fact that ownership in a stock can hold such positive future expectations makes them \"\"worth something\"\" at any given time; if you purchase a stock and then want to sell it later, someone else is willing to purchase it from you so they can obtain the right to experience a positive capital return in the future. While stock valuation schemes will vary, both dividends and acquisition prices are related to a company's profits: This provides a connection between a company's profitability, expectations of future growth, and its stock price today, whether it currently pays dividends or not.\"",
"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": "ae148a4b9aca1e2103a1c57a04f56f16",
"text": "This is great, thank you. Can you think of any cases where expected return is greater than interest payments (like in #2) but the best choice would still be raise money through equity issuing? My intuition tells me this may be possible for an expensive company.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
2bf3811a874388346e5ebd15485848de
|
Paying myself a dividend from ltd company
|
[
{
"docid": "0405c80b946e2a2c2c2ceae2b78ccae7",
"text": "In a simple case as the sole UK resident director/shareholder of a company, with that company as your only income, you are usually best paying yourself a salary of the maximum tax free amount allowed under your tax code (~£11k for most people at present). On this you will have to pay some employer and employee National Insurance (NI) contributions (totalling around £1000). Your salary/employer NI counts as an expense, so that is taken off the company profits. You then pay corporation tax on the remainder (20%). The first £5k you take as dividends is tax free, the remainder at a lower tax rate than the equivalent combined income tax/NI (starting at 7.5% instead of 20% tax plus employee plus employer NI), giving a significant saving compared to salaried income even after corporation tax. To declare and pay the tax, you would need to complete a self-assessment tax return. Your company will also need to file a return. The Contractor UK website, although aimed at IT contractors, has some very useful information on operating Ltd companies. That said, finances are rarely that simple so I would concur with the recommendation you engage an accountant, which is a tax-deductible expense.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "79d8a28c19435af5beeac567628d0ce8",
"text": "manage the company properly. If you aren't much aware about company rules and regulation or tax matters, get an accountant so that you don't mess up later. better off paying my self a dividend of 100% profit or as an employee? That depends on how much salary you intend to pay yourself, your dividend or how much business expenses you will incur while running the business. Generally speaking you are better off paying your self a minimum salary and pay the rest as dividends. But check out the dividend tax and the income tax you might need to pay and compare which situation you are better off. If you have a partner, using the dividend way will reduce your NI outgoes. ethical and legal? Ethically the dividend way might burn your conscience but it is perfectly legal way of doing things.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c2e776fb7b74820146fb41350cfb275e",
"text": "Adding to webdevduck's answer: Before you calculate your profits, you can pay money tax-free into a pension fund for the company director (that is you). Then if you pay yourself dividends, if you made lots of profit you don't have to pay it all as dividends. You can take some where the taxes are low, and then pay more money in later years. What you must NOT do is just take the money. The company may be yours, but the money isn't. It has to be paid as salary or dividend. (You can give the company director a loan, but that loan has to be repaid. Especially if a limited company goes bankrupt, the creditors would insist that loans from the company are repaid). After a bit more checking, here's the optimal approach, perfectly legal, expected and ethical: You pay yourself a salary of £676 per month. That's the point where you get all the advantages of national insurance without having to pay; above that you would have to pay 13.8% employers NI contributions and 12% employee's NI contributions, so for £100 salary the company has to pay £113.80 and you receive £88.00. Below £676 you pay nothing. You deduct the salary from your revenue, then you deduct all the deductible business costs (be wise in what you try to deduct), then you pay whatever you want into a pension fund. Well, up to I think £25,000 per year. The rest is profit. The company pays 19% corporation tax on profits. Then you pay yourself dividends. Any dividends until your income is £11,500 per year are tax free. Then the next £5,000 per year are tax free. Then any dividends until income + dividends = £45,000 per year is taxed at 7.5%. It's illegal to pay so much in dividends that the company can't pay its bills. Above £45,000 you decide if you want your money now and pay more tax, or wait and get it tax free. Every pound of dividend above £45,000 a year you pay 32.5% tax, but there is nobody forcing you to take the money. You can wait until business is bad, or you want a loooong holiday, or you retire. So at that time you will stay below £45,000 per year and pay only 7.5% tax.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "06eb0254bd4b3aea26db481f691fa063",
"text": "I believe so (that you can, not that you are greedy) I run my own business and, generally speaking, am 'charging' my company 40p per mile as per the quote above. I did not know about the ability to claim the shortfall, as it is not relevant to me, but it makes perfect sense and I'm sure that a phone call to HMRC will help you understand how to claim. As for the greedy question - personally I think that laws are there for a reason (both ways) so if there's money to be claimed - there's no reason not to do so, unless of course the hassle is greater than the potential gain. One last note - not sure exactly what the rules around this are, but I know that the allowance is not applicable for one's general commute and so if you're travelling to the same place over 40% of the time for more than two years you are no longer allowed to claim these miles.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "68ef32bfccf785eb45abd36e22f3fe2c",
"text": "\"I think the £35K band applies to the \"\"dividend income\"\" not the \"\"dividend paid to you\"\", and so you would only actually get £31.5K (90% of £35K) in your pocket before the next tax band kicked in. If your company will only supplying large VAT registered entities, then register for VAT yourself and elect the Flat Rate scheme - depending on your area of business, given that you have no expenses, your company will get an extra 7% - 14% on its income for free. Your clients won't care that you charge them VAT because they'll claim it back. Finally, depending on what your company is for, beware of the dreaded IR35\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "101539eaf2a1c7edd0566ddfeec41f5f",
"text": "As an ordinary shareholder, yes you are protected from recourse by the debtors. The maximum amount you can lose is the amount you spent on the shares. The rules might change if you are an officer of the company and fraud is alleged, but ordinary stockholders are quite well protected. Why are you worried about this?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb4dc2382fe36b9c9d01a1e44edaee35",
"text": "IANAL (and nor am I an accountant), so I can't give a definitive answer as to legality, but AFAIK, what you propose is legal. But what's the benefit? Avoiding corporation tax? It's simplistic – and costly – to think in terms like that. You need to run the numbers for different scenarios, and make a plan. You can end up ahead of the game precisely by choosing to pay some corporate tax each year. Really! Read on. One of the many reasons that self-employed Canadians sometimes opt for a corporate structure over being a sole proprietor is to be able to not pay themselves everything the company earns each year. This is especially important when a business has some really good years, and others, meh. Using the corporation to retain earnings can be more tax effective. Example: Imagine your corporation earns, net of accounting & other non-tax costs except for your draws, $120,000/year for 5 years, and $0 in year 6. Assume the business is your only source of income for those 6 years. Would you rather: Pay yourself the entire $120,000/yr in years 1-5, then $0 in year 6 (living off personal savings you hopefully accumulated earlier), subjecting the $120,000/yr to personal income tax only, leaving nothing in the corporation to be taxed? Very roughly speaking, assuming tax rates & brackets are level from year to year, and using this calculator (which simplifies certain things), then in Ontario, then you'd net ~$84,878/yr for years 1-5, and $0 in year 6. Overall, you realized $424,390. Drawing the income in this manner, the average tax rate on the $600,000 was 29.26%. vs. Pay yourself only $100,000/yr in years 1-5, leaving $20,000/yr subject to corporation tax. Assuming a 15.5% combined federal/provincial corporate tax rate (includes the small business deduction), then the corp. is left with $16,900/yr to add to retained earnings in years 1-5. In year 6, the corp. has $84,500 in retained earnings to be distributed to you, the sole owner, as a dividend (of the non-eligible kind.) Again, very roughly speaking, you'd personally net $73,560/yr in years 1-5, and then on the $84,500 dividend in year 6, you'd net $73,658. Overall, you realized $441,458. Drawing the income in this manner, the average tax rate on the $600K was 26.42%. i.e. Scenario 2, which spreads the income out over the six years, saved 2.84% in tax, or $14,400. Smoothing out your income is also a prudent thing to do. Would you rather find yourself in year 6, having no clients and no revenue, with nothing left to draw on? Or would you rather the company had saved money from the good years to pay you in the lean one?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d05fc33bb41d52ddcd24e1d0ce1c13e9",
"text": "Each way you go is a little bit of a gamble. Owning equity in the company is best in situations where you can trade and sell that equity, or where the dilution of your royalty product would affect your returns, or if you can maintain a certain equity stake without working at the company or if you can hold out on taking equity to reinvest profits for the purposes of growth. The royalty is best in situations where you're getting a portion of the gross, since you get paid as a creditor, no matter how the company is performing, or if you intend to collect royalties after you leave the company. Now for your situation: if your royalties are fluctuating with profit instead of gross and your equity is tied to your continued partnership and not subject to potential growth... then they're pretty much both workarounds for the same thing, you've removed the particular advantages for each way of receiving payment. If the company ever does buy out or go public, how much of your additional X earning a month would you have to then re-invest to get an equity stake? And for royalties, if another developer came aboard, or your company bought another company, how much would this dilute your IP contribution? So, aside from the gambling nature of the issue, I'm not sure your tax calculation is right. You can take equity profit as dividend, as long as you're collecting a sufficient salary (this prevents a business from declaring all profits as a dividend). This would put those profits into a different tax bracket, 15% capital gains. Or if all profits are equitably split, you could take part as salary, part as dividend. As well, as someone who's making active income off of their IP, not passive income, you're supposed to file a Schedule C, not a Schedule E, so your royalties would include your self employment taxes. The schedule E is for royalties where the author isn't actively in the field or actually self employed in that area, or if you own royalties on something you didn't create. Should you keep the royalties then go to another job field or retire then your royalties could go on a Schedule E. Now, a tax advantage may exist on a Schedule C if you can write off certain health and business expenses reducing your income that you can't on a Schedule E, though it'd probably be difficult to write off more than the adjusted self employment cost savings of a Schedule E.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "70d32f3db9a82272eb3e45a684f27220",
"text": "\"Google is a poor example since it doesn't pay a dividend (and doesn't expect to), so let's use another example with easy numbers. Company X has a stock price of $100, and it pays a quarterly dividend (many companies do). Let's assume X pays a dividend of $4. Dividends are always quoted in annual terms, as is dividend yield. When a company says that they pay \"\"quarterly dividends,\"\" it means that the company pays dividends every quarter, or every 3 months. BUT, if a company has a $4 dividend, you will not receive $4 every quarter per share. You will receive $4/4 = $1 per share, every quarter. So over the course of a fiscal year, or 4 quarters, you'll get $1 + $1 + $1 + $1 = $4 per share, which is the annual dividend. The dividend yield = annual dividend/stock price. So in this case, company X's div. yield will be $4/$100 * 100 = 4%. It's important to note that this is the annual yield. To get the quarterly yield, you must divide by 4. It's also important to note that the yield fluctuates based on stock price, but the dividend payment stays constant unless the company states an announcement. For a real world example, consider Intel Corp. (TICKER: INTC) http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=INTC The share price is currently $22.05, and the dividend is $0.84. This makes the annual yield = $0.84/$22.05 * 100 = 3.80%. Intel pays a quarterly dividend, so you can expect to receive $0.21 every quarter for every share of Intel that you own. Hope that clears it up!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f07ac4680194626215deef6479418a33",
"text": "\"The answer is partly and sometimes, but you cannot know when or how. Most clearly, you do not take somebody else's money if you buy shares in a start-up company. You are putting your money at risk in exchange for a share in the rewards. Later, if the company thrives, you can sell your shares for whatever somebody else will pay for your current share in the thriving company's earnings. Or, you lose your money, when the company fails. (Much of it has then ended up in the company's employees' pockets, much of the rest with the government as taxes that the company paid). If the stockmarket did not exist, people would be far less willing to put their money into a new company, because selling shares would be far harder. This in turn would mean that fewer new things were tried out, and less progress would be made. Communists insist that central state planning would make better decisions than random people linked by a market. I suggest that the historical record proves otherwise. Historically, limited liability companies came first, then dividing them up into larger numbers of \"\"bearer\"\" shares, and finally creating markets where such shares were traded. On the other hand if you trade in the short or medium term, you are betting that your opinion that XYZ shares are undervalued against other investors who think otherwise. But there again, you may be buying from a person who has some other reason for selling. Maybe he just needs some cash for a new car or his child's marriage, and will buy back into XYZ once he has earned some more money. You can't tell who you are buying from, and the seller can only tell if his decision to sell was good with the benefit of a good few years of hindsight. I bought shares hand over fist immediately after the Brexit vote. I was putting my money where my vote went, and I've now made a decent profit. I don't feel that I harmed the people who sold out in expectation of the UK economy cratering. They got the peace of mind of cash (which they might then reinvest in Euro stocks or gold or whatever). Time will tell whether my selling out of these purchases more recently was a good decision (short term, not my best, but a profit is a profit ...) I never trade using borrowed money and I'm not sure whether city institutions should be allowed to do so (or more reasonably, to what extent this should be allowed). In a certain size and shortness of holding time, they cease to contribute to an orderly market and become a destabilizing force. This showed up in the financial crisis when certain banks were \"\"too big to fail\"\" and had to be bailed out at the taxpayer's expense. \"\"Heads we win, tails you lose\"\", rather than trading with us small guys as equals! Likewise it's hard to see any justification for high-frequency trading, where stocks are held for mere milliseconds, and the speed of light between the trader's and the market's computers is significant.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2f6fc677d6cb6bd6df28c89bea847238",
"text": "Another person, not a shareholder or director, will be treated as when a bank loans you money. You are loaning out money and you are sort of getting interest income out of it or some other benefit, which needs to be put down in you company's annual return. Full source on the HMRC website. But for a shareholder or director is different matter. Check the HMRC source for sure and check with your accountant, if you have one. If you owe your company money You or your company may have to pay tax if you take a director’s loan. Your personal and company tax responsibilities depend on how the loan is settled. You also need to check if you have extra tax responsibilities if: If the loan was more than £10,000 (£5,000 in 2013-14) If you’re a shareholder and director and you owe your company more than £10,000 (£5,000 in 2013 to 2014) at any time in the year, your company must: You must report the loan on your personal Self Assessment tax return. You may have to pay tax on the loan at the official rate of interest. If you paid interest below the official rate If you’re a shareholder and director, your company must: You must report the interest on your personal Self Assessment tax return. You may have to pay tax on the difference between the official rate and the rate you paid.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3d42480931d9f5d13947a15a0739972",
"text": "Do you realise that the examples you have given are for stock splits not for dividends, that is why the date payable is before the ex-date for the split. The payments for the split occur on 30th June and the first day the stock trades with the new split is on the next trading day, being the ex-date, 1st July.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "743d2e65a512c9a50e965e0a1b4a80f0",
"text": "\"Dividends telegraph that management has a longer term focus than just the end of quarter share price. There is a committment to at least maintain (if not periodically increase) the dividend payout year over year. Management understands that cutting or pausing dividends will cause dividend investors in market to dump shares driving down the stock price. Dividends can have preferential tax treatment in some jurisdictions, either for an individual compared to capital gains or compared to the corporation paying taxes themselves. For example, REITs (real estate investment trusts) are a type of corporation that in order to not pay corporate income tax are required to pay out 95% of income as dividends each year. These are not the only type, MLP (master limited partnerships) and other \"\"Partnership\"\" structures will always have high dividend rates by design. Dividends provide cash flow and trade market volatility for actual cash. Not every investor needs cash flow, but for certain investors, it reduces the risks of a liquidity crisis, such as in retirement. The alternative for an investor who seeks to use the sale of shares would be to maintain a sufficient cash reserve for typical market recessions.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "85b1a08cb97369960f092c4dede5bb8d",
"text": "Dividends are a form of passive income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e1208e4de07e5a70118a6b83770ea03e",
"text": "\"If you are using software like QuickBooks (or even just using spreadsheets or tracking this without software) use two Equity accounts, something like \"\"Capital Contributions\"\" and \"\"Capital Distributions\"\" When you write a personal check to the company, the money goes into the company's checking account and also increases the Capital Contribution account in accordance with double-entry accounting practices. When the company has enough retained earnings to pay you back, you use the Capital Distributions equity account and just write yourself a check. You can also make general journal entries every year to zero out or balance your two capital accounts with Retained Earnings, which (I think) is an automatically generated Equity account in QuickBooks. If this sounds too complex, you could also just use a single \"\"Capital Contributions and Distributions\"\" equity account for your contributions and distributions.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f26dd48200dcb941f9970672b9fce81",
"text": "\"A dividend is a cash disbursement from the company. The value of the company goes down the same amount of the dividend, so it is analogous to having money in a savings account and taking a withdrawal every month. Obviously you are going to have less in the end than if you just kept the money in the account. suppose that I own 10 different stocks, and don't reinvest dividends, but keep them on account, and each month or two, as I add more money to invest, either in one of my existing stocks, or perhaps something new, I add whichever dividend amount is currently available in cash to my new purchase, would this strategy provide the same results? Roughly, yes. Reinvesting dividends is essentially buying more stock at the lower price, which is a net zero effect in total balance. So if you invested in the same stocks, yes you'd be in the same place. If you invested in different stocks, then you would have a performance difference depending on what you invested in. The risk is the temptation to take the cash dividend and not reinvest it, but take it in cash, thereby reducing your earning power. That is, is there some particular reason that the brokers are recommending automatically reinvesting dividends as opposed to reinvesting them manually, perhaps not always in the same item? I'd like to think that they're looking after your best interest (and they might be), but the cynical part of me thinks that they're either trying to keep your business by increasing your returns, or there's some UK regulation I'm not aware of that requires them to disclose the effect of reinvesting dividends. £100 invested in the UK stock market since 1899 would have grown into just £177 after adjusting for inflation. This figure seems ludicrous to me. I haven't actually measured what the historical returns on the \"\"UK market\"\" are, but that would mean an annualized return (adjusted for inflation) of just 0.5%. Either UK stocks pay a ridiculous amount of dividends or there's something wrong with the math. EDIT I still have not found a definitive source for the real UK market return, but according to this inflation calculator, £100 in 1899 would equate to almost £12,000 today, for an average inflation rate of 4.14 percent, which would put the CAGR of the UK market at about 4.9%, which seems reasonable. The CAGR with dividend reinvestment would then be about 9.1%, making dividend reinvestment a no-brainer in the UK market at least.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "81fc4819252bbfa4014d3241c01a80a7",
"text": "You could hold a long position in some company XXXX and then short your own shares (assuming your broker will let you do that). The dividend that would have gone to you would then go to whoever is holding the shares you short sold. You just don't get a dividend. If you're going to short in a smart way... do it on a stock you otherwise believe in, but use it to minimize the pull-backs on the way up.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "04ef57511c2c2d392fbe137ef253607a",
"text": "They're not going to look very hard at the asset value (except for actual cash in the bank), which doesn't bear much relationship to the real value of the company. More likely they will look at the last three years' earnings and choose a target P/E ratio based on that. The owner's share depends entirely on how much of the business they choose to sell. If the business is worth $60M and they want to raise $20M for themselves, then that means selling 33% of the company. If they want to raise $20M for the business as well, then that means selling half the company and retaining ownership of the other half, which is now worth $80M because of the cash infusion. But many stock exchanges will have minimum requirements for the percentage of the shares that are trading freely, so they will have to sell at least that much.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
c9b6d4aca6248588515916d87a6a678a
|
Optimal term/number of months for car finance or lease?
|
[
{
"docid": "086a9ad3b409d1498b7d28307f1f69f3",
"text": "If you have the money to pay cash for the car. Then 0 months will save you the most money. There are of course several caveats. The money for the car has to be in a relatively liquid form. Selling stocks which would trigger taxes may make the pay cash option non-optimal. Paying cash for the car shouldn't leave you car rich but cash poor. Taking all your savings to pay cash would not be a good idea. Note: paying cash doesn't involve taking a wheelbarrow full of bills to the dealer; You can use a a check. If cash is not an option then the longest time period balanced by the rates available is best. If the bank says x percent for 12-23 months, y percent for 24-47 months, Z percent for 48 to... It may be best to take the 47 month loan, because it keeps the middle rate for a long time. You want to lock in the lowest rate you can, for the longest period they allow. The longer period keeps the required minimum monthly payment as low as possible. The lower rate saves you on interest. Remember you generally can pay the loan off sooner by making extra or larger payments. Leasing. Never lease unless you are writing off the monthly lease payment as a business expense. If the choice is monthly lease payments or depreciation for tax purposes the lease can make the most sense. If business taxes aren't involved then leasing only means that you have a complex deal where you finance the most expensive part of the ownership period, you have to watch the mileage for several years, and you may have to pay a large amount at the end of the period for damages and excess miles. Plus many times you don't end up with the car at the end of the lease. In the United States one way to get a good deal if you have to get a loan: take the rebate from the dealer; and the loan from a bank/credit Union. The interest rate at banking institution is a better range of rates and length. Plus you get the dealer cash. Many times the dealer will only give you the 0% interest rate if you pay in 12 months and skip the rebate; where the interest paid to the bank will be less than the rebate.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "0cdcde52835b5ccd2cf3a8d3cae0b48a",
"text": "\"My spouse will only be entering medical school within 2 years at the earliest, and will likely be there for about 4-5 years. If she get's into the school she wants we would not have to move This is probably the biggest return on investment that you can get. Sure, you could invest what you have in the market and take out tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars on \"\"cheap\"\" medical school loans, but consider this: Figure out how much you need for all 4-5 years, and develop a plan to make sure you can cash-flow the entire education. Bootstrapping a software company has potential for high rewards, but a much greater risk. you could get 10X back or you could lose it all. With your income, you've got plenty of time to save for college, so I don't see that as a huge win now. I would also dump the lease - you can probably get a much better car for $16k that the five-year old one you have when the lease is up. (or get a similar car for less money). With no debt and a good income you do not need a credit score. The lease probably didn't help it that much anyways - you're paying more for the lease than any benefit you would get by a higher score.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "df67807ae166c87b872af58baf1fe7b1",
"text": "\"Cars depreciate the most their first year after introduction. So you could buy a \"\"new\"\" car in year 2 for the optimal price, and at year 4 (when you finish paying yours off) you could buy the next car in year 2 (this is surprisingly similar to rolling options in a buy-write strategy, an arguably more constructive use of your money)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "df86779cf6997e4ea645f202520efc49",
"text": "It depends how detailed you want to get in your calculation, but fundamentally, 1K < 25K. On a very basic level, divide the cost (less what you sell it for) by the time you'll have the car for. If you junk it, $1K/12 month = $83/month to buy tires to have a car for a year. If you sell it for $1K, then it become $0/month. (Plus other maintenance, etc..., obviously). If you pay 25K and keep the new car for ten years and sell it for nothing, it becomes roughly $208/month (plus maintenance). If you want to get more accurate, there are a lot of variables you can take into account--time cost of money, financing, maintenance costs of different vehicle types, etc...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d83da8b4a1ccb7bde4d33e13cb0fd76",
"text": "I agree with Speedbird389 - I leased an economy car 10 years ago, paid the residual at the end of the lease because I knew the car would last a long time, but that cost me $5000 more than if I had bought it in the first place...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "593ddbf35037a9785c3b2d77afd8a566",
"text": "There needs to be more numbers with your choices, without those any answer is purely speculation. Assuming that India is much like the US, you are almost always better to go with a company leased car. That is if you are not responsible for the lease if your employment ends with the company. Here in the US companies typically reimburse, so tax free, their employees for about 50 cents per mile, or about 31 cents per kilometer. This barely covers the gas and insurance and falls way short when one includes deprecation and maintenance. So it is better to have the company to pick up all those costs. Borrowing money on a car is just plain dumb no matter what the interest rate. So I would stick with choice number 1 or 3 depending on the arrangement for the company leased car. The next question becomes how much you should spend for a car? I would say enough to keep you happy and safe, but not much more than that until you are wealthy.",
"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": "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": "79b11649d690b24c7378ff5f0ec8ef65",
"text": "There are some who argue that you should lease an electric car. These factors are in addition to all the normal pros and cons of leasing vs. buying. The technology is still new and is advancing rapidly. In 2-3 years, the newer model may have significantly improved features, range, and efficiency, as well as lower prices. If you are the type of person to upgrade regularly to the latest and greatest, leasing can make it a smoother transition. It is hard to predict the depreciation of the vehicles. This is both because of the above factors, but also because these kinds of cars are newer and so the statistical models used to predict their future values are less refined. The models for predicting gas car prices have been honed for decades. EV Manufacturers have in the past made some mistakes in their residual value estimations. When you lease a car, you get essentially an option to buy the car at the future predicted residual value. If, at the end of the lease, the market value of the car is higher than the residual value, you can purchase the car at the predetermined price, making yourself some extra money. If the value is lower than the residual, you can return the car or renegotiate. I know a relatively large number of electric vehicle owners. Most or all of the ones who got the vehicle new leased it. The rest bought used vehicles coming off lease, which can also be a good deal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d1f550144d06e304037346ce25ed698",
"text": "I might be missing something, but I always understood that leasing is about managing cash-flow in a business. You have a fixed monthly out-going as opposed to an up-front payment. My accountant (here in Germany) recommended: pay cash, take a loan (often the manufactures offer good rates) or lease - in that order. The leasing company has to raise the cash from somewhere and they don't want to make a loss on the deal. They will probably know better than I how to manage that and will therefore be calculating in the projected resale value at the end of the leasing period. I can't see how an electric car would make any difference here. These people are probably better informed about the resale value of any type of car than I am. My feeling is to buy using a loan from the manufacturer. The rates are often good and I have also got good deals on insurance as a part of that package. Here in Germany the sales tax (VAT) can be immediately claimed back in full when the loan deal is signed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4efbccc6cb586ee462049893dea8a984",
"text": "Regarding the opportunity cost comparison, consider the following two scenarios assuming a three-year lease: Option A: Keep your current car for three years In this scenario, you start with a car that's worth $10,000 and end with a car that's worth $7,000 after three years. Option B: Sell your current car, invest proceeds, lease new car Here, you'll start out with $10,000 and invest it. You'll start with $10,000 in cash from the sale of your old car, and end with $10,000 plus investment gains. You'll have to estimate the return of your investment based on your investing style. Option C: Use the $10k from proceeds as down payment for new car In this scenario you'll get a reduction in finance charges on your lease, but you'll be out $10,000 at the end. Overall Cost Comparison To compare the total cost to own your current car versus replacing it with a new leased car, first look up the cost of ownership for your current car for the same term as the lease you're considering. Edmunds offers this research and calls it True Cost to Own. Specifically, you'll want to include depreciation, fuel, insurance, maintenance and repairs. If you still owe money you should also factor the remaining payments. So the formula is: Cost to keep car = Depreciation + Fuel + Insurance + Maintenance + Repairs On the lease side consider taxes and fees, all lease payments, fuel, and maintenance. Assume repairs will be covered under warranty. Assume you will put down no money on the lease and you will finance fees, taxes, title, and license when calculating lease payments. You also need to consider the cost to pay off your current car's loan if applicable. Then you should subtract the gains you expect from investing for three years the proceeds from the sale of your car. Assume that repairs will be covered under warranty. The formula to lease looks like: Lease Cost = Fuel + Insurance + Maintenance + Lease payments - (gains from investing $10k) For option C, where you use the $10k from proceeds as down payment for new lease, it will be: Lease Cost = Fuel + Insurance + Maintenance + Lease payments + $10,000 A somewhat intangible factor to consider is that you'll have to pay for body damage to a leased car at the end of the lease, whereas you are obviously free to leave damage unrepaired on your own vehicle.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "783f45ba49d152b04358181888e3f134",
"text": "Your short-term time frame makes buying used the best option, but it seems you already are aware of that. Look into a certified pre-owned model if you are concerned about lemons. You will usually get some sort of warranty. However, be aware that any car can be a headache with repairs. I would not recommend a lease because basically you are still paying for the depreciation on the car plus interest. Generally, this is the most expensive way to drive a car. You may find the numbers look good for a lease but beware of the 'gotchas' in the terms that can put you way over budget (over mileage, wear and tear, etc.). My best recommendation is to buy gently used with cash. This gives you the most flexibility and best resale value. If you finance a late-model vehicle, be aware that depreciation can leave you upside-down on your loan. That would put you in the position of having to shell out cash just to get rid of the car.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "298a3f25846f5a776770998f3b63329e",
"text": "Don't let the tail of credit score wag the dog of prudent financial planning. If you have a sufficient emergency fund in addition to the car cost, then buying the car for cash is to my mind a better plan. But if the car purchase would deplete your emergency fund, then I'd go for the loan. Cash in hand gives you optionality that can be very valuable when things go wrong. And credit will be withdrawn at exactly the most painful moment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "92f923e3727a7af46c38acb5c46bb1c7",
"text": "You SHOULDN'T lease one if you are going to get an economy car, if you don't drive too much (<15K / year), and you want to hang on to the car for a long time. Otherwise, if you are a regular driver, driving a leased new quality car can be cost effective. Many cars now have bumper-to-bumper warranties that last as long as the lease (say 80K). So there is rarely any extra costs apart from regular maintenance. The sweet spot for most new cars is in the 5th, 6th, or 7th years, after they are paid off. But at that point, you may find you have maintenance bills that are approaching an average of $200 - $300 per month. In which case, a lease starts to look pretty good. I owned a 7 year old Honda Accord that cost only $80 less per month in maintenance than the new leased VW that replaced it. Haven't looked back after that. Into my 3rd car and 9th year of leasing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0811da7ac2144ef3ebc1e2d2b013f5fd",
"text": "\"I strongly discourage leasing (or loans, but at least you own the car at the end of it) in any situation. it's just a bad deal, but that doesn't answer your question. Most new cars are \"\"loss leaders\"\" for dealerships. It's too easy to know what their costs are these days, so they make most of their money though financing. They might make a less than $500 on the sale of a new car, but if it's financed though them then they might get $2,000 - $4,000 commission/sale on the financing contract. Yes, it is possible and entirely likely that the advertised rate will only go to the best qualified lessees (possibly with a credit score about 750 or 800 or so other high number, for example). If the lessee meets the requirements then they won't deny you, they really want your business, but it is more likely to start the process and do all the paperwork for them to come back and say, \"\"Well, you don't qualify for the $99/month leasing program, but we can offer you the $199/month lease.\"\" (since that's the price you're giving from other dealerships). From there you just need to negotiate again. Note: Make sure you always do your research and negotiate the price of the car before talking about financing.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2dc2dfe450a48df2c777876f86fd96ba",
"text": "I have a colleague who always leases cars first. He's very well off, has piles of money in savings, owns a home, and the cherry on top, he could just write a check for the car.... He sees the lease as an insurance policy on the first couple of years of the car's life. If it gets in an accident or he finds something about it he doesn't like, he can give it back to the dealer at the end of the term with no hassle and move on to the next car. Some people value the fact that a lease is a rental. If you're leasing a luxury car or something you couldn't otherwise afford, no amount of mental gymnastics will turn this in to a good idea. Separately, you should never make a down payment on a lease. If the car is totaled early on, you will not recoupe the money you put down. The issue here is that while the numbers all work out the same between a lease and a purchase your situation is different. If the leased car is totaled, the bank gets its money back from an insurer. If that payment doesn't cover the value of the car, the GAP insurance will cover it. In either situation, if there's an excess remaining it will be returned to you. The issue is the excess may not fully replace your down payment. If you then went to lease another car you would need to come up with that down payment again because you couldn't just simply choose to lease a used car; like you could in the case of a purchase. Additionally, GAP is generally included in a lease whether you want it or not. As far as I'm concerned it doesn't make financial sense to mitigate the value of the GAP coverage once you've decided to live in a lease situation.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
80b67ab606d60956364b431bd18c4a99
|
Calculating the total capital of a company?
|
[
{
"docid": "3dc5f5f23a4b4856d8e486c3e097bb7f",
"text": "\"I was wondering how do we calculate the total capital of a company? Which items should I look for in the financial statements? Total capital usually refers to the sum of long-term debt and total shareholder equity; both of these items can be found on the company's balance sheet. This is one of the calculations that's traditionally used when determining a company's return on capital. I'll use the balance sheet from Gilead Sciences' (GILD) 2012 10-K form as an example. Net long-term debt was $7,054,555,000 and total stockholder equity was $9,550,869,000 which should give a grand total of $16,605,424,000 for total capital. (I know you can do the math, but I always find an example helpful if it uses realistic numbers). You may sometimes hear the term \"\"total capital\"\" referring to \"\"total capital stock\"\" or \"\"total capital assets,\"\" in which case it may be referring to physical capital, i.e. assets like inventory, PP&E, etc., instead of financial capital/leverage. And how do I calculate notes payable? Is the same as accounts payable? As the word \"\"payable\"\" suggests, both are liabilities. However, I've always been taught that accounts payable are debts a business owes to its suppliers, while notes payable are debts a business owes to banks and other institutions with which it has signed a formal agreement and which use formal debt instruments, e.g. a loan contract. This definition seems to match various articles I found online. On a balance sheet, you can usually determine notes payable by combining the short-term debt of the company with the current portion of the long-term debt. These pieces comprise the debt that is due within the fiscal year. In the balance sheet for Gilead Sciences, I would only include the $1,169,490,000 categorized as \"\"Current portion of long-term debt and other obligations, net\"\" term, since the other current liabilities don't look like they would involve formal debt contracts. Since the notes payable section of GILD's balance sheet doesn't seem that diverse and therefore might not make the best example, I'll include the most recent balance sheet Monsanto as well.1 Monsanto's balance sheet lists a term called \"\"Short-term debt, including current portion of long-term debt\"\" with a value of $36 million. This looks like almost the exact definition of notes payable. 1. Note that this financial statement is called a Statement of Consolidated Financial Position on Monsanto's 10-K.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2ba3ab29e2ff7613adc6491c8165e6fc",
"text": "\"Total Capital This is a very old fashioned term that really is mostly only used in the finance industry today, like when everyone was obsessed with \"\"bank capital\"\". Total Capital = Preferred Equity + Common Equity + Liabilities True blue preferred shares are almost only used by financial companies, banks specifically. The more modern ones that convert to common are used by all other companies. Notes Payable This is another old fashioned term that now carries a different meaning in Generally Accepted Account Principles (GAAP). The oldest definition of a note or a promissory note is a promise to pay a fixed amount of money on a specific date. This has been modified to resemble more a bond and evolved into the zero coupon bond, a bond that makes no cash interest payments but makes one final payment that includes principal & interest. A bank note, like a One Dollar bill, is a note that pays something, in this case One Dollar, never (technically, the repayment date is simply not specified in the contract). While it pays One Dollar, it never pays it back, so it has a constant value of One Dollar. The constant nature, inflation notwithstanding, is what makes bank notes the preferred medium of exchange. GAAP has taken its' own definition to mean any debt payable within 12 months, as it is a current (<12 months) liability.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7a4191ced35751269bb3a494a5569a7d",
"text": "Opening capital = opening assests-opening liabilities",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "a8ee07f460a8a1fe9480e40afe4f4815",
"text": "Profit after tax can have multiple interpretations, but a common one is the EPS (Earnings Per Share). This is frequently reported as a TTM number (Trailing Twelve Months), or in the UK as a fiscal year number. Coincidentally, it is relatively easy to find the total amount of dividends paid out in that same time frame. That means calculating div cover is as simple as: EPS divided by total dividend. (EPS / Div). It's relatively easy to build a Google Docs spreadsheet that pulls both values from the cloud using the GOOGLEFINANCE() function. I suspect the same is true of most spreadsheet apps. With a proper setup, you can just fill down along a column of tickers to get the div cover for a number of companies at once.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "abf616c3123c474f8459d5c623759525",
"text": "\"Capitalization rate and \"\"Net Profit margin\"\" are two different things. In Capitalization rate note that we are taking the \"\"total value\"\" in the denominator and in Net profit margin we are taking \"\"Revenue/Sales\"\". Capitalization Rate: Capitalization Rate = Yearly Income/Total Value For example (from Investopedia: ) if Stephane buys a property that will generate $125,000 per year and he pays $900,000 for it, the cap rate is: 125,000/900,000 = 13.89%. Net Profit margin: Net Profit margin = Net Profit/Revenue For example (from finance formulas): A company's income statement shows a net income of $1 million and operating revenues of $25 million. By applying the formula, $1 million divided by $25 million would result in a net profit margin of 4%. Although the formula is simplistic, applying the concept is important in that 4% of sales will result in after tax profit.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a9fbbddf99ada47cb3317b4673d6b8ca",
"text": "This is fine, but I'd probably spend a moment introducing WACC and it's estimation. It's also useful to link up the enterprise value to share price, so just also mentioning the debt subtraction to get equity value and division by shares for price. Keep in mind you're usually given like a minute to answer this, so you can afford to be a bit more detailed in some parts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c7487e4e9f05ef9095d429fe366d9cc5",
"text": "The accounting equation, in short, is: This can be further broken down into: Which can be further broken down into: The GnuCash equation is right, though I would substitute the word equity in that equation with a more-specific paid-in capital. Equity is (simply put) made up of 2 parts: shareholders' equity and retained earnings. Shareholders' equity is the amount invested by shareholders. Retained earnings is the amount earned by the business on behalf of the shareholders. Retained earnings is directly affected by your net income (which is income minus expenses). An increase in income will result in an increase in retained earnings. This must be balanced somewhere. Usually an increase in an asset. It may also be balanced by a decrease in equity. Likewise, increase in expenses will result in a decrease in retained earnings, which must also be balanced.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9fd43b5cb4ac9297a55a72b3fca65663",
"text": "cash isn't part of changes in working capital calculation - dont include it in current assets. *edit - Also to answer a question you didn't ask, subtracting cash doesn't skew the multiples. If cash really is that excess, the market cap will reflect a large cash position, thus adding it all back into EV. Think of apple as a good example. If they theoretically would dividend out all the cash, market cap would drop and so would EV.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "995e19b8e36871967e758402f14743c4",
"text": "That's all? What's the total shares outstanding? It's on thing is it's 100,000 and another if it's 10,000,000. What's the capitalization? If you don't know, check tech crunch and/or read the about section of your website. Having a bit of experience, my guess would be 10,000,000 (or much much more). Series A capitalization usually goes off at $1. If you are not in a management, sales, production or technology role .. you may not benefit much from the growth. So if you want to, watch your internal job postings and try to move up.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a1f8e1e935ad365e016e2e6468cf4797",
"text": "Adding assets (equity) and liabilities (debt) never gives you anything useful. The value of a company is its assets (including equity) minus its liabilities (including debt). However this is a purely theoretical calculation. In the real world things are much more complicated, and this isn't going to give you a good idea of much a company's shares are worth in the real world",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f23b2797867eb8b76bf95504624c9fbc",
"text": "\"A Bloomberg terminal connected to Excel provides the value correcting splits, dividends, etc. Problem is it cost around $25,000. Another one which is free and I think that takes care of corporate action is \"\"quandl.com\"\". See an example here.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bcb6523e22504bb769d3d28f4eef746a",
"text": "It took me a while to understand the concept, so I'll break it down as best as I can. There are three parts to the accounting equation: Assets = Liabilities + Owner's Equity We'll look at this in two ways 1. As a business owner you invest (say) 10,000 USD into your bank. The entry would be: Debit: Assets: Cash for 10,000 Credit: Owner's Equity: Contributions for 10,000 In this case, you have assets of 10,000 from your deposit, but it is due to owner contributions and not business transactions. Another example (say a sale): Debit: Assets: Cash for 10,000 Credit: Owner's Equity: Sales for 10,000 Debit: Assets: Cash for 10,000 Credit: Liabilities: Deposits for 10,000 Deposits are a banking term to reflect a bank's obligation to return the amount on demand (though the bank has free reign with it, see fractional banking) You will NEVER debit or credit your bank as it is assumed you will be storing your money there, note bank reconciliation. Hope this helps, comment with any more questions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eaf8fbb6297344fa58d97ad8831b11ca",
"text": "Having all of the numbers you posted is a start. It's what you need to perform the calculation. The final word, however, comes from the company itself, who are required to issue a determination on how the spin-off is valued. Say a company is split into two. Instead of some number of shares of each new company, imagine for this example it's one for one. i.e. One share of company A becomes a share each in company B and company C. This tell us nothing about relative valuation, right? Was B worth 1/2 of the original company A, or some other fraction? Say it is exactly a 50/50 split. Company A releases a statement that B and C each should have 1/2 the cost basis of your original A shares. Now, B and C may very well trade ahead of the stock splitting, as 'when issued' shares. At no point in time will B and C necessarily trade at exactly the same price, and the day that B and C are officially trading, with no more A shares, they may have already diverged in price. That is, there's nothing you can pull from the trading data to identify that the basis should have been assigned as 50% to each new share. This is my very long-winded was of explaining that the company must issue a notice through your broker, and on their investor section of their web site, to spell out the way you should assign your basis to each new stock.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c1140caa8335ae427e6326430838e159",
"text": "\"Market cap is synonymous with equity value, which is one way of thinking of a company's \"\"worth.\"\" The alternative would be enterprise value, which is calculated as follows: Enterprise Value = Market Value of Equity + Market Value of Debt - Cash and Equivalents - Non-Operating Assets Enterprise value is essentially \"\"how much is the firm worth to ALL providers of capital.\"\" It can be viewed as \"\"if I wanted to buy the *entire* company, debt and all, what would I have to pay?\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8399543fe9b611cc89a88cecf78f9c74",
"text": "It's been awhile since my last finance course, so school me here: What is the market cap of a company actually supposed to represent? I get that it's the stock price X the # of shares, but what is that actually representing? Revenues? PV of all future revenues? PV of future cash flows? In any case, good write up. Valuation of tech stocks is quite the gambit, and you've done a good job of dissecting it for a layman.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a12da22d330b7e220f7cd8e070ac02ec",
"text": "\"You can calculate the \"\"return on investment\"\" using libreoffice, for example. Look at the xirr function. You would have 2 columns, one a list of dates (ie the dates of the deposits or dividends or whatever that you want to track, the last entry would be today's date and the value of the investment today. The xirr function calculates the internal rate of return for you. If you add money to the account, and the current value includes the original investment and the added funds, it will be difficult to calculate the ROI. If you add money by purchasing additional shares (or redepositing dividends by buying additional shares), and you only want to track the ROI of the initial investment (ignoring future investments), you would have to calculate the current value of all of the added shares (that you don't want to include in the ROI) and subtract that value from the current total value of the account. But, if you include the dates and values of these additional share purchases in the spreadsheet, xirr will calculate the overall IRR for you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a14bffe08685cbcd145cdf1e51818c1e",
"text": "Say the company has created 500 shares [or whatever number]. You have 10 shares [equivalent of 2%]. Now when new capital is needed, generally more shares are created. Say they create 100 more shares and sell it to venture capital to raise funds. After this happens; Total Shares: 500+100 = 600 You own: 10 shares Your Ownership % = 1.66% down from 2% Like wise for other older shareholder. The New Venture guy gets 16.66% of ownership. More funds would mean more growth and overall the value of your 10 shares would be more depending on the valuation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "399db64a304c7fc66c5a72efd53d8696",
"text": "How you use the metric is super important. Because it subtracts cash, it does not represent 'value'. It represents the ongoing financing that will be necessary if both the equity plus debt is bought by one person, who then pays himself a dividend with that free cash. So if you are Private Equity, this measures your net investment at t=0.5, not the price you pay at t=0. If you are a retail investor, who a) won't be buying the debt, b) won't have any control over things like tax jurisdictions, c) won't be receiving any cash dividend, etc etc .... the metric is pointless.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
bc1bef27a1ec576ef2235a90f22ef422
|
How do I determine ownership split on a franchise model?
|
[
{
"docid": "3278e0a9c73e54e1e75295e5d1e9156a",
"text": "\"There is no one solution to every project finance problem. Two models might make sense in this situation, however. In this case, you would count all the money that you give to your friend as a loan which he will pay back with interest. The interest rate and loan amounts will have to be agreed on by both of you. One one hand, the interest should be high enough to reward you in a successful outcome for the amount of risk that you take on if things don't work out. On the other, the interest rate needs to be low enough where his earnings after loan repayment justify your friend's effort, in addition to being competitive to ant rate your friend could secure from a bank. The downside to this plan is you don't directly benefit from the franchise's profits. In this model, you will record the cash that each of you invests. Since your friend is also adding \"\"sweat equity\"\" by setting up and operating the franchise, you will need to quantify the work that your friend and you invest into the franchise. Then you can determine how much each of you has invested in terms of dollars and split any franchise profits based on those proportions. The downside of this plan is that it is difficult to estimate how much time each of you invests and how much that time is worth.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5bd09952da9656e90f8489cbf956102a",
"text": "There is no right and wrong answer to this question. What you and your business partner perceive as Fair is the best way to split the ownership of the new venture. First, regarding the two issues you have raised: Capital Contributions: The fact that you are contributing 90% of initial capital does not necessarily translate to 90% of equity. In my opinion, what is fair is that you transform your contributions into a loan for the company. The securitization of your contribution into a loan will make it easier to calculate your fair contribution and also compensate you for your risk by choosing whatever combination of interest income and equity you see suitable. For example, you might decide to split the company in half and consider your contributions a loan with 20%, 50% or 200% annual interest. Salary: It is common that co-founders of start-ups forgo their wages at the start of the company. I do not recommend that this forgone salary be compensated through equity because it is impossible to determine the suitable amount of equity to be paid. I suggest the translation of forgone wages into loans or preferred stocks in similar fashion to capital contribution Also, consider the following in deciding the best way to allocate equity between both of you and your partner Whose idea was it? Talk with you business partner how both of you value the inventor of the concept. In general, execution is more important but talking about how you both feel about it is good. Full-time vs. part-time: A person who works full time at the new venture should have more equity than the partner who is only a part-time helper. Control: It is important to talk about control and decision making of the company. You can separate the control and decision making of important decisions from ownership. You can also check the following article about this topic at http://www.forbes.com/sites/dailymuse/2012/04/05/what-every-founder-needs-to-know-about-equity/#726842f3668a",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "fe924b06b4f744985a5c1a50c6871e3b",
"text": "\"In your words, you want to \"\"easily determine whether an item was purchased as part of our individual accounts, or our combined family account.\"\" It's not clear exactly to me what kind of reporting you're trying to get. (I find a useful approach here to be to start with the output you're trying to get from a system, and then see how that maps to the input you want to give the system.) Here's some possibilities:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0be1ea65981958141ab4f3e15603c398",
"text": "A parent company may own 70% of a subsidiary, and the remaining 30% is owned by someone else. Now the parent company has a controlling stake, so it can use the subsidiary's assets as it wishes, so the parent company can report 100% of the subsidiary's assets on the parent's balance sheet. Now here lies the problem, how can they report 100% of the assets when it only owns 70% of the subsidiary? That correction is the minority interest.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ce866c17821f50b358ce7a34ae8918e",
"text": "\"This is such a common question here and elsewhere that I will attempt to write the world's most canonical answer to this question. Hopefully in the future when someone on answers.onstartups asks how to split up the ownership of their new company, you can simply point to this answer. The most important principle: Fairness, and the perception of fairness, is much more valuable than owning a large stake. Almost everything that can go wrong in a startup will go wrong, and one of the biggest things that can go wrong is huge, angry, shouting matches between the founders as to who worked harder, who owns more, whose idea was it anyway, etc. That is why I would always rather split a new company 50-50 with a friend than insist on owning 60% because \"\"it was my idea,\"\" or because \"\"I was more experienced\"\" or anything else. Why? Because if I split the company 60-40, the company is going to fail when we argue ourselves to death. And if you just say, \"\"to heck with it, we can NEVER figure out what the correct split is, so let's just be pals and go 50-50,\"\" you'll stay friends and the company will survive. Thus, I present you with Joel's Totally Fair Method to Divide Up The Ownership of Any Startup. For simplicity sake, I'm going to start by assuming that you are not going to raise venture capital and you are not going to have outside investors. Later, I'll explain how to deal with venture capital, but for now assume no investors. Also for simplicity sake, let's temporarily assume that the founders all quit their jobs and start working on the new company full time at the same time. Later, I'll explain how to deal with founders who do not start at the same time. Here's the principle. As your company grows, you tend to add people in \"\"layers\"\". The top layer is the first founder or founders. There may be 1, 2, 3, or more of you, but you all start working about the same time, and you all take the same risk... quitting your jobs to go work for a new and unproven company. The second layer is the first real employees. By the time you hire this layer, you've got cash coming in from somewhere (investors or customers--doesn't matter). These people didn't take as much risk because they got a salary from day one, and honestly, they didn't start the company, they joined it as a job. The third layer are later employees. By the time they joined the company, it was going pretty well. For many companies, each \"\"layer\"\" will be approximately one year long. By the time your company is big enough to sell to Google or go public or whatever, you probably have about 6 layers: the founders and roughly five layers of employees. Each successive layer is larger. There might be two founders, five early employees in layer 2, 25 employees in layer 3, and 200 employees in layer 4. The later layers took less risk. OK, now here's how you use that information: The founders should end up with about 50% of the company, total. Each of the next five layers should end up with about 10% of the company, split equally among everyone in the layer. Example: Two founders start the company. They each take 2500 shares. There are 5000 shares outstanding, so each founder owns half. They hire four employees in year one. These four employees each take 250 shares. There are 6000 shares outstanding. They hire another 20 employees in year two. Each one takes 50 shares. They get fewer shares because they took less risk, and they get 50 shares because we're giving each layer 1000 shares to divide up. By the time the company has six layers, you have given out 10,000 shares. Each founder ends up owning 25%. Each employee layer owns 10% collectively. The earliest employees who took the most risk own the most shares. Make sense? You don't have to follow this exact formula but the basic idea is that you set up \"\"stripes\"\" of seniority, where the top stripe took the most risk and the bottom stripe took the least, and each \"\"stripe\"\" shares an equal number of shares, which magically gives employees more shares for joining early. A slightly different way to use the stripes is for seniority. Your top stripe is the founders, below that you reserve a whole stripe for the fancy CEO that you recruited who insisted on owning 10%, the stripe below that is for the early employees and also the top managers, etc. However you organize the stripes, it should be simple and clear and easy to understand and not prone to arguments. Now that we have a fair system set out, there is one important principle. You must have vesting. Preferably 4 or 5 years. Nobody earns their shares until they've stayed with the company for a year. A good vesting schedule is 25% in the first year, 2% each additional month. Otherwise your co-founder is going to quit after three weeks and show up, 7 years later, claiming he owns 25% of the company. It never makes sense to give anyone equity without vesting. This is an extremely common mistake and it's terrible when it happens. You have these companies where 3 cofounders have been working day and night for five years, and then you discover there's some jerk that quit after two weeks and he still thinks he owns 25% of the company for his two weeks of work. Now, let me clear up some little things that often complicate the picture. What happens if you raise an investment? The investment can come from anywhere... an angel, a VC, or someone's dad. Basically, the answer is simple: the investment just dilutes everyone. Using the example from above... we're two founders, we gave ourselves 2500 shares each, so we each own 50%, and now we go to a VC and he offers to give us a million dollars in exchange for 1/3rd of the company. 1/3rd of the company is 2500 shares. So you make another 2500 shares and give them to the VC. He owns 1/3rd and you each own 1/3rd. That's all there is to it. What happens if not all the early employees need to take a salary? A lot of times you have one founder who has a little bit of money saved up, so she decides to go without a salary for a while, while the other founder, who needs the money, takes a salary. It is tempting just to give the founder who went without pay more shares to make up for it. The trouble is that you can never figure out the right amount of shares to give. This is just going to cause conflicts. Don't resolve these problems with shares. Instead, just keep a ledger of how much you paid each of the founders, and if someone goes without salary, give them an IOU. Later, when you have money, you'll pay them back in cash. In a few years when the money comes rolling in, or even after the first VC investment, you can pay back each founder so that each founder has taken exactly the same amount of salary from the company. Shouldn't I get more equity because it was my idea? No. Ideas are pretty much worthless. It is not worth the arguments it would cause to pay someone in equity for an idea. If one of you had the idea but you both quit your jobs and started working at the same time, you should both get the same amount of equity. Working on the company is what causes value, not thinking up some crazy invention in the shower. What if one of the founders doesn't work full time on the company? Then they're not a founder. In my book nobody who is not working full time counts as a founder. Anyone who holds on to their day job gets a salary or IOUs, but not equity. If they hang onto that day job until the VC puts in funding and then comes to work for the company full time, they didn't take nearly as much risk and they deserve to receive equity along with the first layer of employees. What if someone contributes equipment or other valuable goods (patents, domain names, etc) to the company? Great. Pay for that in cash or IOUs, not shares. Figure out the right price for that computer they brought with them, or their clever word-processing patent, and give them an IOU to be paid off when you're doing well. Trying to buy things with equity at this early stage just creates inequality, arguments, and unfairness. How much should the investors own vs. the founders and employees? That depends on market conditions. Realistically, if the investors end up owning more than 50%, the founders are going to feel like sharecroppers and lose motivation, so good investors don't get greedy that way. If the company can bootstrap without investors, the founders and employees might end up owning 100% of the company. Interestingly enough, the pressure is pretty strong to keep things balanced between investors and founders/employees; an old rule of thumb was that at IPO time (when you had hired all the employees and raised as much money as you were going to raise) the investors would have 50% and the founders/employees would have 50%, but with hot Internet companies in 2011, investors may end up owning a lot less than 50%. Conclusion There is no one-size-fits-all solution to this problem, but anything you can do to make it simple, transparent, straightforward, and, above-all, fair, will make your company much more likely to be successful. The above awesome answer came from the Stack Exchange beta site for startups, which has now closed. I expect that this equity distribution question (which is strongly tied to personal finance) will come up more times in the future so I have copied the content originally posted. All credit for this excellent answer is due to Joel Spolsky, a moderator for the Startups SE beta site, and co-founder of Stack Exchange.\"",
"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": "d2c022b1449e01b86edb8c305f5f463c",
"text": "\"Thanks for your reply. I think a lot of people are confused when talking about ownership, and I think it is a definitional issue. When a company issues stock (the first time or anytime), what they are doing is \"\"selling\"\" the right to a percentage of the dividend. They are not actually selling parts of the company to you. Everyone thinks this way though, and that has to do with the Chicago School economists who perpetuated their ideas of ownership which is what everyone know thinks is the case. This way of thinking about corporations and ownership is just wrong (not ethically), just erroneous. As I stated before, Lynn Stout of Cornell University explains this really well. I would encourage anyone to read more about it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd60b550030f7f8980fa50a6a6cb4e1e",
"text": "\"For a personal finance forum, this is too complicated for sustained use and you should find a simpler solution. For a mathematical exercise, you are missing information required to do the split fairly. You have to know who overlaps and when to know how to do the splits. For an extreme example, take your dates given: Considering 100 days of calculation period, If Roommate D was the only person present for the last 10 days, they should pay 100% of the grocery bill as they are the only one eating. From your initial data set, you can't know who should be splitting the tab for any given day. To do this mathematically, you'd need: But don't forget \"\"In Theory, Theory works. In Practice, Practice works.\"\" Good theory would say make a large, complicated spreadsheet as described above. Good practice would be to split up the costs in a much, much simpler way.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "04ef57511c2c2d392fbe137ef253607a",
"text": "They're not going to look very hard at the asset value (except for actual cash in the bank), which doesn't bear much relationship to the real value of the company. More likely they will look at the last three years' earnings and choose a target P/E ratio based on that. The owner's share depends entirely on how much of the business they choose to sell. If the business is worth $60M and they want to raise $20M for themselves, then that means selling 33% of the company. If they want to raise $20M for the business as well, then that means selling half the company and retaining ownership of the other half, which is now worth $80M because of the cash infusion. But many stock exchanges will have minimum requirements for the percentage of the shares that are trading freely, so they will have to sell at least that much.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bed8b2d05e6186d99205cd74037190f1",
"text": "Ok well in that case here are my thoughts. Its been a while since I've done this type of school work so hope it's right/helpful. AR Oustanding = Avg AR / (credit sales/Operating Cycle*) = 35 *I'm guessing they didn't give you sales for the year or else I would divide by 365 but since you mentioned operating cycle I'm assuming thats the sales number you were given. So you want to divide the sales by 50 and then times it by the 35. Should give you the average AR. Inventory - I really don't remember having to calculate this so I'm just thinking logically here. You should be able to take COGS divide by the days in the period then times it by In Invetory. So = (COGS/Operating Cycle)* In Inventory = (COGS/50)*15 Accounts Payable....man, I'm afraid to drive you in the wrong direction on this one. Avg Accounts Payable/(COGS/Operating Cycle) = 40 Plug in COGS, divide by the operating cycle, 50 then times by 40, the days vendor credit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fcbcd44a0f1eab11fbf12d0209b09cac",
"text": "Great read. Good points. My only complaint is that our North American union model could learn much from the German model where the union plays an important role IN the company. There are corrupt unions like anything else, which ruin it for the grassroots unions that operate as intended. I really don't think it's too much to ask for CEOs and companies to operate more like, for example, Costco; where the CEO sees his employees as his most important asset, and as such pays top wages in the industry, and provides benefits for families of employees. Somehow they still seem to reap a positive return for investors, while spreading the wealth by providing a living wage for their employees. Thanks for your well thought out, we'll organized reply! Cheers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c091e3281e221f90416b841dccd337be",
"text": "Ok maybe I should have went into further detail but I'm not interested in a single point estimate to compare the different options. I want to look at the comparable NPVs for the two different options for a range of exit points (sell property / exit lease and sell equity shares). I want to graph the present values of each (y-axis being the PVs and x-axis being the exit date) and look at the 'cross-over' point where one option becomes better than the other (i'm taking into account all of the up front costs of the real estate purchase which will be a bit different in the first years). i'm also looking to do the same for multiple real estate and equity scenarios, in all likelihood generate a distribution of cross-over points. this is all theoretical, i'm not really going to take the results to heart. merely an exercise and i'm tangling with the discount rates at the moment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "48eaab39515f756b1bd1ac9f1bb5e6c5",
"text": "The 1 for 1 split could be the case where a company is being split into two parts. The new part may be spun off, or sold to another company. Any time a company splits into two parts, the ratio of the resulting companies needs to be determined.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a26da9e8aaa057b993b4972726e78b83",
"text": "For each class A share (GOOGL) there's a class C share (GOOG), hence the missing half in your calculation. The almost comes from the slightly higher market price of the class A shares (due to them having voting powers) over class C (which have no voting powers). There's also class B share which is owned by the founders (Larry, Sergei, Eric and perhaps some to Stanford University and others) and differs from class A by the voting power. These are not publicly traded.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2c0ae24ba33f029d528764a03af25505",
"text": "Yep, but it you didn't answer my question (edit: I know it was phrased as a question, but I do know youre supposed to model changes in cash). When bankers calculate all three approaches, how do they compare them? From what I see, the conclusion of each approach gives us: * Public Company Approach: Enterprise Value * Transaction Approach: Enterprise Value * Discounted Cash Flow Approach: Enterprise Value + Minimum Level of Operating Cash Does an investment banker subtract out that minimum level of operating cash at the end of the calculation to get to a value that he can then compare?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e881f1eca19a7e25e124723441ae8f3e",
"text": "Another way to decide would be to do a fair valuation of the company agreeable to both the partners. Lets assume when you started the company it was worth $10,000 and to acquire 75%, you must have put $7,500 worth of money and effort. Similarly, the other partner must have put $2,500 worth of time and money. Now say after 2 years, you both agree that company is worth $50,000. And say now the company needs $10,000 worth of investment. Whoever invests that money should get 20% (10k/50k) of the company. Or each $1,000 will buy 2% in the company. Post this investment the equity division would be First investor (you) 75% of 80% = 60 % Second investor (your partner) 25% of 80% = 20% Third (new) investor = 20% Now, if you alone decide to put all the money you stake will be 60 + 20 = 80% and your partner will be reduced to 20%. If you guys want to maintain equity as it was (75-25), you need to put money in the same ratio ($7500 and $2500). If you do that- First investor 60% + 15% (for $7,500) = 75% Second investor 20% + 5% (for $2,500) = 25%. Please know for IP-centric company valuation is very subjective. But, do make an effort to do the valuation at every stage of the company so that you can put a number in terms of equity for each investment.",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
e0270b23fdad2205c921dfb25c2290df
|
Home owners association for houses, pro/cons
|
[
{
"docid": "abed55baf048eefe97f2ddadb318c77d",
"text": "Some examples where an HOA is a positive thing: 1) Amenities: Maybe it is professionally maintained landscaping at the front of the subdivision, or a playground, or community pool. An HOA provides a convenient way to have things like that and share the costs among all the people who benefit. 2) Legal Advocacy: I live in a neighborhood (rural) without an HOA. My neighbor decided to start an auto-repair shop on his property which was CLEARLY a violation of the covenants. There isn't really a Government body you can report them to that will swoop in and make them stop a neighbor from destroying your property values even if they signed an agreement when they bought it to the contrary. You need to hire a lawyer and sue them and that costs money and time. Also, in many cases if you wait too long they can get an exception grandfathered in because no one raised an issue about it. An HOA exists to watch for this kind of thing and nip it in the bud rather than making homeowners have to hassle with the time/expense. 3) Independence: Assuming no HOA, and assuming you are okay with suing your neighbor over violating a covenant. That makes for a very uncomfortable situation between you and that neighbor. Having a neutral 3rd party take action on your behalf anonymously can greatly help that situation. It's not all about making people ditch their basketball goals, or garden gnomes. They also protect you from other obnoxious stuff like junky mobile homes in high-end neighborhoods, the guy who blocks half the street permanently with his RV/Boat parked on the curb, three foot tall grass that is an eyesore and a fire hazard, a taco stand opening in your neighbors garage, etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2ba5a02c71bad97f35c6b35e044dc7d6",
"text": "At its best, a HOA provides the same benefits as a condo association -- shared investment in the shared neighborhood resources/environment. At its worst, a HOA has the same problems as a condo association, potentially creating unreasonable constraints on what you can or can't do with your own property because your decisions might affect the value of someone else's property or demanding shared investment in something you don't consider worthwhile. Basically, if an HOA is active in your neighborhood, (A) make sure you know its history and biases before you buy, and (B) make sure you're active in it, or you may be unpleasantly surprised by its decisions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb9a1e5b82d0e4e0dc310a0737110bc3",
"text": "\"As I understand it the basic premiss of a HOA is to ease communication between neighbors and help work towards common community goals. As I understand it the reality is that the HOA works to keep the community homogenous so there are no \"\"sore thumb\"\" neighbors. As to why look for one or avoid one. If you would want a uniform image out of your neighbors and don't mind towing the party line, then they are for you. If you don't care about what your neighbors do with their property (within civic ordinance) and would like freedom to do things different from your neighbors (paint your house blue, hang a clothes line, increase the size of your flower beds), then they are to be avoided.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b48ad97316693f6c63992a2fb4416e5b",
"text": "I think it depends a lot on your idea of how you should relate to your neighbors. Personally, I think that I should be allowed to do just about whatever I want with my property, and I grant my neighbor the same right. If my neighbor wants to paint his house purple with orange stripes and fill his front lawn with pink flamingos, I think that's his right. If I don't like it, I don't have to look at his house. (I would draw the line at things that I cannot avoid by simply looking the other way, like running jet engines in his back yard at 2 in the morning, as I could not avoid the noise. Or dumping toxic waste on the street, as it will cause health problems. Etc.) Others think it IS their business what their neighbor does with his property and want to be able to control it. They want someone who has the authority to force everyone in the neighborhood to paint their house in colors deemed acceptable, to meet certain requirements for yard work. And that's what Home Owners Associations are for: to require that everyone in the neighborhood maintain their property according to a standard set by the HOA, which should theoretically represent the wishes of the majority. Of course the price you pay for giving you the right to tell your neighbor what kind of fence he is allowed to have is that now your neighbors can tell you what kind of fence you can have. Advocates of HOAs often say that they are necessary to protect property values. Personally I think this is something of a circular argument: I must have the right to prevent my neighbor from doing something that, in my opinion, makes his house ugly, not because I necessarily have no choice but to stare out my window at his house all day and be repulsed by it, but because someday I may want to sell my house to someone who will have no choice but to stare out the window at his house all day and be repulsed by it and so will not want to buy my house. Of course if we all just minded our own business, this wouldn't be an issue. Okay, this was pretty much an anti-HOA post, but I did TRY to state the other side of it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "02a6f4f6515fe5d754c242063aa16328",
"text": "\"I agree with the basic purpose of an HOA. Unlike the poster above Jay, I do believe that people painting their houses purple will definitely affect the value of my house or property. I for one would not want to live next to someone who has a wild purple house, even though it is his right to do so. In saying that I know that there are very few people who would want to buy my house were it situated next to the \"\"purple house\"\". So in the sense of limiting known eyesores I agree with the purpose of HOA's. That being said, I do not agree with the fact that HOA's are not regulated and that its rules are formed by community members who may be very strict on what or what isn't allowed. If it were simple rules like not painting the house disturbing colors (we all know what they are) or not having junk cars or loud music after a certain time (except on holidays or special calendar days like New Years etc.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "4eb6b5973647213b40f32a534191709b",
"text": "\"In some cases perhaps, but in others not. Several homes near me were sold over and over again during the bubble years (at incrementally higher and higher sale prices) -- the last owners in nearly all cases defaulted and the banks (after dragging their feet for a couple of years) finally foreclosed and sold the homes off cheap. In all but one of the \"\"distressed sale\"\" cases, the people buying the houses now ARE in fact moving into them as their primary home (the exception being a current resident who bought the adjacent home with the intentions of fixing it up & renting it out, I believe at least initially to a family member); but in ALL cases (in no small part due to the fact that they were able to purchase the properties cheap) these new owners are investing substantial money into fixing them up (new roof & gutters, new windows & doors, paint and/or siding, often all new carpeting, some landscaping, etc). Also, from the perspective of our homeowners association, all of these new people think our annual HOA fees are a \"\"bargain\"\", whereas the previous bubble-era \"\"homeowners\"\" (if, having invested almost nothing, they could truly be called that) did nothing but whine and complain (well, and once they began defaulting on their mortgages, they also defaulted on their HOA fees). So it's a win-win for our neighborhood. We're getting good, solid residents who are planning on taking care of their properties... the exact opposite of what you are claiming. (The \"\"house-flippers\"\" you decry were the ones buying with \"\"no money down\"\" during the bubble era -- and they nearly killed the neighborhood.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e7c606e17d41f33ef5ca789b461f6c8b",
"text": "(Disclosure - I am a real estate agent, involved with houses to buy/sell, but much activity in rentals) I got a call from a man and his wife looking for an apartment. He introduced itself, described what they were looking for, and then suggested I google his name. He said I'd find that a few weeks back, his house burned to the ground and he had no insurance. He didn't have enough savings to rebuild, and besides needing an apartment, had a building lot to sell. Insurance against theft may not be at the top of your list. Don't keep any cash, and keep your possessions to a minimum. But a house needs insurance for a bank to give you a mortgage. Once paid off, you have no legal obligation, but are playing a dangerous game. You are right, it's an odds game. If the cost of insurance is .5% the house value and the chance of it burning down is 1 in 300 (I made this up) you are simply betting it won't be yours that burns down. Given that for most people, a paid off house is their largest asset, more value that all other savings combined, it's a risk most would prefer not to take. Life insurance is a different matter. A person with no dependents has no need for insurance. For those who are married (or have a loved one), or for parents, insurance is intended to help survivors bridge the gap for that lost income. The 10-20 times income value for insurance is just a recommendation, whose need fades away as one approaches independence. I don't believe in insurance as an investment vehicle, so this answer is talking strictly term.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "219cfa127699ad13a47fe803945b790c",
"text": "\"I'm a \"\"new\"\" (last 2 years) homeowner. For me, at least, benefits of owning far outweigh renting. $8000 tax credit for the first time homebuyer, a massive deduction every year for your tax return, the option to rent out rooms to offset the large majority of my mortgage payment, and the real estate trend indicating that the value of my house *should* increase over time. I think that if one has the means to buy in the current environment rather than renting, they certainly should. You get no return on your money if you rent.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7319e7d344e18f21491dba0ebe7e93f6",
"text": "All of RonJohn's reasons to say no are extremely valid. There are also two more. First, the cost of a mortgage is not the only cost of owning a house. You have to pay taxes, utilities, repairs, maintenence, insurance. Those are almost always hundreds of dollars a month, and an unlucky break like a leaking roof can land you with a bill for many thousands of dollars. Second owning a house is a long term thing. If you find you have to sell in a year or two, the cost of making the sale can be many thousands of dollars, and wipe out all the 'savings' you made from owning rather than renting. I would suggest a different approach, although it depends very much on your circumstances and doesn't apply to everybody. If there is someone you know who has money to spare and is concerned for your welfare (your mention of a family that doesn't want you to work for 'academic reason' leads me to believe that might be the case) see if they are prepared to buy a house and rent it to you. I've known families do that when their children became students. This isn't necessarily charity. If rents are high compared to house prices, owning a house and renting it out can be very profitable, and half the battle with renting a house is finding a tenant who will pay rent and not damage the house. Presumably you would qualify. You could also find fellow-students who you know to share the rent cost.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9bb98f42aaecb125709cf206ef359657",
"text": "Pros: Cons: Before the housing bubble the conventional wisdom was to buy as much home as you could afford, thereby borrowing as much you can afford. Because variable rates lead to lower mortgages, they were preferred by many as you could buy more house. This of course lead to many people losing their home and many thousands of dollars. A bubble is not necessary to trigger a chain of events that can lead to loss of a home. If an interest only borrower is late on a payment, this often triggers a rate increase. Couple that with some other things that can happen negatively, and you are up $hit's creek. IMO it is not wise.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0574b5b0f9213013d170ade61b82d319",
"text": "Thinking of personal residence as investment is how we got the bubble and crash in housing prices, and the Great Recession. There is no guarantee that a house will appreciate, or even retain value. It's also an extremely illiquid item; selling it, especially if you're seeking a profit, can take a year or more. ' Housing is not guaranteed to appreciate constantly, or at all. Tastes change and renovations rarely pay for themselves. Things wear out and have costs. Neighborhoods change in popularity. Without rental income and the ability to write off some of the costs as business expense, it isn't clear the tax advantage closes that gap, especislly as the advantage is limited to the taxes upon your mortgage interest (by deducting that from AGI). If this is the flavor of speculation you want to engage in, fine, but I've seen people screw themselves over this way and wind up forced to sell a house for a loss. By all means hope your home will be profitable, count it as part of your net wealth... but generally Lynch is wrong here, or at best oversimplified. A house can be an investment (or perhaps more accurately a business), or your home, but -- unless you're renting out the other half of a duplex,which splits the difference -- trying to treat it as both is dangerous accounting.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5744b01b567c29e20c49561da9ab4613",
"text": "Awesome info, this is what I was looking for. I live in FL so i will look into LLC laws. Is there a difference in obtaining loans for multi-unit properties, or any special requirements? This would be my first purchase so I'm trying to decide if I should start with a multi-unit or a large home. I read something about a first time home buyers and the FHA allowing one to put down less of an initial investment. Im assuming this is if you are actually going to be living in the home or property? Would it make sense to have separate entities for specific types of units? For example One separate corporation per multi-unit property, but have multiple single family homes under another single entity? Thanks for the help. *quick add-on, would you know how long the corporation would have had to exist before being able to obtain a loan? For example, would XYZ, LLC. have to have been around for 3 years prior to the loan, or could i just incorporate the month before going to the bank?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "665da3fdf06fdca87eb1d54a26e426fb",
"text": "\"Bad areas are tough to value as a owner-occupied property, because the business model for being a slumlord is to rent apartments in absentia, usually to tenants receiving goverment subsidies such as Section 8 vouchers. The vouchers are based on a prevailing rent, which are often on par with nice suburban apartment complexes due to how that \"\"prevailing\"\" rate is calculated. So the value of the house is really an annuity calculation. You figure out the potential rental cash flow and apply whatever your local market premium is. The point is, doing an apples to apples comparison is going to be tough, and justifying the cost of repairs that aren't remediating health and safety issues probably won't be recoverable from a home valuation standpoint. A buyer would probably rip out your central air conditioner and sell it! If I were in your shoes, I'd look at the time horizon that you think you're going to be there and amortize the cost over that period. Assuming your mortgage is small and you're staying for about 5 years, spending $10k costs you about $170 a month. Your reward is a modern A/C and heating system. Compare that cost to the cost of moving and your desires and see if it's worth it to you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d117fa1cc11e115832fee5e4fb4bbb1",
"text": "\"Good debt and \"\"Bad debt\"\" are just judgement calls. Each person has their own opinion on when it is acceptable to borrow money for something, and when it is not. For some, it is never acceptable to borrow money for something; they won't even borrow money to buy a house. Others, of course, are in debt up to their eyeballs. All debt costs money in interest. So when evaluating whether to borrow or not, you need to ask yourself, \"\"Is the benefit I am getting by borrowing this money worth the cost?\"\" Home ownership has a lot of advantages: For many, these advantages, coupled with the facts that home mortgages are available at extremely low interest rates and that home mortgage interest is tax-deductible (in the U.S.), make home mortgages \"\"worth it\"\" in the eyes of many. Contrast that with car ownership: For these reasons, there are many people who consider the idea of borrowing money to purchase a car a bad idea. I have written an answer on another question which outlines a few reasons why it is better to pay cash for a car.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b1e85d77351e39748acab3932a4c949f",
"text": "I wish this was the case in Canada. I lost about 60k on my home in one year and have to sell now to move for work. In the US I could simply default and the bank takes the loss. In Canada if I default, CMHC pays the bank, then I'm sued by CMHC and stuck with the bad debt. Simply put - here the onus of repayment is on the lender, not the lending institution. It sounds good until you are the one looking at losing your shirt.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7238e6a38329958a49bf7b9e30ce6e74",
"text": "\"Neither you nor others have mentioned the costs of being a homeowner. First, there are monetary costs. If you own a house, you have to pay taxes. They will vary by jurisdiction, but are usually not zero. You also need insurance, which again comes with monthly rates. Then, once in a while, you'll be hit with unpleasant lump sum payments. In 30 years, the mortgage is over and you own the house - but by that time, it will probably need a new roof. That's in the price range of a new car. And over that time, you'll rack up several other repairs which your landlord covers when you rent. Another thing which feels less like an expense emotionally but ends up thinning your wallet is the cosmetic changes you make just because it's your own home. You wouldn't put marble floors in the bathroom if you rent, but you might be tempted to if you live in the house. It might be even worth it from a life satisfaction point of view, but we are talking finance right now, and that's a minus. And then there are the opportunity costs. A house binds you geographically. You may pass up on a nice job offer because your house is too far away, for example. Or you might experience liquidity problems, because a house is difficult to turn into money in a hurry. If you are able to do so, it is usually a much larger sum than you need, and you are paying the costs inherent in that large transaction. These are just examples, you can probably come up with more costs. Then, it is not sure how much money you can get of the house if you change your mind. Say you take this job at the other end of the country, or you become a parent of four and need more space. At the time you decide to sell, the market may have gone down due to the overall state of the economy, or to the house location's popularity, or your own house may have turned undesirable (what if you get a mold infestation which would only go away if you strip it to the concrete and rebuild?) You could let it to renters, but that's a hassle of its own. It takes time to find renters, it may be expensive (income tax, regulations like Energieausweis in Germany), it is risky (if they don't pay, you might not see money even if you sue them). Then there is the problem that prices reflect not some kind of \"\"true\"\" value, but the intersection of supply and demand. And the home market is not as efficient as in a first semester microeconomics textbook. The buyers of private homes deal in small volumes, have little knowledge in the market, pay intermediaries' cuts, and are emotionally attached to the idea of \"\"owning my own house\"\". This drives demand up and creates higher prices than if you had perfectly rational actors on both sides. People pay money for the feeling of being home owners, so those who forego spending on that feeling have more money to invest in something else. Owning something always causes expenses. You have to calculate the savings of having the house vs. the expenses of having it, before you can decide if it is a good deal or not. If you only calculate one side of the equation, you'll be badly mistaken.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "65b4a8bb7be102d5010fa1834baf40a1",
"text": "\"Home ownership is thought to be a lifetime investment and is touted as a big part of the \"\"American Dream.\"\" That's changing now, as a lot of younger people have seen their parents' lifetime investments become worthless thanks to a lot of shoddy book keeping and lending practices. The 15-year mortgage is becoming more common these days, but that's still three times longer than what Canadians are achieving.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a405c923ef9d9630e97eaa6925869c1a",
"text": "My experience with owning a home is that its like putting down roots and can be like an anchor holding you to an area. Before considering whether you can financially own a home consider some of the other implications. Once you own it you are stuck for awhile and cannot quickly move away like you can with renting. So if a better job opportunity comes up or your employer moves you to another office across town that doubles your commute time, you'll be regretting the home purchase as it will be a barrier to moving to a more convenient location. I, along with my fiancée and two children, are being forced to move out of my parents home ASAP. Do not rush buying a home. Take your time and find what you want. I made the mistake once of buying a home thinking I could take on some DIY remodeling to correct some features I wasn't fond of. Life intervenes and finding extra time for DIY house updates doesn't come easy, especially with children. Speaking of children, consider the school district when buying a home too. Often times homes in good school districts cost more. If you don't consider the school district now, then you may be faced with a difficult decision when the kids start school. IF you are confident you won't want to move anytime soon and can find a house you like and want to jump into home ownership there are some programs that can help first time buyers, but they can require some effort on your part. FHA has a first time buyer program with a 3.5% down payment. You will need to search for a lender that offers FHA loans and work with them. FHA covers this program by charging mortgage insurance every month that's part of your house payment. Fannie Mae has the HomeReady program where first time home buyers can purchase a foreclosed home from their inventory for as little as 3% down and possibly get up to 3% from the seller to apply toward closing costs. Private mortgage insurance (PMI) is required with this program too. Their inventory of homes can be found on the https://www.homepath.com/ website. There is also NACA, which requires attending workshops and creating a detailed plan to prove you're ready for homeownership. This might be a good option if they have workshops in your area and you want to talk with someone in person. https://www.naca.com/about/",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "868e0d42a9b2ef712f073f431628059d",
"text": "I don't know that FHA loans have better rates than conventional loans. I've never heard that and some quick googling didn't yield anything (please correct me if I'm wrong). So if you have the necessary down payment to get a conventional loan, I'm not sure I see any benefit for looking at FHA loans. I think the only benefit outside of a low down payment is the ability to (possibly) get a loan with a lower credit score.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ec434e425fd0d68c3a814adb410779e",
"text": "One thing you may be missing is the possibility of a special assessment on the condo. If the foundation cracks, you may be looking at tens of thousands to cover it. This would largely depend on the condo board's reserve funds. Speaking of reserve funds, have you remembered to factor in condo fees? You may also be forgetting to factor in property taxes and closing costs (legal fees and realtor fees). The latter, you'll have to pay when buying and when selling. Now, ten years is a good length of time. If your mother really will live in the condo for ten years, there's a very good chance it does indeed make more sense to buy than to rent. It's very possible you already factored in everything I mentioned above.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
c66e8ef3d55e9f60888198f3b7537904
|
How can I have credit cards without having a credit history or credit score?
|
[
{
"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": "f0b07b64c082a6a9a6aad727d821d2a4",
"text": "For instance and to give a comparison to the US - in Austria, almost everybody gets a credit card (without a credit history (e.g. a young person) / with a bad credit history & with a good credit history). The credit history is in the USA much more important than in Austria. In future, the way to assess a credit history will change due to analysis of social networks for instance. This can be considered in addition to traditional scoring procedures. Is your credit history/score like a criminal record? Nope. I mean is it always with you? Not really cause a criminal record will be retained on a central storage (to state it abstract) and a credit history can be calculated by private companies. Also, are there other ways to get credit cards besides with a bank? That depends on the country. In Austria, yes.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "b0d57edd6481ac8cd3517bceeb8db84f",
"text": "Switch to cash for a few months. No debit. No credit. This will help for two reasons: Once you've broken the bad habits, you should be able to go back to cards for the convenience factor.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b225d028539fb9f6cdad851859747e3",
"text": "Get a credit card is NOT the answer. The reason people have a bad (or no) credit score is often because they're new to the country, have just turned 18, have previously fallen into arrears or are just bad with money. Getting a credit card is risky because, if you don't stay on top of your payments, it'll just damage your score even more. Now, it sounds like I hate credit cards - but I don't, and they do have their benefits. But avoid them if possible because they can be more hassle than they're worth (ie, paying the credit back on-time, cancelling accounts when the interest comes in, moving money in and out of accounts). It's risky borrowing money from anywhere whether it's a payday lender, a bank, a credit card, etc., so use them as a last resort. If you've got your own income then that's amazing!, try not to live outside of your means and your credit score will look after (and increase) itself. It takes time to build a good credit score, but always make sure you pay the people you owe on time and the full amount. I'd stick with paying your phone provider (and any other direct debits you have setup) and avoid getting a credit card. I'd recommend Noddle to keep track of your credit score and read their FAQ on how to help build it. Unlike Experian, it's free forever so not quite as detailed... but Noddle are owned by CallCredit - one of the biggest Credit Reference Agencies in the UK so they should have the latest information on yourself. In conclusion, if you already have financial commitments like a mobile phone bill, gym membership, store cards, anything that gets paid monthly by direct debit... your credit score will increase (provided you pay the full-amount on time). I hope this helps. PS. I don't work for any of the companies here, but I've been working in the finance sector (more specifically, short-term loans) for 3+ years now.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1bf43b55a55057cebd95e74979301a9a",
"text": "To get a credit history you need to use credit from someone that reports to the major credit agencies. I don't suppose you have to BUY anything. You could just get a cash loan and hold it for a long time, but it seems silly to pay interest only for the purpose of building credit. The student loan should help you build credit. Also, I'm assuming you buy things all the time like gas, groceries, etc. Why not put those on a credit card and pay the balance off every month? That way you aren't buying anything specifically to get credit. Also there are numerous other benefits: Another suggestion: Set up your cards so the full balance is drafted from your bank automatically on the due date. That will ensure that you always pay on time (helping your credit) and also make you think twice about putting things on the card that you can't afford with the cash you have in the bank.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eea62142409630f507da1c760d51d624",
"text": "\"I strongly suggest you look at CreditKarma and see how each aspect of what you are doing impacts your score. Here's my take - There's an anti-credit approach that many have which, to me, is over the top. \"\"Zero cards, zero credit\"\" feels to me like one step shy of \"\"off the grid.\"\" It's so far to the right that it actually is more of an effort than just playing the game a bit. You are depositing to the card frequently to do what you are doing. That takes time and effort. Why not just pay the bill in full each month, and just track purchases so you move the cash to the account in advance, whether that's physical or on paper? In your case, it's the same as charging one item every few months to keep the card active. If that's what you'd like to do, that's fine. I'd just avoid having the card take up too much of your time and thought. (Disclaimer - I've used and written about Credit Karma. I have no business relationship with them, my articles are to help readers, and not paid placement.) mhoran's response is in line with my thinking. His advice to use the card to build your score is what the zero-credit folk criticize as \"\"a great debt score.\"\" Nonsense. If you use debt wisely, you'll never pay interest (except for a mortgage, perhaps) and you may gain rewards with no cost to you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e691b6e7366ed7139f4b518953281dd1",
"text": "\"First I would like to say, do not pay credit card companies in an attempt to improve your credit rating. In my opinion it's not worth the cash and not fair for the consumer. There are many great resources online that give advice on how to improve your credit score. You can even simulate what would happen to your score if you did \"\"this\"\". Credit Karma - will give you your TransUnion credit score for free and offers a simulation calculator. If you only have one credit card, I would start off by applying for another simply because $700 is such a small limit and to pay a $30 annual fee seems outrageous. Try applying with the bank where you hold your savings or checking account they are more likely to approve your application since they have a working relationship with you. All in all I would not go out of my way and spend money I would not have spent otherwise just to increase my credit score, to me this practice is counter intuitive. You are allowed a free credit report from each bureau, once annually, you can get this from www.annualcreditreport.com, this won't include your credit score but it will let you see what banks see when they run your credit report. In addition you should check it over for any errors or possible identity theft. If there are errors you need to file a claim with the credit agency IMMEDIATELY. (edit from JoeT - with 3 agencies to choose from, you can alternate during the year to pull a different report every 4 months. A couple, every 2.) Here are some resources you can read up on: Improve your FICO Credit Score Top 5 Credit Misconceptions 9 fast fixes for your credit scores\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0bdd3abd6181a60196411e1ecab04972",
"text": "Credit cards are a golden goose for banks, as they get to issue high-interest loans and simultaneously generate alot of fee income. Debit cards aren't quite as good, but they still generate substantial fee income -- ~2% of every credit/non-PIN debit transaction goes to the bank and credit card network. Credit histories exist because they are the most effective tool available to predict whether you will pay back your loans or not. You don't need a credit history to buy most things, you need a credit history to get a large loan. Think of it from perspective of a lender: Credit scoring is the bank's way screening out people who are expensive to do business with. It's objective, doesn't discriminate on the basis of race, sex or other factors, and you have recourse if the rating agencies have incorrect information.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aca17422982de50fe4d228639d494ee0",
"text": "this post offers great steps you can take to responsibly and effectively manage your existing line of credit. we believe that by carefully observing these guidelines, you will not only succeed in building and maintaining an excellent credit history but you will also avoid incurring pesky fees and charges usually imposed on delinquent unsecured credit cardholders. and do help us promote it by telling your friends to read and share it with their friends too!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5c268fcbe2a1e81abbd9f972e63cda43",
"text": "You can do this if you merge Credit Cards with personal loans. You will have to pay 1 upfront fee but you can bounce a balance between 4 CCs almost indefinitely if you do it right. You have to have good credit though.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3cc6c9116769ff348070c66a1ed49129",
"text": "\"A credit card is a way to borrow money. That's all. Sometimes the loans are very small - $5 - and sometimes they are larger. You can have a credit card with a company (bank or whatever) that you have no other relationship with. They're not a property of a bank account, they are their own thing. The card you describe sounds exactly like a debit card here, and you can treat your Canadian debit card like your French credit card - you pay for things directly from your bank account, assuming the money is in there. In Canada, many small stores take debit but not credit, so do be sure to get a debit card and not only a credit card. Now as to your specific concerns. You aren't going to \"\"forget to make a wire.\"\" You're going to get a bill - perhaps a paper one, perhaps an email - and it will say \"\"here is everything you charged on your credit card this month\"\" along with a date, which will be perhaps 21 days from the statement date, not the date you used the card. Pay the entire balance (not just the minimum payment) by that date and you'll pay no interest. The bill date will be a specific date each month (eg the 23rd) so you can set yourself a reminder to check and pay your bill once a month. Building a credit history has value if you want to borrow a larger amount of money to buy a car or a house, or to start a business. Unlike the US, it doesn't really have an impact on things like getting a job. If you use your card for groceries, you use it enough, no worries. In 5 years it is nice to look back and see \"\"never paid late; mostly paid the entire amount each month; never went over limit; never went into collections\"\" and so on. In my experience you can tell they like you because they keep raising your limit without you asking them to. If you want to buy a $2500 item and your credit limit is $1500 you could prepay $1000 onto the credit card and then use it. Or you could tell the vendor you'd rather use your debit card. Or you could pay $1500 on the credit card and then rest with your debit card. Lots of options. In my experience once you get up to that kind of money they'd rather not use a credit card because of the merchant fees they pay.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2066d688f94920e45e8dae06fa2e778f",
"text": "\"Build your credit history by paying the credit accounts you have on time. Review these periodically and close the ones you do not need. Ignore your score until it is time to make a large purchase. Make decisions regarding credit on the basis of whether the debit would be better paid with cash or credit. Not on credit score. Keep in mind that if your income is invested in your future, your money is working for you. The income that is paying debt is working for the lenders. Mint is a financial services industry company (Intuit). You are their product. Intuit makes money from Mint by placing ads on the site where you visit frequently, and by gathering data about those who subscribe to their service. They also are paid to refer you to credit card companies to \"\"build credit.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "6605f0d1e1b5d93a94c0bb4af0b3ae50",
"text": "Obviously the only way to have good credit is by owing money, and making payments as scheduled. To do this I would do everything I could to place all of your required expenses on a credit card. This can include paying rent, food, transportation, etc. These are all payments that you already make, but simply move then through a different payment vehicle. It sounds like at this time you may not have a credit card that allows you to do this, but I would watch out for those cards that come in via mail with all kinds of special deals. While you have not mentioned if you have any of this, make sure that you keep up with your past debt and negotiate repayment if needed. Once your credit improves, you should begin to see doors opening that are problems now.",
"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": "bfc9c5ef1521b95b5048561579618633",
"text": "\"Why are banks all of a sudden providing people their credit scores for free? Because it is a really good idea. On an ABC Bank website, it has: \"\"Check your credit score for free\"\" button. You click it. Not only will it come up with a credit score, but it could also trigger a marketing workflow. If it is direct mail, email, or a phone call a banker could contact you for help with a debt product. This marketing could also be targeted, say a person with a high score could be targeted for a mortgage. A person with a low or medium score could be targeted for ways and products to improve their score. Now if you run XYZ bank and not do the same, you are losing a competitive advantage to banks that offer this. Not only will your customers be less happy, but you will lose a great marketing opportunities. Face it, the only people that worry about their credit score are people that are in the market to borrow. Which again, is more information. If you have someone that never checks their credit score, or has their credit frozen, then it is wise not to market to them debt products.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e7cbcdb950e3d7d98704510e40c5d6cb",
"text": "Yes, as long as you are responsible with the payments and treat it as a cash substitute, and not a loan. I waited until I was 21 to apply for my first credit card, which gave me a later start to my credit history. That led to an embarrassing credit rejection when I went to buy some furniture after I graduated college. You'd think $700 split into three interest-free payments wouldn't be too big of a risk, but I was rejected since my credit history was only 4 months long, even though I had zero late payments. So I ended up paying cash for the furniture instead, but it was still a horrible feeling when the sales rep came back to me and quietly told me my credit application had been denied.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
46c328802b889289ae0c538823317817
|
Company asking for card details to refund over email
|
[
{
"docid": "2542ffaace3227f08df8dc8627347757",
"text": "If it is a well known company that wants to give you a refund, I would not worry about giving them your credit card number. However, I would never type my credit card number into an e-mail message. E-mail messages are very insecure, and can be read by many people along its way to the destination. They also can be archived in many places, meaning that your number will continue to be posted out there for someone to grab in the future. If you need to give this company your credit card number, do it over the phone. Having said that, ultimately you are not generally responsible for fraudulent charges if your card number is stolen and misused. I've had so many fraudulent charges, despite my being relatively careful with my number, that I don't really worry much anymore about losing my number. I just check my statement for false charges, and when they happen, the bank cancels the charge and issues me a new number. It has happened to either my wife or I maybe 5 times over the last two years.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5e788b9c0aaa2183ef5c768ba4be1f73",
"text": "I used to work for a online payment posting company. Anytime a payment is made via Credit Card to a company that does not have PCI DSS(aka the ability/certification to store credit card information) there is a MD5 checksum(of the confirmation code, not the Credit Card information) that get sent to the company from the processor(billing tree, paypal, etc). The company should be able to send this information back to the processor in order to refund the payment. If the company isn't able to do this, to be honest they shouldn't be taking online credit card payments. And by all means do not send your credit card information in an email. As said above, call the company's customer service line and give them the info to credit your account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "78baeb01f4e7246bbd0c988371c2491f",
"text": "\"Personally, I would just dispute this one with your CC. I had a situation where a subscription I had cancelled the prior year was billed to me. I called up to have a refund issued, they couldn't find me in their system under three phone numbers and two addresses. The solution they proposed was \"\"send us your credit card statement with the charge circled,\"\" to which I responded \"\"there's no way in hell I'm sending you my CC statement.\"\" Then I disputed the charge with the CC bank and it was gone about two days later. I partially expect to have the same charge appear next year when they try to renew my non-existent subscription again. Now, whether or not this is a normal practice for the company, or just a call center person making a good-faith but insecure attempt to solve your problem is irrelevant. Fact of the matter is, you tried to resolve this with the merchant and the merchant asked for something that's likely outside the bounds of your CC Terms and Conditions; sending your entire number via email. Dispute it and move on. The dispute process exists for a reason.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "66c921cb4de75060ffdc0fb8e688a1c2",
"text": "\"While I agree with Ben a lot I feel like his answer is really poor here. You do not call a number to give your credit card information out for a refund. That is ridiculous. Just from his answer - he has had 5 cases of fraud lately - you should know that you shouldn't follow this advice. I personally don't ever give my credit card number over the phone, unless it is the very very very last resort. It is not just about money and safety but it is about time. Every time that you give your number out over the phone there is a chance that the employee on the other end (by either scam or legitimate business) will use or sell your info. So you need to determine if the time saved by doing a transaction over the phone is worth hours/days of your time if your card has a fraud issue. And note that fraud sometimes is easily negated, but if done smartly can be hard to prove via a quick call or email to card company. What should you do? Tell company that you will simply get the refund through your credit card company. And if we go back to time element... You fill out form on card website. Card company goes back to vendor and says - \"\"Why are you asking for card numbers via email?\"\" Card company either cancels vendor contract or more likely helps them understand the technology available so they don't have to do this. Therefore that quick form that you filled out will now keep this company from bugging you again. By going through their archaic \"\"systems\"\" you are enabling their behavior.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e8ac7c336553d8cc5346b8e340e22fd2",
"text": "\"A bona-fide company never needs your credit card details, certainly not your 3-digit-on-back-of-card #, to issue a refund. On an older charge, they might have to work with their merchant provider. But they should be able to do it within the credit card handling system, and in fact are required to. Asking for details via email doesn't pass the \"\"sniff test\"\" either. To get a credit card merchant account, a company needs to go through a security assessment process called PCI-DSS. Security gets drummed into you pretty good. Of course they could be using one of the dumbed-down services like Square, but those services make refunds ridiculously easy. How did you come to be corresponding on this email address? Did they initially contact you? Did you find it on a third party website? Some of those are fraudulent and many others, like Yelp, it's very easy to insert false contact information for a business. Consumer forums, even moreso. You might take another swing at finding a proper contact for the company. Stop asking for a cheque. That also circumvents the credit card system. And obviously a scammer won't send a check... at least not one you'd want! If all else fails: call your bank and tell them you want to do a chargeback on that transaction. This is where the bank intervenes to reverse the charge. It's rather straightforward (especially if the merchant has agreed in principle to a refund) but requires some paperwork or e-paperwork. Don't chargeback lightly. Don't use it casually or out of laziness or unwillingness to speak with the merchant, e.g. to cancel an order. The bank charges the merchant a $20 or larger investigation fee, separate from the refund. Each chargeback is also a \"\"strike\"\"; too many \"\"strikes\"\" and the merchant is barred from taking credit cards. It's serious business. As a merchant, I would never send a cheque to an angry customer. Because if I did, they'd cash the cheque and still do a chargeback, so then I'd be out the money twice, plus the investigation fee to boot.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd66d8058d8b507ecaf9f0b377570b05",
"text": "Definitely push for a check, they may not do anything nefarious with your credit card number however someone else may be able to read the email before it gets to its final destination. It's never safe to give out credit card number in a less than secure interface. Also, if this is a well known company, then the person interacting with you should know better than to ask for your information through email.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1d6a0684c5d2fd9d65960fd64b8dac44",
"text": "It appears all you have to do is submit a form. It might be better if she submitted it herself instead of you doing it on her behalf. All natural persons (individuals) and non-natural persons (businesses) are entitled to access and inspect the data held on record about them in the Central Credit Information System (KHR).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e92ed184784fb8f5109289123177216",
"text": "I don't think Canada truly respects the business competitiveness side of emailing business with business-related propositions. In turn, cold calling volume will shoot through the fucking roof for confirmation to send an email with appropriate content. Next thing you know, they pass a law for anti-spam calling -.-",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1a86555afcb0f8a100e5a3f3ed5e3df3",
"text": "You have no grounds for a refund. The flight took off on time, and you chose not to be on board. The fact that the airline could not guarantee ahead of time that the flight would leave on time is not relevant. You can certainly try to dispute the charge with the airline, and it sounds like you have done so. The airline correctly indicates that your dispute is unfounded. You can call up your credit card company and explain the situation, and they may accept your dispute. However, I am not aware of any credit card that would reimburse you (that is, issue a chargeback) in this situation. I'm not trying to be unsympathetic. It sucks that you felt you could not rely on the airline, and are now out some money. Fundamentally, though, this was your choice. The airline would be obligated to reimburse you the cost of your flight, or book you on another flight, if the flight was cancelled due to bad weather or other issues, but they owe you nothing if the flight took off on schedule.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "18fc339279a168216568ea7feace6c69",
"text": "Thank you for the summary! I live in a small city where it would never take more than 10 minutes to walk into the store and get your refund, so I don't see a huge advantage to this. Maybe for bigger and busier stores.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fcc99ce53784564e60c8529112455a1e",
"text": "You seem overly fixated on dead tree documentation of purchases. They are deducting this from your account monthly - the mere fact that the money was taken is enough to prove in court that they have you on their books and to hold them to paying out said insurance. The email copies is actually a better way to organize receipts in most cases (can't be destroyed as easily, etc.) You can cancel the insurance - but don't just stop paying (you'd owe them money then). I foresee increasing difficulty navigating the 21st century for you unless you can get past this concern about physical receipts. I doubt other companies would do much better. FWIW, I live in the continental US. I don't know how different the Philippines is with regard to moving everything to digital",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b240c8733992c78e273ab69c01482f22",
"text": "\"If she reported the income on the business return, I'd treat this as a \"\"mail audit\"\". Try to get a clear statement from Square confirming what they reported, under which SSN/EIN, for what transactions. Make a copy of that. If at all possible, get them to send a letter to the IRS (copy to you) acknowledging that they reported it under the wrong number. Copy the IRS's letter. Square's letter, and both personal and business 2012 returns. Write a (signed) cover letter explaining what had happened and pointing out the specific line in the business return which corresponded to the disputed amount, so they can see that you did report it properly and did pay taxes on it as business income. End that letter with a request for advice on how to straighten this out. Certified-mail the whole package back to the IRS at whatever address the advisory letter gives. At worst, I'm guessing, they'll tell you to refile both returns for 2012 with that income moved over from the business return to the personal return, which will make everything match their records. But with all of this documentation in one place, they may be able to simply accept that Square misreported it and correct their files. Good luck. The IRS really isn't as unreasonable as people claim; if you can clearly document that you were trying to do the right thing, they try not to penalize folks unnecessarily.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6a80d084921f3ee86d7bbdf4f607936c",
"text": "http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/credit/cre27.pdf if you are in the US Look at section 805 and 805 about how they may contact you and what they are and aren't allowed to do. You can simply send a Certified Mail, Return Receipt (CMRR) letter explaining you have no part of it, and that they are not allowed to contact you by any means other than in writing from this point forward. Then you can either put return to sender on the letters (it costs them money) or open them and delete anything you don't need.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "528c03575fed81c0e5a4cb0ba68313bc",
"text": "They specifically state on their website this waiver does not apply to this incident. It only applies to the use of their credit monitoring product. [link to website](https://www.equifaxsecurity2017.com/). So basically you can't have identify fraud then blame it on their credit monitoring tool. In this case, Equifax is guilty of several things, not related to this product, so they can't just sneak in a clause like this.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a4e7fc0bf4e90711a42264e05be3146",
"text": "I believe the appropriate recourse in this scenario is to bring a court case for breach of contract. The 1p repricing issue has been admitted as an error out of scope of the purpose of the software.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c435f5c350f31fd9c7567c22ec82571e",
"text": "Obviously, the credit card's administators know who this charge was submitted by. Contact them, tell them that you don't recognize the charge, and ask them to tell you who it was from. If they can't or won't, tell them you suspect fraud and want it charged back, then wait to see who contacts you to complain that the payment was cancelled. Note that you should charge back any charge you firmly believe is an error, if attempts to resolve it with the company aren't working. Also note that if you really ghink this is fraud, you should contact your bank and ask them to issue a new card number. Standard procedures exist. Use them when appropriate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e57f4deb0fd8fe7f89b86f1b55d1942c",
"text": "Visa, Mastercard have very strong consumer protection. I have been wondering about this question for a while but never got around to asking it here: What happens if a retailer knowingly defrauds me? My guess is the first party to ask for help is Visa, Mastercard: a retailer knowingly defrauding you is unlikely to refund you any money. However, slip-ups do happen. If this is a retailer of good repute, they will not only refund you the money but send you a gift card too! Please do followup this post with what helped you in the end, but my guess is, your first (and last) line of defense would be Visa, Mastercard. Anything that would go through the bank would take such a lot of time and effort, that you would be better off writing it off.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d987f3694cd7628441060115d10bc3a2",
"text": "Call the credit card company you used to fund the account and file claims against each transaction used to top up the entropay account. File it either as merchandise not received, or in your case it sounds like unauthorized transaction would be appropriate as well. Your (real) credit card company will lodge the dispute and get your money back, usually will credit your account back within a couple of days. Be sure to follow up with your credit card company, as they usually send you some forms to fill out and sign before they finalize the claim.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "62d614f02df9950e7a4ce59406e43c3d",
"text": "Don't even remind me of poor CS. My mom was on the phone for 5 hours yesterday 5 HOURS with Expidia because they messed up on their end. They offered my mom $25 credit but they never emailed it. After the 5 hours they said that they had no record of the calls and we had to call the air plane company ourselves. I am never using them again",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "090a7555df9f2da31550cbfdc1929cdb",
"text": "\"I would hold off on making that threat (closing your account). First, because as others have said, it's not likely to help. And second, assuming you're willing to make good on that threat, you should only play that card as a final absolute last resort, because if it fails, and you close your account, there is little to nothing else you can try to get what you want. First, talk one-on-one with a personal banker at your local BA branch. You might be surprised at how helpful they can be. Next, try talking to customer service on the phone. After that, you might try sending a letter to corporate HQ. A lot depends on the particular \"\"feature\"\" you are talking about and why they removed it. It could be that 1) the bank finds the feature is just too costly provide for free, 2) there may be a technical reason why they can no longer provide it, 3) it could be as simple as that few to none of their customers (excluding you) are actually using the feature, or 4) it could be that due to changing regulation, or market forces, no bank is offering that feature anymore. Also, while they may not care specifically about your business, the local branch has an incentive to not drive customers away if it can be reasonably avoided.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e9876b7d0fdc3a6bca7f6d900d646e6f",
"text": "I wouldn't lose any sleep on it until it actually happens. I believe generally the agreement of the merchant with the credit card company says they must submit to the company's arbitration. If they come back to you, I would definitely get in touch with Visa to complain. Here's some great advice on dealing with unscrupulous debt collection, the main points being It's actually you that should be threatening to sue them if the repairs were incompetent or dangerous!",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
c1f0b258fe1ee8894a5e39061f00b759
|
What Did Benjamin Graham Mean by Earnings Stability in The Intelligent Investor?
|
[
{
"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": "abc2f84718703e157926e5b001527a6f",
"text": "\"Please note that the following Graham Rating below corresponds to five years: Earnings Stability (100% ⇒ 10 Years): 50.00% Benjamin Graham - once known as The Dean of Wall Street - was a scholar and financial analyst who mentored legendary investors such as Warren Buffett, William J. Ruane, Irving Kahn and Walter J. Schloss. Buffett describes Graham's book - The Intelligent Investor - as \"\"by far the best book about investing ever written\"\" (in its preface). Graham's first recommended strategy - for casual investors - was to invest in Index stocks. For more serious investors, Graham recommended three different categories of stocks - Defensive, Enterprising and NCAV - and 17 qualitative and quantitative rules for identifying them. For advanced investors, Graham described various \"\"special situations\"\". The first requires almost no analysis, and is easily accomplished today with a good S&P500 Index fund. The last requires more than the average level of ability and experience. Such stocks are also not amenable to impartial algorithmic analysis, and require a case-specific approach. But Defensive, Enterprising and NCAV stocks can be reliably detected by today's data-mining software, and offer a great avenue for accurate automated analysis and profitable investment. For example, given below are the actual Graham ratings for International Business Machines Corp (IBM), with no adjustments other than those for inflation. Defensive Graham investment requires that all ratings be 100% or more. Enterprising Graham investment requires minimum ratings of - N/A, 75%, 90%, 50%, 5%, N/A and 137%. International Business Machines Corp - Graham Ratings Sales | Size (100% ⇒ $500 Million): 18,558.60% Current Assets ÷ [2 x Current Liabilities]: 62.40% Net Current Assets ÷ Long Term Debt: 28.00% Earnings Stability (100% ⇒ 10 Years): 100.00% Dividend Record (100% ⇒ 20 Years): 100.00% Earnings Growth (100% ⇒ 30% Growth): 172.99% Graham Number ÷ Previous Close: 35.81% Not all stocks failing Graham's rules are necessarily bad investments. They may fall under \"\"special situations\"\". Graham's rules are also extremely selective. Graham designed and backtested his framework for over 50 years, to deliver the best possible long-term results. Even when stocks don't clear them, Graham's rules give a clear quantifiable measure of a stock's margin of safety. Thank you.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "74f5180f25f128a9c22aaf7654f0730f",
"text": "Essentially, yes, Peter Lynch is talking about the PEG Ratio. The Price/Earnings to Growth (PEG) Ratio is where you take the p/e ratio and then divide that by the growth rate (which should include any dividends). A lower number indicates that the stock is undervalued, and could be a good buy. Lynch's metric is the inverse of that: Growth rate divided by the p/e ratio. It is the same idea, but in this case, a higher number indicates a good value for buying. In either case, the idea behind this ratio is that a fairly priced stock will have the p/e ratio equal the growth rate. When your growth rate is larger than your p/e ratio, you are theoretically looking at an undervalued stock.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5e65bd064fbdce5bd4a59cc1b63ec68e",
"text": "From every article I've encountered, the chicken and egg aspect suggests that IV is produced by looking at options pricing, and calculating the IV from that. The implication is that whatever is known at that time is included in the price. And that when you see a particular option trade an unusual number of contracts at a given price, the implication is that someone thinks they know something that's not already priced in, i.e. that the current price is not accurate, they can profit on the future event.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8fdbf339263b1065a53a294559a4d6dd",
"text": "\"There is actually a recent paper that attempted to decompose Buffett's outperformance. I've quoted the abstract below: \"\"Berkshire Hathaway has realized a Sharpe ratio of 0.76, higher than any other stock or mutual fund with a history of more than 30 years, and Berkshire has a significant alpha to traditional risk factors. However, we find that the alpha becomes insignificant when controlling for exposures to Betting-Against-Beta and Quality-Minus-Junk factors. Further, we estimate that Buffett’s leverage is about 1.6-to-1 on average. Buffett’s returns appear to be neither luck nor magic, but, rather, reward for the use of leverage combined with a focus on cheap, safe, quality stocks. Decomposing Berkshires’ portfolio into ownership in publicly traded stocks versus wholly-owned private companies, we find that the former performs the best, suggesting that Buffett’s returns are more due to stock selection than to his effect on management. These results have broad implications for market efficiency and the implementability of academic factors.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a7ba96c65118aba556e5fd66ad996b27",
"text": "\"In this instance \"\"quotational\"\" is a reference to a market price quote, not a mathematical function. Staunch \"\"value investors\"\" like Graham, Dodd, Munger, Buffett et al. believe there is a material difference between what security is \"\"worth\"\" and what the current market mood quotes as its price. You, the investor, perform your analysis then derive a value for a security. If there has been no material change to an aspect of the security you analyzed then there hasn't been a change in that security's value, even if there has been a decline in the price quoted by the market, that is a \"\"quotational loss.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d60e8694d9498ef8bffe8e020f24d0c",
"text": "\"You're mixing up rhetoric (aka discussion and argument) with dialectic (the \"\"logical\"\" search for absolute truth). No essay about business could possibly be dialectic. Mine isn't. Paul Graham's certainly aren't. Therefore they are rhetoric, discussion and argument. And \"\"This person has much to gain if you do what he says\"\" is an absolutely valid argument. BTW - I'm self-taught. If you want to learn more, I highly recommend \"\"Thank You For Arguing.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d468a0e6187ebb28e046806b9f0ccf5",
"text": "\"Your explanation is nearly perfect and not \"\"hand wavy\"\" at all. Stock prices reflect the collective wisdom of all participating investors. Investors value stocks based on how much value they expect the stock to produce now and in the future. So, the stability of the stock prices is a reflection of the accuracy of the investors predictions. Investor naivity can be seen as a sequence of increasingly sophisticated stock pricing strategies: If investors were able to predict the future perfectly, then all stock prices would rise at the same constant rate. In theory, if a particular investor is able to \"\"beat the market\"\", it is because they are better at predicting the future profits of companies (or they are lucky, or they are better at predicting the irrational behavior of other investors......)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0a2789990856d8afd6cbc98beec94ec6",
"text": "Crisis and volatility benefit financiers and the wealthy, even more now than they did then. Back then, anybody left standing could buy at the bottom of a depression--while it was those who needed wages to eat who really suffered. Nowadays, arbitrage and derivatives (not to mention federal policy) make volatility itself a profitable proposition for people with lots of money to invest. That said, I don't think it's a necessary conclusion from Garfield's statement that he thought those at the top *intentionally* caused inflation and depression--merely that their actions brought it about. Maybe he was complaining that the economy would be healthier and more stable if it were truly a free market, or maybe he was arguing that greed at the top led to imprudent policy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d749f778e3867fd0ff9cb0a5ad2224f9",
"text": "Here's the original academic backbone that it's based on and expanded upon. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modigliani%E2%80%93Miller_theorem I think thats it's overly conservative in this case (I fully accept academic theories only go so far in the real world) as Damodaran (NYU professor) has made a pretty solid case that cash on balance sheet at large cap tech companies is valued by the markets at less than its after tax $ value.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f5425400aa00739f218859eaffbd248",
"text": "\"The argument you are making here is similar to the problem I have with the stronger forms of the efficient market hypothesis. That is if the market already has incorporated all of the information about the correct prices, then there's no reason to question any prices and then the prices never change. However, the mechanism through which the market incorporates this information is via the actors buying an selling based on what they see as the market being incorrect. The most basic concept of this problem (I think) starts with the idea that every investor is passive and they simply buy the market as one basket. So every paycheck, the index fund buys some more stock in the market in a completely static way. This means the demand for each stock is the same. No one is paying attention to the actual companies' performance so a poor performer's stock price never moves. The same for the high performer. The only thing moving prices is demand but that's always up at a more or less constant rate. This is a topic that has a lot of discussion lately in financial circles. Here are two articles about this topic but I'm not convinced the author is completely serious hence the \"\"worst-case scenario\"\" title. These are interesting reads but again, take this with a grain of salt. You should follow the links in the articles because they give a more nuanced understanding of each potential issue. One thing that's important is that the reality is nothing like what I outline above. One of the links in these articles that is interesting is the one that talks about how we now have more indexes than stocks on the US markets. The writer points to this as a problem in the first article, but think for a moment why that is. There are many different types of strategies that active managers follow in how they determine what goes in a fund based on different stock metrics. If a stocks P/E ratio drops below a critical level, for example, a number of indexes are going to sell it. Some might buy it. It's up to the investors (you and me) to pick which of these strategies we believe in. Another thing to consider is that active managers are losing their clients to the passive funds. They have a vested interest in attacking passive management.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c13c73a337f0b416dd0e626ae4d9b7cf",
"text": "To be fair, the analyst is talking about the book value of the firm. Basically, the value of all the stuff it owns now. There are plenty of companies with negative book value that can justify a positive share price. Ford, for instance, had negative book value but positive future earnings.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c32b346f9673dd384bb14d3388462a3c",
"text": "\"The company was paying \"\"only\"\" $1 a share in dividends, compared to $10 a share in earnings. That is a so-called payout ratio of 10%, which is low. A more normal payout ratio would be 40%, something like $4 a share. If a $13 stock had a $4 dividend, the dividend yield would be about 30%, which would be \"\"too high,\"\" meaning that the price would go up to drive down the resulting yield. Even $1 a share on a $13 stock is a high dividend of about 7%, allowing for appreciation to say, the $20-$25 range. Graham was a great believer in the theory that management should pay out \"\"most\"\" of its earnings in dividends. He believed that by holding dividends so far below earnings, the company was either being \"\"stingy,\"\" or signalling that the $10 a share of earnings was unsustainable. Either of these would be bad for the stock. For instance, if $1 a share in dividends actually represented a 40% payout ratio, it would signal management's belief that they could normally earn only $2.50 a year instead of $10.\"",
"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": "3d9a087db7ac36a435de1783db63916d",
"text": "\"What you are seeking is termed \"\"Alpha\"\", the mispricing in the market. Specifically, Alpha is the price error when compared to the market return and beta of the stock. Modern portfolio theory suggests that a portfolio with good Alpha will maximize profits for a given risk tolerance. The efficient market hypotheses suggests that Alpha is always zero. The EMH also suggests that taxes, human effort and information propagation delays don't exist (i.e. it is wrong). For someone who is right, the best specific answer to your question is presented Ben Graham's book \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\" (starting on page 280). And even still, that book is better summarized by Warren Buffet (see Berkshire Hathaway Letters to Shareholders). In a great disservice to the geniuses above it can be summarized much further: closely follow the company to estimate its true earnings potential... and ignore the prices the market is quoting. ADDENDUM: And when you have earnings potential, calculate value with: NPV = sum(each income piece/(1+cost of capital)^time) Update: See http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2014/02/24/warren-buffett-berkshire-letter/ \"\"When Charlie Munger and I buy stocks...\"\" for these same ideas right from the horse's mouth\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "52019f47440bfdf80c964bad8ededcdd",
"text": "\"That's the key to modern finance: removing undesirable conditions until the model outcome supports the desired policy or sales pitch. We're safe because our model says so, and if it doesn't, change the model until it does. Anything that negatively affects the outcome is an \"\"anomaly\"\" - that anomalies are unavoidable, and will recur, is just an inconvenience better left out.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd776fcff508cdba217b9e0a172c38b4",
"text": "\"Been a long while since I've read it but if I remember correctly with quotational loss Graham refers to an unjustified decline in stock price because of Mr. Market's fear and loathing where the business prospects of the company are actually still sound. This is opposed to \"\"actual\"\" loss of capital which he would consider to be a company going bankrupt or just more generally turning out to have way worse business prospects than expected with the justified decline in stock price that entails.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
2a8ee60ef7b2c0e15807f7978d52420f
|
Long vs. short term capital gains on real estate
|
[
{
"docid": "7ca594024cad43676e532bdd3be3a86d",
"text": "No, it's not all long-term capital gain. Depending on the facts of your situation, it will be either ordinary income or partially short-term capital gain. You should consider consulting a tax lawyer if you have this issue. This is sort of a weird little corner of the tax law. IRC §§1221-1223 don't go into it, nor do the attendant Regs. It also somewhat stumped the people on TaxAlmanac years ago (they mostly punted and just declared it self-employment income, avoiding the holding period issue). But I did manage to find it in BNA Portfolio 562, buried in there. That cited to a court case Comm'r v. Williams, 256 F.2d 152 (5th Cir. 1958) and to Revenue Ruling 75-524 (and to another Rev. Rul.). Rev Rul 75-524 cites Fred Draper, 32 T.C. 545 (1959) for the proposition that assets are acquired progressively as they are built. Note also that land and improvements on it are treated as separate assets for purposes of depreciation (Pub 946). So between Williams (which says something similar but about the shipbuilding industry) and 75-524, as well as some related rulings and cases, you may be looking at an analysis of how long your property has been built and how built it was. You may be able to apportion some of the building as long-term and some as short-term. Whether the apportionment should be as to cost expended before 1 year or value created before 1 year is explicitly left open in Williams. It may be simpler to account for costs, since you'll have expenditure records with dates. However, if this is properly ordinary income because this is really business inventory and not merely investment property, then you have fully ordinary income and holding period is irrelevant. Your quick turnaround sale tends to suggest this may have been done as a business, not as an investment. A proper advisor with access to these materials could help you formulate a tax strategy and return position. This may be complex and law-driven enough that you'd need a tax lawyer rather than a CPA or preparer. They can sort through the precedent and if you have the money may even provide a formal tax opinion. Experienced real estate lawyers may be able to help, if you screen them appropriately (i.e. those who help prepare real estate tax returns or otherwise have strong tax crossover knowledge).",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d129de5049e0ce307a46337a8462b5c2",
"text": "To your first question: YES. Capital gains and losses on real-estate are treated differently than income. Note here for exact IRS standards. The IRS will not care about percentage change but historical (recorded) amounts. To your second question: NO Are you taxed when buying a new stock? No. But be sure to record the price paid for the house. Note here for more questions. *Always consult a CPA for tax advice on federal tax returns.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a9f4b7858f3cd4dfbaef38c8c54470b",
"text": "This will work as intended, but there's another point to consider. In the US, the tax rate on proceeds from stock sales is higher for short term holdings, which are defined as held for less than one year. Both rates vary based on your income. Bracket numbers are for fiscal year 2014, filing as single. The difference between short and long term capital gains tax in the US is a minimum of ten percentage points, and works out to 15 percentage points on average. This is substantial. If you won't be reporting much income the year you move to the US (say because you only worked for a portion of the year) it is decidedly to your advantage to wait and sell the stocks in the US, to get that sweet 0% rate. At a minimum, you should hold the position for a year if you sell and rebuy, from a tax optimization perspective. Two caveats:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "57e727fb40b21bd2c80d0ec6311b1577",
"text": "If the $882 is reported on W2 as your income then it is added to your taxable income on W2 and is taxed as salary. Your basis then becomes $5882. If it is not reported on your W2 - you need to add it yourself. Its salary income. If its not properly reported on W2 it may have some issues with FICA, so I suggest talking to your salary department to verify it is. In any case, this is not short term capital gain. Your broker may or may not be aware of the reporting on W2, and if they report the basis as $5000 on your 1099, when you fill your tax form you can add a statement that it is ESPP reported on W2 and change the basis to correct one. H&R Block and TurboTax both support that (you need to chose the correct type of investment there).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "03a6584e1dfda72eca90e2256d9b90e3",
"text": "If you are calculating simple ROI, the answer is straightforward math. See This Answer for some examples, but yes, with more leverage you will always see better ROI on a property IF you can maintain a positive cash flow. The most complete answer is to factor in your total risk. That high ROI of a leveraged property is far more volatile and sensitive to any unexpected expenses. Additionally, a loss of equity in the property (or an upside-down mortgage) will further impact your long term position. To put this more simply (as noted in the comments below), your losses will be amplified. You cannot say a leveraged property will always give you a better ROI because you cannot predict your losses.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d7e73075bf69bbbe5adeff90c043137",
"text": "You normally only pay taxes on the difference between the sale price and the cost basis of the asset. In your example, you would probably pay taxes on the $10 difference, not the full sale price of $110. If you paid a commission, however, you would be taxed on your gain minus the commission you paid. Since you held the asset for less than a year, you wouldn't pay the long-term capital gains rate of 20%; you'd be taxed on the capital gain as if it were ordinary income, which depends on your federal income tax bracket. Also, littleadv makes a good point about the implications of buying the asset with after-tax funds too, so that's another part of the equation to consider as well.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b1313c7fe9c8a6cae73baa0bc146c45",
"text": "Indeed, there's no short term/long term issue trading inside the IRA, and in fact, no reporting. If you have a large IRA balance and trade 100 (for example) times per year, there's no reporting at all. As you note, long term gains outside the IRA are treated favorably in the tax code (as of now, 2012) but that's subject to change. Also to consider, The worst thing I did was to buy Apple in my IRA. A huge gain that will be taxed as ordinary income when I withdraw it. Had this been in my regular account, I could sell and pay the long term cap gain rate this year. Last, there's no concept of Wash sale in one's IRA, as there's no taking a loss for shares sold below cost. (To clarify, trading solely within an IRA won't trigger wash sale rules. A realized loss in a taxable account, combined with a purchase inside an IRA can trigger the wash sale rule if the stock is purchased inside the IRA 30 days before or after the sale at a loss. Thank you, Dilip, for the comment.) Aside from the warnings of trading too much or running afoul of frequency restrictions, your observation is correct.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "78b34ddb0cc670476868575472df6541",
"text": "When on this topic, you'll often hear general rules of thumb. And, similar to the 'only buy stocks if you plan to hold more than X years' there are going to be periods where if you buy at a bottom right before the market turns up, you might be ahead just months after you buy. I'd say that if you buy right, below market, you're ahead the day you close. Edit - I maintain, and have Schiller providing supporting data) that real estate goes up with inflation in the long term, no more, no less. If the rise were perfectly smooth, correlated 100% month to month, you'd find it would take X years to break even to the costs of buying, commission and closing costs. If we call that cost about 8%, and inflation averages 3, it points to a 3 year holding period to break even. But, since real estate rises and falls in the short term, there are periods longer than 4 years where real estate lags, and very short periods where it rises faster than the costs involved. The buy vs rent is a layer right on top of this. If you happen upon a time when the rental market is tight, you may buy, see the house decline 10% in value, and when the math is done, actually be ahead of the guy that rented.",
"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": "28f92e26dcc503d4c07d8bac7f07e7a4",
"text": "\"The examples you provide in the question are completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter where the brokerage is or where is the company you own stocks in. For a fairly standard case of an non-resident alien international student living full time in the US - your capital gains are US sourced. Let me quote the following text a couple of paragraphs down the line you quoted on the same page: Gain or loss from the sale or exchange of personal property generally has its source in the United States if the alien has a tax home in the United States. The key factor in determining if an individual is a U.S. resident for purposes of the sourcing of capital gains is whether the alien's \"\"tax home\"\" has shifted to the United States. If an alien does not have a tax home in the United States, then the alien’s U.S. source capital gains would be treated as foreign-source and thus nontaxable. In general, under the \"\"tax home\"\" rules, a person who is away (or who intends to be away) from his tax home for longer than 1 year has shifted tax homes to his new location upon his arrival in that new location. See Chapter 1 of Publication 463, Travel, Entertainment, Gift, and Car Expenses I'll assume you've read this and just want an explanation on what it means. What it means is that if you move to the US for a significant period of time (expected length of 1 year or more), your tax home is assumed to have shifted to the US and the capital gains are sourced to the US from the start of your move. For example: you are a foreign diplomat, and your 4-year assignment started in May. Year-end - you're not US tax resident (diplomats exempt), but you've stayed in the US for more than 183 days, and since your assignment is longer than 1 year - your tax home is now in the US. You'll pay the 30% flat tax. Another example: You're a foreign airline pilot, coming to the US every other day flying the airline aircraft. You end up staying in the US 184 days, but your tax home hasn't shifted, nor you're a US tax resident - you don't pay the flat tax. Keep in mind, that tax treaties may alter the situation since in many cases they also cover the capital gains situation for non-residents.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "60a3de3c4b6ba916c9d838b8a08d250c",
"text": "\"When a question is phrased this way, i.e. \"\"for tax purposes\"\" I'm compelled to advise - Don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog. In theory, one can create a loss, up to the $3K, and take it against ordinary income. When sold, the gains may be long term and be at a lower rate. In reality, if you are out of the stock for the required 30 days, it will shoot up in price. If you double up, as LittleAdv correctly offers, it will drop over the 30 days and negate any benefit. The investing dog's water bowl is half full.\"",
"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": "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": "88d77a3dd754aefdfb72b4a009b8c5e4",
"text": "\"Started to post this as a comment, but I think it's actually a legitimate answer: Running a rental property is neither speculation nor investment, but a business, just as if you were renting cars or tools or anything else. That puts it in an entirely different category. The property may gain or lose value, but you don't know which or how much until you're ready to terminate the business... so, like your own house, it really isn't a liquid asset; it's closer to being inventory. Meanwhile, like inventory, you need to \"\"restock\"\" it on a fairly regular basis by maintaining it, finding tenants, and so on. And how much it returns depends strongly on how much effort you put into it in terms of selecting the right location and product in the first place, and in how you market yourself against all the other businesses offering near-equivalent product, and how you differentiate the product, and so on. I think approaching it from that angle -- deciding whether you really want to be a business owner or keep all your money in more abstract investments, then deciding what businesses are interesting to you and running the numbers to see what they're likely to return as income, THEN making up your mind whether real estate is the winner from that group -- is likely to produce better decisions. Among other things, it helps you remember to focus on ALL the costs of the business. When doing the math, don't forget that income from the business is taxed at income rates, not investment rates. And don't forget that you're making a bet on the future of that neighborhood as well as the future of that house; changes in demographics or housing stock or business climate could all affect what rents you can charge as well as the value of the property, and not necessarily in the same direction. It may absolutely be the right place to put some of your money. It may not. Explore all the possible outcomes before making the bet, and decide whether you're willing to do the work needed to influence which ones are more likely.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "04cfc11786b1d6c8709679a6c244060f",
"text": "Assuming that you have capital gains, you can expect to have to pay taxes on them. It might be short term, or long term capital gains. If you specify exactly which shares to sell, it is possible to sell mostly losers, thus reducing or eliminating capital gains. There are separate rules for 401K and other retirement programs regarding down payments for a house. This leads to many other issues such as the hit your retirement will take.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6f1757e12b8309837d76e792e3845e77",
"text": "\"I don't believe it makes a difference at the federal level -- if you file taxes jointly, gains, losses, and dividends appear on the joint tax account. If you file separately, I assume the tax implications only appear on the owner's tax return. Then the benefits might outweigh the costs, but only if you correctly predict market behavior and the behavior of your positions. For example, lets say you lose 30k in the market in one year, and your spouse makes 30k. If you're filing jointly, the loss washes out the gain, and you have no net taxes on the investment. If you're filing separately, you can claim 3k in loss (the remaining 27k in loss is banked to future tax years), but your spouse pays taxes on 30k in gain. Where things get more interesting is at the state level. I live in a \"\"community property state,\"\" where it doesn't matter whether you have separate accounts or not. If I use \"\"community money\"\" to purchase a stock and make a million bucks, that million bucks is shared by the two of us, whether the account is in my name our in our name. income during the marriage is considered community property. However property you bring into the marriage is not. And inheritances are not community property -- until co-mingled. Not sure how it works in other states. I grew up in what's called an \"\"equitable property state.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
5c68f7a836d8c0a564ba43d7b56ddf61
|
What is the difference between equity and assets?
|
[
{
"docid": "8e67b6911d14a79d53b0b47b4fdd2ac1",
"text": "\"Accounts track value: at any given time, a given account will have a given value. The type of account indicates what the value represents. Roughly: On a balance sheet (a listing of accounts and their values at a given point in time), there is typically only one equity account, representing net worth, I don't know much about GNUCash, though. Income and expenses accounts do not go on the balance sheet, but to find out more, either someone else or the GNUCash manual will have to describe how they work in detail. Equity is more similar to a liability than to assets. The equation Assets = Equity + Liabilities should always hold; you can think of assets as being \"\"what my stuff is worth\"\" and equity and liabilities together as being \"\"who owns it.\"\" The part other people own is liability, and the part you own is equity. See balance sheet, accounting equation, and double-entry bookkeeping for more information. (A corporate balance sheet might actually have more than one equity entry. The purpose of the breakdown is to show how much of their net worth came from investors and how much was earned. That's only relevant if you're trying to assess how a company has performed to date; it's not important for a family's finances.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "052392f5d66b263d95bf4d5e2838e319",
"text": "\"Equity does not represent production divisions in a company (i.e. chocolate, strawberry, and vanilla does not make sense). In Sole proprietorship, equity represents 1 owner. In Partnership, equity has at least two sub-accounts, namely Partner 1 and Partner 2. In Corporations, equity may have Common Stockholders and Preferred Stockholders, or even different class of shares for insiders and angel investors. As you can see, equity represents who owns the company. It is not what the company does or manufactures. First and foremost, define the boundary of the firm. Are your books titled \"\"The books of the family of Doe\"\", \"\"The books of Mr & Mrs Doe\"\", or \"\"The books of Mr & Mrs Doe & Sons\"\". Ask yourself, who \"\"owns\"\" this family. If you believe that a marriage is perpetual until further notice then it does not make any sense to constantly calculate which parent owns the family more. In partnership, firm profits are attributed to partner's accounts using previously agreed ratio. For example, (60%/40% because Partner 1 is more hard working and valuable to the firm. Does your child own this family? Does he/she have any rights to use the assets, to earn income from the assets, to transfer the assets to others, or to enforce private property rights? If they don't have a part of these rights, they are certainly NOT part of Equity. So what happens to the expenses of children if you follow the \"\"partnership\"\" model? There are two ways. The first way is to attribute the Loss to the parents/family since you do not expect the children to repay. It is an unrecoverable loss written off. The second way is to create a Debtor(Asset) account to aggregate all child expense, then create a separate book called \"\"The books Children 1\"\", and classify the expense in that separate book. I advise using \"\"The family of Doe\"\" as the firm's boundary, and having 1 Equity account to simplify everything. It is ultimately up to you to decide the boundaries.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "909417d8d10021a49861245cd34381e3",
"text": "\"Not to detract from the other answers at all (which are each excellent and useful in their own right), but here's my interpretation of the ideas: Equity is the answer to the question \"\"Where is the value of the company coming from?\"\" This might include owner stakes, shareholder stock investments, or outside investments. In the current moment, it can also be defined as \"\"Equity = X + Current Income - Current Expenses\"\" (I'll come back to X). This fits into the standard accounting model of \"\"Assets - Liabilities = Value (Equity)\"\", where Assets includes not only bank accounts, but also warehouse inventory, raw materials, etc.; Liabilities are debts, loans, shortfalls in inventory, etc. Both are abstract categories, whereas Income and Expense are hard dollar amounts. At the end of the year when the books balance, they should all equal out. Equity up until this point has been an abstract concept, and it's not an account in the traditional (gnucash) sense. However, it's common practice for businesses to close the books once a year, and to consolidate outstanding balances. When this happens, Equity ceases to be abstract and becomes a hard value: \"\"How much is the company worth at this moment?\"\", which has a definite, numeric value. When the books are opened fresh for a new business year, the Current Income and Current Expense amounts are zeroed out. In this situation, in order for the big equation to equal out: Assets - Liabilities = X + Income - Expeneses the previous net value of the company must be accounted for. This is where X comes in, the starting (previous year's) equity. This allows the Assets and Liabilities to be non-zero, while the (current) Income and Expenses are both still zeroed out. The account which represents X in gnucash is called \"\"Equity\"\", and encompasses not only initial investments, but also the net increase & decreases from previous years. While the name would more accurately be called \"\"Starting Equity\"\", the only problem caused by the naming convention is the confusion of the concept Equity (X + Income - Expenses) with the account X, named \"\"Equity\"\".\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1828d0f73127846d23d4eaf92134d5fc",
"text": "Different stakeholders receive cash flows at different times. The easiest way for me to remember is if you're a debt holder vs equity owner on an income statement. Interest payments are made before net income, so debt holders are repaid before any residual cash flows go to equity owners.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c96e617f294c24e6721181ac817418af",
"text": "First, A credit account is increased by credit transactions and decreased by debits. Liabilities is a credit account and should be a positive number. A debit account is increased by debit transactions and decreased by credit. Assets is a debit account and should be a positive number. Equity = Assets (debit) - Liabilities (credit) may be positive or negative. You currently are subtracting a negative number for a net positive, since your Liabilities is set as a debit account. How you currently are set -> Equity = Assets (debit) - Liabilities (debit) It is easier to understand if you change the columns from Increase/Decrease to Credit/Debit. I believe this is changed through Edit > Preferences > Accounts > Labels > Use formal accounting labels. To fix your situation, open up the Loan account and switch columns on the amounts. This will decrease Opening Balances and increase the loan, per your current column headings. This is a snippet of Opening Balances. You see that Opening Balances is debited and the Loan/Liability account credited. I included Petty Cash to show the reverse. Petty Cash is an asset, so it credits Opening Balances and debits Petty cash. This is a student loan Liability account. As you see, the Opening Balance is debited and decreased. The loan is credited and Liabilities increased. As payments are made, the reverse happens. The loan, being a credit account, is debited and the balance decreases. Opening Balances moves closer to 0 as well. The savings account, being a debit account, is credited and the balance decreases. There has been no change in Equity since Liabilities and Assets decresed by the same amount.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "98c5dcb0d753943e9231dbea1e0df135",
"text": "\"Instead of \"\"stocks\"\" I would refer to that asset class as \"\"equity.\"\" Instead of bonds, I would refer to that asset class as \"\"fixed income.\"\" Given that more general terminology, GICs would fit into fixed income.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f7ed281d9e2247fd4711722f1855ffd",
"text": "Private Equity is simply some type of an investment company, which is owned in a way not accessible to the public. ie: Warren Buffet runs Berkshire Hatheway, which is an investment company which itself is traded on the New York Stock Exchange. This means that anyone can buy shares in the company, and own a small fraction of it. If Warren Buffet owned all the shares of Berkshire Hatheway, it would be a Private Equity company. Note that 'Equity' refers to the ownership of the company itself; a private investment company may simply buy Bonds (which are a form of Debt), in which case, they would not be technically considered a 'Private Equity' company. A Hedge Fund is a very broad term which I don't believe has significant meaning. Technically, it means something along the lines of an investment fund (either public or private) which attempts to hedge the risks of its portfolio, by carefully considering what type of investments it purchased. This refers back to the meaning of 'hedge', ie: 'hedging your bets'. In my opinion, 'Hedge Fund' is not meaningfully different from 'investment fund' or other similar terms. It is just the most popular way to refer to this type of industry at the present time. You can see the trend of using the term 'investment fund' vs 'hedge fund' using this link: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=hedge%20fund,investment%20fund Note that the high-point of the use of 'hedge fund' occurred on October 2008, right at the peak of the global financial crisis. The term evokes a certain image of 'high finance' / 'wall-street types' that may exploit various situations (such as tax legislation, or 'secret information') for their own gain. Without a clear definition, however, it is a term without much meaning. If you do a similar comparison between 'hedge fund' and 'private equity', you can see that the two correlate very closely; I believe the term 'private equity' is similarly misused to generally refer to 'investment bankers'. However in that case, 'private equity' has a more clear definition on its own merits.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c0799dfc1e51a71540e0aa8aa6cb460",
"text": "Some qualitative factors to consider when deciding whether to finance with equity vs debt (for a publicly traded company): 1) The case for equity: Is the stock trading high relative to what management believes is its intrinsic value? If so, raising equity may be attractive since management would be raising a lot of $$$, but the downside is you give up future earnings since you are diluting current ownership 2) The case for debt: What is the expected return for the project in which the raised capital will be utilized for? Is its expected return higher than the interest payments (in % terms)? If so raising debt would be more attractive than raising equity since current ownership would not be diluted That's all I can think of off the top of my head right now, I'm sure there are a few more qualitative factors to consider but I think these two are the most intuitive",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "86d74c5991c11c86aa22cd43a0a6a4f4",
"text": "\"Asset = Equity + (Income - Expense) + Liability Everything could be cancelled out in double entry accounting. By your logic, if the owner contributes capital as asset, Equity is \"\"very similar\"\" to Asset. You will end up cancelling everything, i.e. 0 = 0. You do not understate liability by cancelling them with asset. Say you have $10000 debtors and $10000 creditors. You do not say Net Debtors = $0 on the balance sheet. You are challenging the fundamental concepts of accounting. Certain accounts are contra accounts. For example, Accumulated Depreciation is Contra-Asset. Retained Loss and Unrealized Revaluation Loss is Contra-Equity.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5247db998a4f01acf8bf2c77b04a6b9a",
"text": "\"Invest in productive assets and by that I mean companies. Edit: I'll elaborate on \"\"productive assets\"\": any asset that produces something; whether it produces cash or a commodity, you'll automatically accumulate more of its byproduct in the future. The rest is self explanatory\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "980e48c749e05c0432b46adffc11cd8a",
"text": "Imagine a poorly run store in the middle of downtown Manhattan. It has been in the family for a 100 years but the current generation is incompetent regarding running a business. The store is worthless because it is losing money, but the land it is sitting on is worth millions. So yes an asset of the company can be worth more than the entire company. What one would pay for the rights to the land, vs the entire company are not equal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "868c867800a21fde2d526c8ca2aa5885",
"text": "Bank assets are debt. Thus bank equity is a claim on debt. Note also that QE etal dropped interest rates, compressing interest rate spreads and making it harder for banks to make money. Banks do well when interest rates increase",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1af8f838d7041ba6c1066ea564d306ff",
"text": "\"In the case of mutual funds, Net Asset Value (NAV) is the price used to buy and sell shares. NAV is just the value of the underlying assets (which are in turn valued by their underlying holdings and future earnings). So if a fund hands out a billion dollars, it stands to reason their NAV*shares (market cap?) is a billion dollars less. Shareholder's net worth is equal in either scenario, but after the dividend is paid they are more liquid. For people who need investment income to live on, dividends are a cheap way to hold stocks and get regular payments, versus having to sell part of your portfolio every month. But for people who want to hold their investment in the market for a long long time, dividends only increase the rate at which you have to buy. For mutual funds this isn't a problem: you buy the funds and tell them to reinvest for free. So because of that, it's a prohibited practice to \"\"sell\"\" dividends to clients.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c1140caa8335ae427e6326430838e159",
"text": "\"Market cap is synonymous with equity value, which is one way of thinking of a company's \"\"worth.\"\" The alternative would be enterprise value, which is calculated as follows: Enterprise Value = Market Value of Equity + Market Value of Debt - Cash and Equivalents - Non-Operating Assets Enterprise value is essentially \"\"how much is the firm worth to ALL providers of capital.\"\" It can be viewed as \"\"if I wanted to buy the *entire* company, debt and all, what would I have to pay?\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "118c4f391c47a9cef09d2b7a8617650b",
"text": "Assuming you're in the United States, then International Equity is an equity from a different country. These stocks or stock funds (which reside in a foreign country) are broken out seperately becuase they are typically influenced by a different set of factors than equities in the United States: foreign currency swings, regional events and politics of various countries.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f84a8ee420e08c0f644f89ae9183c0bb",
"text": "What exactly does the balance sheet of a software company tell you? The majority of meaningful assets are inside your employees' heads. You can't capitalize R&D and depreciate it, it's a straight flow through to the income statement. And you can't put human capital on a balance sheet. Software firms generally carry little to no debt and their cap structure is almost all equity. What are you going to put up for collateral when your product is bits and bytes?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b93de284953fa5486669f0c77bcc3907",
"text": "You seem to think that the term “held”is used correctly. There lies your logical fallacy. I made no such assumption. In my question I test both the use of the term “US economy” AND the term “held”. It is obvious you can’t “hold” income but if you want to get down to technicalities, both asset and income/expenses are types of accounts while the notion of “trust” is a legal construct to limit the rights of external creditors.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "86002c2881dc80cdb1d691a332a2557e",
"text": "\"1) Are the definitions for capital market from the two sources the same? Yes. They are from two different perspectives. Investopedia is looking at it primarily from the perspective of a trader and they lead-off with the secondary market. This refers to the secondary market: A market in which individuals and institutions trade financial securities. This refers to the primary market: Organizations/institutions in the public and private sectors also often sell securities on the capital markets in order to raise funds. Also, the Investopedia definition leaves much to be desired, but it is supposed to be pithy. So, you are comparing apples and oranges, to some extent. One is an article, as short as it may be, this other one is an entry in a dictionary. 2) What is the opposite of capital market, according to the definition in investopedia? It's not quite about opposites, this is not physics. However, that is not the issue here. The Investopedia definition simply does not mention any other possibilities. The Wikipedia article defines the term more thoroughly. It talks about primary/secondary markets in separate paragraph. 3) According to the Wikipedia's definition, why does stock market belong to capital market, given that stocks can be held less than one year too? If you follow the link in the Wikipedia article to money market: As money became a commodity, the money market is nowadays a component of the financial markets for assets involved in short-term borrowing, lending, buying and selling with original maturities of one year or less. The key here is original maturities of one year or less. Here's my attempt at explaining this: Financial markets are comprised of money markets and capital markets. Money is traded as if it were a commodity on the money markets. Hence, the short-term nature in its definition. They are more focused on the money itself. Capital markets are focused on the money as a means to an end. Companies seek money in these markets for longer terms in order to improve their business in some way. A business may go to the money markets to access money quickly in order to deal with a short-term cash crunch. Meanwhile, a business may go to the capital markets to seek money in order to expand its business. Note that capital markets came first and money markets are a relatively recent development. Also, we are typically speaking about the secondary (capital) market when we are talking about the stock or bond market. In this market, participants are merely trading among themselves. The company that sought money by issuing that stock/bond certificate is out of the picture at that point and has its money. So, Facebook got its money from participants in the primary market: the underwriters. The underwriters then turned around and sold that stock in an IPO to the secondary market. After the IPO, their stock trades on the secondary market where you or I have access to trade it. That money flows between traders. Facebook got its money at the \"\"beginning\"\" of the process.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
36f57a5bf00be1247afa24e040de538f
|
Why is the fractional-reserve banking not a Ponzi scheme?
|
[
{
"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": "b8d65f6a17d78cbd91372e411f776a69",
"text": "\"You are forgetting one crucial point regarding the money supply. The US Federal Reserve increases the money supply, meaning some of the money is not really loaned, it just appears out of nowhere. At first glance this seems even worse: over the short term, the Fed changes the money supply to help the economy in whatever way it sees fit. But over the long term, the money supply increases to reflect economic growth. As new technology is introduced, more can be accomplished with the same labor and resources, and thus the money supply needs to be increased. Money is really just a convenient replacement for the barter system, so if there are more things to barter \"\"for\"\" (goods and services) then there should also be more things to barter \"\"with\"\" (money). Also keep in mind inflation. The cost of goods and services goes up over time due to the inflation of currency, and so the money supply must also be increased so that those goods and services do not artificially increase in value, which would be very bad.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9fbce555811fab43fb0c12e2aa1aa1eb",
"text": "The fundamental underlying difference between a bank and a Ponzi scheme: When a bank lends money and charges interest, people can do things with that borrowed money which are worth it. (Building factories, starting businesses, or just enjoying the comfort and warmth of a single-family home instead of paying rent). This is why fractional-reserve banking is able to work. People may also do things which do not necessarily turn a financial profit (financing large purchases on a credit card) but are worth it in terms of an expenditure. They may also do stupid things (financing useless purchases on a credit card and wasting their money) or otherwise dispose of the money poorly (the new business fails, the home's value plummets, etc). A Ponzi scheme never really bothered to do useful things with the money. Social Security has been mentioned. Part of social security's setup involves the current population of workers paying the current population of retirees; their own retirements will have to be financed by the next generation. This design is not intrinsically a Ponzi scheme: both the population and the economy ought to remain growing for the intermediate future, so there will be at least as much money (and probably much more) for them to pay those bills. Unlike a Ponzi scheme, the idea that it will continue to attract new money to pay out existing claims is a realistic one. The real questions of its sustainability are a matter of specifics: is it collecting enough money to remain functional in the future, or is it outpacing the growth of the economy and the population?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4c79095ed9f562fd20db7f3b2f769ef2",
"text": "\"The Ponzi/Madoff schemes were closed loops, so the only source of the so-called \"\"interest\"\" on the money was the contributions of future investors. The economy is more like a living thing, and the availability of capital allows people to develop new ways to do things in a more productive way. Agriculture is a great example -- for most of human history the overwhelming majority of human labor was dedicated to producing food. Now that proportion is dramatically smaller -- the descendants of farmers 100 years ago are doctors and computer programmers... professions that could not exist. Fractional reserve banking makes the economy more efficient by putting capital that would otherwise be hoarded in circulation. Money is a medium of exchange, so the more it turns over, the better it is. Genoa and Britain pioneered this concept centuries ago, and were able to defeat larger rivals in large part because of the economic advantages that the practice brought to bear. That's not to say that banking doesn't come with its warts as well. I'd suggest reading \"\"A Free Nation Deep in Debt\"\", which does a good job of explaining how we got to where we are today.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "589f78823da1fd3124f90f0df146d4b8",
"text": "No, fractional reserve banking isn't a scam. A simple exercise: replace dollars with time. You're trading some time now for time in the future, plus a bit of extra time. This is only a problem if you promise your entire life away, which we've helpfully outlawed. Once you realize that wealth is the result of human labor, and that money is simply a unit of account for it, it becomes far easier to see how simplistic models don't match reality.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "180a384ba318f5adf1cf20bba265baf2",
"text": "\"It is possible to pay down debt (including interest) without issuing new debt money to pay for it. I think this is the heart of your question. Let me present a highly contrived example in which society has four people and one bank. Here is a bank with $100 in initial deposits. Total money supply in this society is $100. (We assume there is no currency circulating, since you're interested in debt money.) This bank lends out $90 to Bob at 1 year maturity and 10% APR. Bob spends this $90 with Charlie to buy raw materials. Charlie deposits $90 in the bank. The money supply just grew from $100 to $190. Bob does something with the raw materials and adds some kind of value, eventually selling the finished goods for $110. In our little silly economy, the only people who have money are Adam and Charlie, so we must assume that between the two of them they buy $110 worth of goods from Bob. Let's say Adam buys $60 and Charlie buys $50 -- the actual amounts don't matter. Bob deposits this money at the bank. Still $190 of money supply. At the end of 1 year, Bob instructs the bank to transfer payment from his deposit account to his loan account. The bank wipes clean his debt and the money remaining in Bob's account represents his return. Who is this David guy? He's the owner of the bank. He grosses $9 in interest from the loan to Bob, and he pays $5 to Adam as interest on Adam's deposit. The remaining $4 is the profit to the bank's owner. Money supply decreased from $190 to $100 after Bob pays off his loan. I realized after writing this, the one thing I left out is, \"\"where does Adam get $100 to start with?\"\" Presumably Adam starts off with some kind of currency, either fiat money or commodity money. (IOW, debt money can't be created out of nothing, it has to be expanded on top of some kind of currency.)\"",
"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": "ce3b762c2b8c3ab96d27cb56e514b732",
"text": "Holmes, then Senior Vice-President of the New York Federal Reserve, noted that the key Monetarist policy prescription of regulating the economy by “a regular injection of reserves” was based on “a naïve assumption” about the nature of the money creation process: The idea of a regular injection of reserves—in some approaches at least—also suffers from a naïve assumption that the banking system only expands loans after the System (or market factors) have put reserves in the banking system. **In the real world, banks extend credit, creating deposits in the process, and look for the reserves later**. (Alan R. Holmes, 1969, p. 73) Holmes would turn in his grave at Krugman’s naïve assertion, half a century later, that banks need deposits before they can lend. commercial banks can create money out of thin air: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zc_fpGfyqGE&feature=player_detailpage#t=509s http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UL327SJH0xcew&v=327SJH0xcew&feature=player_detailpage#t=597s",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d43a765c37b5c6be67a1a8905054dabd",
"text": "That is kind of the point, one of the hopes is that it incentivizes banks to stop storing money and start injecting it into the economy themselves. Compared to the European Central Bank investing directly into the economy the way the US central bank has been doing. (The Federal Reserve buying mortgage backed securities) On a country level, individual European countries have tried this before in recent times with no noticeable effect.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e488ba73bb1bea39e9b6737e5018779",
"text": "Sorry, but I am absolutely correct. Fractional reserve lending (banking) is simply that when someone deposits money into a bank, the bank is allowed to loan that money out, so long as they keep a reserve. If the reserve rate is 10% (it's much lower in reality), and someone deposits $100 into the bank, the bank can then loan out $90. That is fractional reserve lending at its most basics. Now fractional reserve lending does have a multiplier effect. And this effect is exactly how I described it. Let's go back to the example. Person A deposits the $100, the bank then loans $90 to person B, person B spends it with person C, person C takes the money and deposits back to the bank. Now the bank has the $100 cash back, $90 in loans and the $190 in deposits, so they need to hold onto $19 as a reserve and can loan out $81. Assuming the money cycles with 100% efficiency, the bank can continue loaning out the same money until they are left with $1000 in deposits, $900 in loans, and the original $100 is the reserve. This is the multiplier effect.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "eed081ec371f4f89970eecf6adddb3f4",
"text": "My original statement was answering onefingerattack's query, not strategizing for institutional investors. It's very easy for instituationals to move money across borders into and out of treasuries, and to purchase gold near spot and vault it. For a retailer like onefingerattack, getting money into bitcoin is going to be much easier than opening a foreign bank account, exchanging, and transferring funds. And my point wasn't to say that this was necessarily the best strategy because it is impossible to know. I just linked to an article about the fact that this strategy is being used by other Europeans (although, I think it's more by Greeks who worry about their Euros being nationalized and replaced with a drachma).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "61e9de0710571a2c2f799eafa2dbb293",
"text": "Go for it, name an empire that purchased its own debt historically and survived. Sure, its not a straight up ponzi, but you are too daft to tell its still about as absurd as one. Maybe you can write us a little novel from your finance 101 book, loser. You obviously are great at copying what your finance teachers taught you. Some of us, went a little further in life, little guy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cc7c2a1a259107b06e67961ef331cb51",
"text": "\"I don't agree that the market as a whole is a ponzi scheme, but there are some ponzi-like aspects to it. If you buy high quality stocks like Coca Cola, Johnson and Johnson, AT&T, Verizon, Kraft, Wells Fargo (the vanilla bank, not one of the crazy ones), IBM, Berkshire Hathaway etc and simply hold onto them for the next 10-20 years, you will make money. Even over the last decade, when stocks \"\"went nowhere\"\", you still came out ahead through the dividend payments. It was just at an unsatisfactory rate of return. Also \"\"the market\"\" consists of a lot more than just stocks. Corporate bonds are a big market and I always recommend people to look at bonds. If you cannot judge whether a company is credit worthy, how can you invest in the common stock? I've made a lot more money myself in the bond market than in the stock market. However, for many stocks, they do look a lot like ponzi schemes. This is true, in particular, with many of the tech stocks (Cuban was a tech investor, so that is probably where his sentiment is coming from). You have many of these companies that create great products. However, they never have positive cash flow because all the money is spent to develop new products. As the share price goes up, the company issues new shares to fund research, stock options to employees to enrich them, etc. However, eventually, they run into a string of bad research that do not yield a new product and the share price plunges. Perhaps the company goes bankrupt. So you have a company that developed great products, but the shareholders never got a penny in dividends and the final shareholders have paper worth zero. Take a look at Research in Motion for example. Creating the Blackberry has to be one of the biggest successes in tech over the last decade. However, has the shareholders gotten any richer? Only if they traded amongst themselves, nobody got a dividend. What happened to the many billions of dollars they made during the peak popularity years of Blackberry? It went to executives, employees, and was squandered on development that did not effectively defend the phone's dominant market position. Now the stock price is back down to the pre-prime years, and if a shareholder held onto it throughout the entire period, he would not have received a single penny. And this is a profitable enterprise, things look even more bizarre when you start looking at the tech companies that have NEVER had a positive earnings quarter and no plans to ever have positive earnings (something like Pandora comes to mind). Often, management at these more bizarre companies run the company as a toy - to play with their own ideas and to issue themselves stock as compensation. And of course, they sell a lot of the stock to cash in before they delve into the next risky venture. They have no intention of ever enriching anybody who holds into the stock in the long run. If for some reason they make money, they will put it all into their next toy project until one of them fails and wipes everything out. If you invest in a profitable business with reasonable management, you will generally come out ahead. Some businesses get displaced by unpredictable circumstances and they go bankrupt. But on average, if a company is good at doing something and they pay out the earnings, you come out ahead. You get in trouble when businesses are good at something, and they take all the money they make and put it into doing something they are not good at. A business might only provide good cashflow for 10-20 years when the product is popular and before competitors cut into margins. If that money is squandered, the long term shareholder may ultimately have very terrible results. The long term shareholder ends up being the guy who keeps going all-in on a 80%-chance-to-win bet (that is what management is doing when they bet the company on the next unproven product), but eventually he gets zeroed out on one loss. This is why if you look at Buffett's investments, they are all in simple businesses that spits off cash to the owner/shareholder. Businesses like soft drinks, snacks, rail roads, vanilla banking, utility-like energy companies, insurance, etc. You might be good at judging the odds of whether a business will succeed or not (aka make more money than your original investment or not). But you don't want management of that company to make a wildly different bet for you. Just because they are great at operating a company doesn't mean they are good enough at judging odds or disciplined enough to make those bets for you. I may have predicted accurately that Business X will be a great success, but if manage takes those profits and goes all in on Business Y, without giving me a chance to cash out, that may have disasterous results.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fcfc24656923521c499bc64b56448b3c",
"text": "\"It's not a ponzi scheme, and it does create value. I think you are confusing \"\"creating value\"\" and \"\"producing something\"\". The stock market does create value, but not in the same way as Toyota creates value by making a car. The stock market does not produce anything. The main way money enters the stock market is through investors investing and taking money out. The only other cash flow is in through dividends and out when businesses go public. & The stock market goes up only when more people invest in it. Although the stock market keeps tabs on Businesses, the profits of Businesses do not actually flow into the Stock Market. Earnings are the in-flow that you are missing here. Business profits DO flow back into the stock market through earnings and dividends. Think about a private company: if it has $100,000 in profits for the year then the company keeps $100,000, but if that same company is publicly traded with 100,000 shares outstanding then, all else being equal, each of those shares went up by $1. When you buy stock, it is claimed that you own a small portion of the company. This statement has no backing, as you cannot exchange your stock for the company's assets. You can't go to an Apple store and try to pay with a stock certificate, but that doesn't mean the certificate doesn't have value. Using your agriculture example, you wouldn't be able to pay with a basket of tomatoes either. You wouldn't even be able to pay with a lump of gold! We used to do that. It was called the barter system. Companies also do buy shares back from the market using company cash. Although they usually do it through clearing-houses that are capable of moving blocks of 1,000 shares at a time.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e27e77f9b48e65c7e51b05e7102406c",
"text": "Here's a point in favor of central banks: With a central bank in the middle making sure payments clear, transactions can happen with near perfect trust. When a bank has a daylight overdraft, the Fed covers it. When a bank needs overnight funding, the Fed provides it. If a bank needs vault cash, a truck shows up from the Fed. Without this, no one could ever be entirely confident the other party was money-good. With a volume of transactions that can amount to annual GDP in as little as six days, this level of trust is critical to a smoothly functioning system of payments.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a146fdf08da2e1eb362314864ea79faf",
"text": "All of this makes perfect sense and I can definitely see the logic behind it. But I don't think Hedge Funds are the way to go. The real money lies in real estate, more specifically land-banking. The problem, though, is that a lot of land-banking investments are really just scams and it's really hard to tell which ones are real and which ones are fake.",
"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": "7557b23b6fefdd503cf20a427e9fe37b",
"text": "His argument seems to be all hinging on the seamless transaction/transfer of money (which I do agree is something that can be made much better) but what about other functions that banks do... like lending (mortgages) ect. I don't see how that works on blockchain/bitcoin.. and also I don't see why it has to be Bitcoin and not some competing crypto.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "caef27858c67e7b5f3c23fb8e269812a",
"text": "\"It's a problem from hell because all solutions have drawbacks/unintended consequences and because they are all pretty complex to implement in practice. Breaking up the big banks so that no bank is enough to bring down the economy with it is the strongest move, but is riddled with problems when you start looking at it practically. How do you determine the \"\"maximum size\"\" a bank should have? Should it be based on assets? Systemic importance (i.e. interconnectedness with other banks)? How do you enforce it? Banks will find ways to offload assets, etc. into special purpose corporations to get around the laws somehow. How do you compensate for the fact that size does help financial efficiency in some ways? Imposing higher capital requirements is the next solution. But that too is not so easy to implement with full success in practice. What should be classified as a low-risk asset? How much capital do you require against a CDO vs a Mexican government bond? How often do you need to revise these standards? At what point does the cost of higher capital requirements start to strangle lending and financial flows? The weaker maneuvers are things like constant government-imposed stress tests, orderly resolution mechanisms, higher standards for internal risk management practices, etc. but those may not be adequate and also have their implementation problems.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "98a980cf6b39eb272d0d8c2a02cba413",
"text": "\"A savings account and a checking account (or a \"\"demand\"\" account, or a \"\"transactional\"\" account) have different regulations. For example, fractional reserve requirements are 10% against checking accounts, but 0% against savings accounts. The theory is that savings accounts are sticky, while checking accounts are hot money. So the Fed wants to stop banks from creating accounts that are regulated as savings accounts but have the features of checking accounts. In the past, this was done by forbidding banks to pay interest on checking accounts. They eliminated that rule back in the inflation years, and instead imposed the rule that to qualify as a savings accounts for regulatory purposes, banks must discourage you from using them as transactional accounts. For example, by limiting the number of withdrawals per month that can be made from a savings account. If the Fed gave up on trying to enforce a distinction, I suspect there would soon no longer be a distinction.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "09ec642baa9145d5eefe27e770d22cc7",
"text": "\"I agree with you, but both are bad. What happens with fractional reserve banking is inflation, but this inflation isn't distributed evenly across all the markets, those who the banks lend to are who see the inflation first I.e. the Dow. But nobody gets a loan to buy commodities, so these lag in the inflation. When a recession hits the banks slow their loaning while the commodities play catch-up. During this period it makes more sense to \"\"invest\"\" in commodities than in the majority of businesses. So in an effort to make capital \"\"available\"\" you've created an entire community of investors investing in an unproductive sector for just as long as you had them hyper-investing in productive sectors. Net zero gain, with a decade of time lost. I wont ever believe we need frac reserve lending to have a bank, especially when the bank collapses the currency every 30-50 years. If someone's to loan money they should do it with their own money, with approval, or somehow prevent 2-3-10 people from racing to the same reserve.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
35d296224a8a9b66bfa0f171f5996c11
|
On paper I have 1 share in my company. How can I sell a smaller percentage of my company to another party?
|
[
{
"docid": "76320099a37d8f9f9b4281d18080ef8b",
"text": "Simple: Do a stock split. Each 1 Ordinary share now = 100 Ordinary shares (or 100,000 or whatever you choose). Then sell 20 (or 20,000) of them to your third party. (Stock splits are fairly routine occurrence. Apple for example has done several, most recently in 2014 when 1 share = 7 shares). Alternatively you could go the route of creating a new share class with different rights, preferences etc. But this is more complicated.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eb105d4d0ff779c35ed28a9789e1b869",
"text": "There are 2 basic ways to have someone buy partial ownership of your company: OR If they buy shares that you already own, then their shares will have the same rights as yours (same voting rights, same dividend rights, etc.). If they buy shares newly created from the company, they could be either identical shares to what you already own, or they could be a new class of shares [you may need to adjust the articles of incorporation if you did not plan ahead with multiple share classes]. You really need to talk to a lawyer & tax accountant about this. There are a lot of questions you need to consider here. For example: do you want to use the money in the business, or would you rather have it personally? Are you concerned about losing some control of how the business is run? What are the short term and long-term tax consequences of each method? What does your new partner want in terms of their share class? The answers to these questions will be highly valuable, and likely worth much more than the fees you will need to pay. At the very least, you will likely need a lawyer and accountant anyway to ensure the filings & taxes are done correctly, so better to involve them now, rather than later. There are many other situations to consider here, and an online forum is not the best place to get advice that might put you in a sticky legal situation later on.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "377980a917fdf3518adae2e8dd11af8e",
"text": "Do a share split. Your initial 1 share each becomes 10 (or 100) shares each, then you can sell/gift/etc shares as needed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e0654e7730a0c6596f36a97d8f2e0cc7",
"text": "You actually have a few options. First, you can do a share split and then sell an equal number of shares from both you and your wife to maintain parity. Second, you can have the company issue additional shares/convert shares and then have the company sell the appropriate percentage to the third party while the rest is distributed to you and your wife. Third, you can have the company issue a separate class of stock. For example there are companies that have voting stock and non-voting stock. Depending on your goal, you could just issue non-voting stock and sell that. Best bet is to contact a lawyer who specializes in this type of work and have them recommend a course of action. One caveat that has not been mentioned is that what/how you do this will also depend on the type of corporation that you have created.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1c21c7c12dfb0853ecc3003ed4544234",
"text": "Alot of these answers have focused on the dilution aspect, but from a purely legal aspect, there are usually corporate bylaws that spell out what kind of vote and percentage of votes is needed to take this type of action. If all other holders of stock voted to do this, so 90% for, and you didn't, so 10% against, it's still legal if that vote meets the threshold for taking the action. As an example of this, I known of a startup where employees got $0/share for their vested shares when the company was sold because the voting stock holders agreed to it. Effectively the purchase amount was just enough to cover debts and preferred stock.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "55e504dd2b06ad669db1d5bbf87eb186",
"text": "\"This answer relies on why you are holding shares of a company in the first place. So let's address that: So does this mean you would like to vote with your shares on the directions the company takes? If so, your reasons for selling would be different from the next speculator who only is interested in share price volatility. Regardless of your participation in potential voting rights associated with your share ownership, a different reason to sell is based on if your fundamental reasons for investing in the company have changed. Enhancements on this topic include: Trade management, how to deal with position sizes. Buying and selling partial positions based on price action while keeping a core long term position, but this is not something \"\"long term investors\"\" generally put too much effort in. Price targets, start your long term investment with a price target in mind, derived from a future market cap based on your initial fundamental analysis of the company's prospects. And finally, there are a lot of things you can do with a profitable investment in shares.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "764546861d56bdb5f695573a8b26477b",
"text": "When you own a share, you also own a vote (in most cases). That vote is your means of controlling the assets and management of the company. If you had enough votes and wanted to trade a share for an iPhone or liquidate the company entirely, you could do it. The only thing that prevents you from doing that is that companies are not set up to handle the transaction that way. Stock holders are usually trying to buy investments, not iPhones. There are companies that have more cash in the bank than the market cap (total value) of their stock. They usually don't remain as public companies for long in that case. An investor or group of investors buy them up and split the cash. If you had enough shares of Apple, you could do that to; or, just trade one for an iPhone.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b2738c0375134805211b8f5125af7ab",
"text": "\"For new shares to be successfully sold, the price has to be below market price. If you currently own shares of that company, you should always get an option to buy those newly sold shares at that discounted price. The number of options depends on the relative number of shares you hold. Lets say you own 100 out of 1000 shares, currently priced at $10. 100 new shares are to be sold at $9. Since you are holding 10% of all shares, you have the option (i.e. the right) to buy 10 new (cheaper) shares (10% of 100) before anybody else can buy them. Theoretically, the money you save by getting the shares at a discounted price is equal to the money you lose by the share's value being diluted. So, if you're a shareholder and the company is increasing it's capital, you're given the right to \"\"go with it\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5467dcadbea676578ee66dca23e951b4",
"text": "\"I think it's easiest to illustrate it with an example... if you've already read any of the definitions out there, then you know what it means, but just don't understand what it means. So, we have an ice cream shop. We started it as partners, and now you and I each own 50% of the company. It's doing so well that we decide to take it public. That means that we will be giving up some of our ownership in return for a chance to own a smaller portion of a bigger thing. With the money that we raise from selling stocks, we're going to open up two more stores. So, without getting into too much of the nitty gritty accounting that would turn this into a valuation question, let's say we are going to put 30% of the company up for sale with these stocks, leaving you and me with 35% each. We file with the SEC saying we're splitting up the company ownership with 100,000 shares, and so you and I each have 35,000 shares and we sell 30,000 to investors. Then, and this depends on the state in the US where you're registering your publicly traded corporation, those shares must be assigned a par value that a shareholder can redeem the shares at. Many corporations will use $1 or 10 cents or something nominal. And we go and find investors who will actually pay us $5 per share for our ice cream shop business. We receive $150,000 in new capital. But when we record that in our accounting, $5 in total capital per share was contributed by investors to the business and is recorded as shareholder's equity. $1 per share (totalling $30,000) goes towards actual shares outstanding, and $4 per share (totalling $120,000) goes towards capital surplus. These amounts will not change unless we issue new stocks. The share prices on the open market can fluctuate, but we rarely would adjust these. Edit: I couldn't see the table before. DumbCoder has already pointed out the equation Capital Surplus = [(Stock Par Value) + (Premium Per Share)] * (Number of Shares) Based on my example, it's easy to deduce what happened in the case you've given in the table. In 2009 your company XYZ had outstanding Common Stock issued for $4,652. That's probably (a) in thousands, and (b) at a par value of $1 per share. On those assumptions we can say that the company has 4,652,000 shares outstanding for Year End 2009. Then, if we guess that's the outstanding shares, we can also calculate the implicit average premium per share: 90,946,000 ÷ 4,652,000 == $19.52. Note that this is the average premium per share, because we don't know when the different stocks were issued at, and it may be that the premiums that investors paid were different. Frankly, we don't care. So clearly since \"\"Common Stock\"\" in 2010 is up to $9,303 it means that the company released more stock. Someone else can chime in on whether that means it was specifically a stock split or some other mechanism... it doesn't matter. For understanding this you just need to know that the company put more stock into the marketplace... 9,303 - 4,652 == 4,651(,000) more shares to be exact. With the mechanics of rounding to the thousands, I would guess this was a stock split. Now. What you can also see is that the Capital Surplus also increased. 232,801 - 90,946 == 141,855. The 4,651,000 shares were issued into the market at an average premium of 141,855 ÷ 4,651 == $30.50. So investors probably paid (or were given by the company) an average of $31.50 at this split. Then, in 2011 the company had another small adjustment to its shares outstanding. (The Common Stock went up). And there was a corresponding increase in its Capital Surplus. Without details around the actual stock volumes, it's hard to get more exact. You're also only giving us a portion of the Balance Sheet for your company, so it's hard to go into too much more detail. Hopefully this answers your question though.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c155874c7279f71fc25c1389ef829205",
"text": "My broker offers a service to transfer the shares where you only pay commission once. Therefore say if standard commission is £10, then you don't end up paying £20 (10 for selling + 10 for buy back). You'll have to be okay with the spread though. Hope this helps.",
"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": "47bf776843d018598f96343213a8cc9a",
"text": "I am not required to hold any company stock. I also have an ESOP plan carrying a similar number of shares in company stock. So if it were to be sold, what would the recommendation be to replace it? I can move the shares into any option shown, and have quite a few others. Not dealing with any huge amounts, just a 4.5% contribution over three years (so far).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0dba28ff9b2908da6f4be7d5ec49557e",
"text": "Let's take a step back. My fictional company 'A' is a solid, old, established company. It's in consumer staples, so people buy the products in good times and bad. It has a dividend of $1/yr. Only knowing this, you have to decide how much you would be willing to pay for one share. You might decide that $20 is fair. Why? Because that's a 5% return on your money, 1/20 = 5%, and given the current rates, you're happy for a 5% dividend. But this company doesn't give out all its earnings as a dividend. It really earns $1.50, so the P/E you are willing to pay is 20/1.5 or 13.3. Many companies offer no dividend, but of course they still might have earnings, and the P/E is one metric that used to judge whether one wishes to buy a stock. A high P/E implies the buyers think the stock will have future growth, and they are wiling to pay more today to hold it. A low P/E might be a sign the company is solid, but not growing, if such a thing is possible.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e799c366e323ebc0784a882dacfa5788",
"text": "What percent of a company are you buying when you purchase stock? The percent of a company represented by a single share can be calculated by percent = 1/number_of_shares*100% Apple comprises 5,250,000,000 shares, so one share makes up about 1.9e-8% of a company, or 0.000000019% of Apple.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6fabbdbd646deebfed2e6ce56a9ae822",
"text": "\"If you own 1% of a company, you are technically entitled to 1% of the current value and future profits of that company. However, you cannot, as you seem to imply, just decide at some point to take your ball and go home. You cannot call up the company and ask for 1% of their assets to be liquidated and given to you in cash. What the 1% stake in the company actually entitles you to is: 1% of total shareholder voting rights. Your \"\"aye\"\" or \"\"nay\"\" carries the weight of 1% of the total shareholder voting block. Doesn't sound like much, but when the average little guy has on the order of ten-millionths of a percentage point ownership of any big corporation, your one vote carries more weight than those of millions of single-share investors. 1% of future dividend payments made to shareholders. For every dollar the corporation makes in profits, and doesn't retain for future growth, you get a penny. Again, doesn't sound like much, but consider that the Simon property group, ranked #497 on the Fortune 500 list of the world's biggest companies by revenue, made $1.4 billion in profits last year. 1% of that, if the company divvied it all up, is $14 million. If you bought your 1% stake in March of 2009, you would have paid a paltry $83 million, and be earning roughly 16% on your initial investment annually just in dividends (to say nothing of the roughly 450% increase in stock price since that time, making the value of your holdings roughly $460 million; that does reduce your actual dividend yield to about 3% of holdings value). If this doesn't sound appealing, and you want out, you would sell your 1% stake. The price you would get for this total stake may or may not be 1% of the company's book value. This is for many reasons: Now, to answer your hypothetical: If Apple's stock, tomorrow, went from $420b market cap to zero, that would mean that the market unanimously thought, when they woke up tomorrow morning, that the company was all of a sudden absolutely worthless. In order to have this unanimous consent, the market must be thoroughly convinced, by looking at SEC filings of assets, liabilities and profits, listening to executive statements, etc that an investor wouldn't see even one penny returned of any cash investment made in this company's stock. That's impossible; the price of a share is based on what someone will pay to have it (or accept to be rid of it). Nobody ever just gives stock away for free on the trading floor, so even if they're selling 10 shares for a penny, they're selling it, and so the stock has a value ($0.001/share). We can say, however, that a fall to \"\"effectively zero\"\" is possible, because they've happened. Enron, for instance, lost half its share value in just one week in mid-October as the scope of the accounting scandal started becoming evident. That was just the steepest part of an 18-month fall from $90/share in August '00, to just $0.12/share as of its bankruptcy filing in Dec '01; a 99.87% loss of value. Now, this is an extreme example, but it illustrates what would be necessary to get a stock to go all the way to zero (if indeed it ever really could). Enron's stock wasn't delisted until a month and a half after Enron's bankruptcy filing, it was done based on NYSE listing rules (the stock had been trading at less than a dollar for 30 days), and was still traded \"\"over the counter\"\" on the Pink Sheets after that point. Enron didn't divest all its assets until 2006, and the company still exists (though its mission is now to sue other companies that had a hand in the fraud, get the money and turn it around to Enron creditors). I don't know when it stopped becoming a publicly-traded company (if indeed it ever did), but as I said, there is always someone willing to buy a bunch of really cheap shares to try and game the market (buying shares reduces the number available for sale, reducing supply, increasing price, making the investor a lot of money assuming he can offload them quickly enough).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac5f6d63f5ddfbe95132e9cb560a5580",
"text": "Get involved a lawyer and Accountant. Without it you may not be sure what you are getting. What exactly will 30% mean for me? It will mean exactly what gets written in contract. It can mean you are owner of 30% of the company. If this is structured as partnership, it would also mean you are party to 30% loss. It can mean by current valuation, you get x fixed shares. In future if the directors creates more shares, your % ownership can get diluted. Or anything else. It all depends on what is written in contract and how the contract is structured. Is there anything I should I be aware of before agreeing? Get a draft and talk to a Lawyer and Accountant, they should be able to tell you exactly what it means and you can then decide if you agree to it or not; or need this contract worded differently.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6812554ac6a6fe2c714ab6e6f19a657c",
"text": "\"Note that these used to be a single \"\"common\"\" share that has \"\"split\"\" (actually a \"\"special dividend\"\" but effectively a split). If you owned one share of Google before the split, you had one share giving you X worth of equity in the company and 1 vote. After the split you have two shares giving you the same X worth of equity and 1 vote. In other words, zero change. Buy or sell either depending on how much you value the vote and how much you think others will pay (or not) for that vote in the future. As Google issues new shares, it'll likely issue more of the new non-voting shares meaning dilution of equity but not dilution of voting power. For most of us, our few votes count for nothing so evaluate this as you will. Google's founders believe they can do a better job running the company long-term when there are fewer pressures from outside holders who may have only short-term interests in mind. If you disagree, or if you are only interested in the short-term, you probably shouldn't be an owner of Google. As always, evaluate the facts for yourself, your situation, and your beliefs.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc0dbc945e6127197dd228d104daa605",
"text": "If you're thinking of going back to your home country, you need to check whether you're allowed to keep foreign accounts once back there. In some countries having a foreign account may be illegal. In this case - don't contribute to 401K as you'll have to withdraw, and pay the penalty. If, however, your country of origin doesn't care about you having an account in the US - keep it, and contribute, because then you'll achieve these nice things:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5b58d203013c024c3657a62f4153e2b6",
"text": "In the US, and I suspect in most of the developed world, one major point of a corporation is limited liability. The stockholders are not on the hook for liabilities beyond their investment. If the company does something terrible, or fails economically, it goes bankrupt. Usually the stockholders have their investment wiped out, but they are guaranteed that they do not have to pay more in to any settlement.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ad012a262c78c39430b4a302d61702ad
|
I received $1000 and was asked to send it back. How was this scam meant to work?
|
[
{
"docid": "ab9f280a4c83f71970a17ce68cebc63f",
"text": "\"This is a very trivial scam. Flow is like this: Send money to Mr. X (you, in this case). Call Mr. X and ask for the money back, because mistake. Usually they ask for a wire transfer/cash/gift cards/prepaid cards or something else irreversible/untraceable. Mr. X initiates transfer back to Scammer. Accept the transfer from Mr. X Dispute the original transfer or otherwise cancel it through the netbank Mr. X cannot dispute his transfer to the Scammer, since it was genuinely and intentionally initiated by Mr. X. End up with twice the money, at the expense of Mr. X In other countries this is usually done with forged checks, but transfers can work just as well. As long as the transfer can be retroactively canceled or reversed - the scam works. You mentioned money laundering - this is definitely a possibility as well. They transfer dirty money to you from unidentified sources, and you send a \"\"gift\"\" to them with a clear paper trail. When the audit comes - the only proof is that you actually sent them the gift, and no-one will believe your story. You'll have to explain why the Mr. Z who's now in jail sent you a $1K of his drug money. However, in this case I think it is more likely a scam, and the scammer didn't really know what he was doing...\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "61107244a7aeebff7fdc6c97f2cf385e",
"text": "\"This is almost certainly a scam or a mistake. This is not good, spendable money: it is not yours to keep. Very simple to handle. Tell the bank, in writing that you were not expecting to receive this money and are a bit surprised to receive it. Preferably in a way that creates a paper trail. And then stop talking. Why? Because you honestly don't know. This puts you at arm's length to the money: disavowing it, but not refusing it. Wildest dreams: nobody wants it back ever. As for the person bugging you for the cash, tell them nothing except work with their own bank. Then ignore them completely. He probably hacked someone else, diverted their money into your account, and he's conning you into transferring it to a third location: him. Leaving you holding the bag when the reversals hit months later. He doesnt want you reversing; that would return the money to the rightful owner! He works this scam on dozens of people, and he wins if some cooperate. Now here's the hard part. Wait. This is not drama or gossip, you do not need to keep people updated. You are not a bank fraud officer who deals with the latest scams everyday, you don't know what the heck you are doing in this area of practice. (In fact, playing amateur sleuth will make you suspicious). There is nothing for you to do. That urge to \"\"do something\"\" is how scammers work on you. And these things take time. Not everyone banks in real time on smartphone apps. Of course scammers target those who'd be slow to notice; this game is all about velocity. Eventually (months), one of two things is likely to happen. The transfer is found to be fraudulent and the bank reverses it, and they slap you with penalties and/or the cops come knockin'. You refer them to the letter you sent, explaining your surprise at receiving it. That letter is your \"\"get out of jail free\"\" card. The other person works with their bank and claws back the money. One day it just disappears. (not that this is your problem, but they'd file a dispute with their bank, their bank talks to your bank, your bank finds your letter, oh, ok.) If a year goes by and neither of these things happens, you're probably in the clear. Don't get greedy and try to manipulate circumstances so you are more likely to keep the money. Scammers prey on this too. I think the above is your best shot.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e1246ac2c44c05963a52453c41123bfd",
"text": "Possible ways they could make money (or think they could): I would go back through your transaction history and see if it's disappeared. Even with an assumed-rubbish interface finding a reversal of the transaction should be easy as you know the amount. I wouldn't spend it for a very long time if it is still there, just in case my last bullet applies. Given what they knew about you (phone number and account details) I'd be wary enough to keep an eye on all my accounts, possibly wary enough to consider credit monitoring in case they try to open other accounts with your details. Although of course plenty of people have legitimate reasons to have this information - if you've written a cheque the account details will be on it, and you might well be in the phone book or otherwise searchable.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f8cce2f339370e5c46053049133a94d",
"text": "\"It could be money laundering. so: Answer 1: They didn't get your data wrong. They indeed sent you $1,000. How they obtained your banking data is another issue we won't address here. Answer 2: Your PII(*) was most likely compromised. From what you report, it included at least your banking info and your phone number. Probably more, but goes out of the scope of this answer. Answer 3: Money Laundering is done in small transactions, to avoid having the financial institution filing a Currency Transaction Report(**). So they send $1,000 to several marks. Possibly at the stage of layering, to smudge out the paper trail associated to the money. Money laudering is a risky endeavour, and the criminals don't expect to have all the money they enter into the system come out clean on the other side. You really don't want to be associated with that cash, so the best is to report to your bank that you don't recognize that transaction and suspect illegal activity. In writing. Your financial institution knows how to proceed from there. Answer 4: Yes, and one of the worst financial scams. From drug trafficking, to human slavery and terrorism, that money could be supporting any of these activities. I urge the reader to access the US Treasury's \"\"National Money Laudering Risk Assessment\"\" report for more information.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c11d7a77d2a43c2551ee2393b41ef7bf",
"text": "\"There are three possibilities. This is a scam, as others have pointed out, it works by you sending money, then them stopping the original transfer, meaning you sent them your money and not theirs. They make money cause a stop payment only costs $50 (or around there) but you sent $1,000. So they profit $950. You lose $1,000 and maybe some processing fees. This is money hiding, or money laundering. They send you $1,000 in drug money, you send them $1,000 in \"\"clean\"\" money. You don't lose any money. But they gain a clear paper trail. With large sums of money (in the U.S. anything over $5k) you have to prove a paper trail. They just did. You gifted it to them. On your end, it looks like you just profited from illegal activity, which in the worst case ends in confiscation of ALL your assets and jail time. It might not come to that, but it could. This was an honest mistake, by an idiot. It is possible to wire a complete stranger money. If you make a mistake on the wire transfer forms, and the account number exists, it will go through. Now what makes the sender an idiot is not the mistake. We all do that. It's the fact that banks have a built in system for handling these mistakes. Simply put, you can make a stop payment. It's around $50 (varies by bank and sometimes amount transferred), it's easy to do, and almost automatic. If you tell a bank rep that you made a mistake they will likely have you fill out a paper, and in many cases will \"\"just take care of it\"\". If \"\"the idiot\"\" didn't want to tell the bank of the mistake, or didn't ask for help, or didn't want to pay the fee. Then maybe they would contact the receiving party. But that's pretty dumb. Resolution The resolution in all cases is the same. Visit your local branch, or send in writing, an explanation: \"\"I found $1,000 in my bank account that I didn't put there, and got this email (see attached print out). Please advise.\"\" They will \"\"freeze\"\" the $1,000 (or maybe the account but I have never seen that) while they investigate. You won't be able to spend it, they might even remove it pending the investigation. They will contact the bank that issued the transfer and attempt to sort things out. You shouldn't be charged anything. You also won't get to keep the money. Eventually the bank will send you a letter stating what happened with the investigation. And the money will vanish from your account. Specific questions I wanted to state the information above even though it doesn't address your concerns directly because it is important. To address your specific questions: Question 1) Surely bank account numbers have a checksum, which make it relatively difficult for a typo to result in a payment going to the wrong person? Nope, that's up to each bank. Usually the account numbers are not sequential, but there is no \"\"checksum\"\" either. Just like credit cards, there are rules, but once you know those rules you can generate fake ones all day long. In some cases, account numbers 5487-8954-7854 and 5487-8945-7854 are both valid. It happens. Question 2) What are likely sources of them being able to find my phone number to call me? Phone numbers are not private. Not even close. Phone books, Google, Websites, etc etc. if you think your phone number is in any way a secret then your totally misinformed. Account numbers are not a secret either. Especially bank account numbers. You could totally just call a bank, and say \"\"What is the name on account 12345?\"\" and they would tell you. Checks have your name and account number on them, as do MANY documents from a bank. So anything from asking the bank, to finding a copy of a check or document in the trash are valid ways to make the link. Question 3) How were they expecting to benefit? See options 1 and 2 above. If is is really option 3, then your bank should have directed the money back. But if the person was so messed up as you say, the account may have been closed and \"\"written off\"\". When that happens a lot of weird stuff can happen. Essentially the bank is \"\"taking a loss\"\" of money and doesn't want the money back even if the account was closed with a negative balance. Usually though contract with debt collectors, they may have already been \"\"paid\"\" for that debt, and are not allowed to take the money back. These things happen, but it seems like a pretty odd set of things that need to line up for #3 to be valid. About your Length of time Usually these things resolve in less then 90 days. Usually far less. At the 90 day mark, it gets really hard to reverse a transaction. It's possible that it was a scam and so many people fell for it that the scammers just let you keep the money instead of \"\"highlighting\"\" their scam. The fact that your using a \"\"net bank\"\" means that your can't go in person, but you should get details in writing. State the transaction number (it should be in your account records) and ask them for a \"\"letter of resolution\"\" or some form of official document stating the outcome of their investigation. I suspect that no one every really investigated the issue and the rep you spoke to never did anything then ask you to ask them to fill out a stop payment. You need a record of trying to sort this out. You don't want to up for some legal battle 10 years from now because someone found out that the money was part of a pool that was used to fund some terrorist group or some such. So get a paper trail, then go with what the bank says.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f9c30016f089c93861704bcc73a9017c",
"text": "This was most likely a scam, although I do know of cases where a transfer intended for one company ended up in the bank account of another company. I am not entirely sure what happened afterwards, but I think the receiving company was asked to return the transfer back to the originating account. Still, even if this was the case, they wouldn't have just abandoned $1k for a simple administration fee (if there was even any). It doesn't sound logical.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d5def564824c8bcbc4e68db1a556af97",
"text": "\"OK, there is no way in hell that a stranger should have your contact details. there is no way in hell that a stranger should be able to determine your name from that account number unless you are previously known to them. Have they explained to your satisfaction how any previous relationship was established? It was correct to direct them back to their own bank or their branch manager if they bank with the CBA. There are procedures in place for this, and you are in the clear if the bank handles it. Even there is a previous relationship, and you are in their address book, think long and hard about their \"\"bona fides\"\". It may not have been a scam they may have had fat fingers and be genuinely out of pocket now. It is SOP that if you refuse to refund the money the banks will become less helpful. (EDIT - you have consented to retrun the money). EDIT - IF you had not consented... Disclosure: I am a former CBA employee and a 20 year veteran of NetBank, and these are my own opinions.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af187814bd6060f3c39ca5ee90a05872",
"text": "I would have asked for the intended recipient's account number and pursue sending the money there. If it's the same as yours (except for one digit) that would be a good sign. But even here, the crook could send money to dozens of different accounts, all off by one digit, just to make it look authentic. I'm going with scam just to be safe. As for the checksum, it's used on paper checks (next to the last digit) but not necessarily the actual account. Credit card accounts use an algorithm, but online tools create as many legitimate character strings as you want. I used to work at a credit union, and when the time was just right, I opened account number 860000 (actual account number except for the second digit). All their account numbers were sequential, so the oldest account number was 000001. Sadly, many important systems are set up to meet the simple needs of the masses, and are easy to beat if you really want to. Check out If you dare hackers to hack you, they'll hack you good.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3179e94f6575f62b120ad585ad7631fc",
"text": "\"Answers to your questions: (1) Do bank account numbers have a checksum. NO. (2) Is it plausible that they found out your number after sending you the money by \"\"accident\"\". NO. There is no way to find out who possesses a particular bank account just by the number. Also, how they even know they made a mistake? They targeted you and knew who you were and your bank account number before the \"\"money\"\" was sent. (3 and 4) Is this a scam? YES. They never paid you any money. They forged a check for a large amount and deposited it in an account. Then divided it up, wiring pieces to multiple people, all of whom they investigated beforehand. Since it is a bank to bank transfer it clears. Once the forgery is discovered, all the transfers will be unwound. If you had sent them money, you would have lost that money. Other things to note: There is zero chance of a wire transfer going to the wrong person because the sender has to list the name and address on the account as well as the number. You basically did the right thing which is to notify your bank that you received an unauthorized transfer into your account. Never accept money into your account from someone you don't know. If money \"\"appears\"\" in your account tell the bank it is an error and probably proceeds from a forgery and they will take care of it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ade9e9453e39272b378323c795f6e9a8",
"text": "The initial story sounds normal. Happens every day. Checksums cannot prevent this, since it is a typo by the sender. The sender typed in a wrong account number. That account number happened to exist (so the sender wouldn't get any immediate error message), your account. But, that innocent story can also be used as part of a money laundering plan. Namely, to give the money a legitimate source. Also can be used in a scheme to frame you for something. The question of how the person got your phone number raises suspicion. The bluffs to avoid the normal paperwork, and then disappearing, make it incriminating. No doubt. Take this to the police. The question arises: even if the plan (whatever it was) failed, why didn't he do the paperwork and get the money back? The answer is that that would leave a trail to possibly be picked up in a future investigation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "27b6d72f19fc2bcb72165db919317fab",
"text": "\"Most answers have concentrated on this being a scam, however, it is possible this is an innocent mistake. Australian bank account numbers do not have redundant digits to be used to validate an account number; all of the numbers are data and uniquely identify a bank and branch (the BSB number) and an account (the Account number). Computer check digits are not part of bank account numbers because bank account numbers pre-date computers. It is entirely possible that someone entering an incorrect number can, by chance, hit upon an existing account. As the bank clearance system in Australia is entirely automatic there is no cross-checking of account numbers with account names. Internet banking in Australia is not a wire-transfer as is common in places like the USA (although these can be done): here you are effectively accessing your bank's \"\"back office\"\". Nor is it like the BPay service which is used primarily by B to C businesses as a way for their customers to pay their bills; when using this service the biller code will show you who you are paying and the customer number does have check digit validation. I run a business in Australia and it has happened to us on several occasions than an employee or supplier has given us incorrect numbers. Usually, it is not a real account and after a week or so the money makes its way back to us with a message like NO ACCOUNT or A/C CLOSED. Very occasionally, however, the wrong number hits a live account: when that happens the person who f*&ked up needs to contact their bank and try and get the transaction reversed. If there is money in the destination account this usually happens with little fuss, however, if the destination account has been closed or emptied things get problematic. Of course, taking money that isn't yours is stealing even if it happens to be sitting in your bank account. However, unless the sum involved is significant the police are usually not interested in diverting their attention away from \"\"serious\"\" crimes like homicide, armed robbery and terrorism so the aggrieved party is usually on their own. That said, this is probably a scam because they called you rather than your bank doing so. They cannot get your phone number from your account number: they have to know who you are and what your account number is. This is not as hard to do as it sounds since both your name and account number are prominently printed on your cheques and deposit books (possibly your phone number as well which saves them looking it up in the White Pages).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f01187f9acffaf8747493180e29f7a3a",
"text": "I've skimmed through the answers given and I'd like do add another possible scenario. I've recently heard about this exact thing happening to someone only the money originally was a loan taken in the receivers name. 1) Scumbag finds out personal data – including social number, bank account and phone – of Innocent Victim. 2) Scumbag takes out a loan in the name of Innocent Victim. The money are sent to IV's account. 3) Scumbag calls IV saying 'Oh, I've made a mistake, blah, blah, yada, yada. Could you please send the money back to me? My bank account is...' 4) Innocent Victim, being the good guy that he/she is, of course want to help out and send the money to Scumbag. 5) Scumbag makes a cash withdrawal and is no longer anywhere to be found and Innocent Victim is left with a loan but no money.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1b7ab6c8cdbaa615eef966f78dbeeb2d",
"text": "\"You get to keep the money if, and only if, you confirm with both parties (the loan and the mattress companies) that you received a refund twice, and both parties agree that they know that with no miscommunication, and they both agree to let you keep it. In writing. And even then it might be shifty depending on amounts. Generally speaking, you should not consider the money yours. It was refunded in error, after all. And it would have made more sense to confirm your communication before you deposited it, and you maybe shouldn't have moved it into savings, either - that looks kinda shifty, like keeping the money unavailable. Planning to keep it - or even just keep it \"\"till the shoe drops\"\" - looks an awful lot like fraud. As in, the crime. Taking or keeping money that doesn't belong to you, when you know it doesn't belong to you, is stealing. Since you know you got the payment in error, it is your responsibility to make at minimum a reasonable effort to make sure the money goes where it was intended to go - and by \"\"reasonable effort\"\" I mean roughly what kind of effort the companies should put in, in your view, if the error had worked out the other way with neither paying you back. At what point, if any, should they consider the money theirs, in the reversed situation? Depending on the amount involved, and the companies' attitudes, it is possible (not necessarily likely, but possible) that each company will hear your story, and respond (confirmed, in writing) that they have no problem letting you keep the payment from their company. In the companies' view, this might be about how much it would cost to recoup the amount (and is thus more likely for very small amounts), or else writing off the cost for customer service or PR. If both companies do this, you have the money free and clear. But I would not depend on this, companies have just as much reason to want money as you do - especially when belongs to them.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "16e013dd52ed1d3c03a5c5567b83da8c",
"text": "\"I'm guessing since I don't know the term, but it sounds like you're asking about the technique whereby a loan is used to gather multiple years' gift allowance into a single up-front transfer. For the subsequent N years, the giver pays the installments on the loan for the recipient, at a yearly amount small enough to avoid triggering Gift Tax. You still have to pay income tax on the interest received (even though you're giving them the money to pay you), and you must charge a certain minimum interest (or more accurately, if you charge less than that they tax you as if the loan was earning that minimum). Historically this was used by relatively wealthy folks, since the cost of lawyers and filing the paperwork and bookkeeping was high enough that most folks never found out this workaround existed, and few were moving enough money to make those costs worthwhile. But between the \"\"Great Recession\"\" and the internet, this has become much more widely known, and there are services which will draw up standard paperwork, have a lawyer sanity-check it for your local laws, file the official mortgage lien (not actually needed unless you want the recipient to also be able to write off the interest on their taxes), and provide a payments-processing service if you do expect part or all of the loan to be paid by the recipient. Or whatever subset of those services you need. I've done this. In my case it cost me a bit under $1000 to set up the paperwork so I could loan a friend a sizable chunk of cash and have it clearly on record as a loan, not a gift. The amount in question was large enough, and the interpersonal issues tricky enough, that this was a good deal for us. Obviously, run the numbers. Websearching \"\"family loan\"\" will find much more detail about how this works and what it can and can't do, along with services specializing in these transactions. NOTE: If you are actually selling something, such as your share of a house, this dance may or may not make sense. Again, run the numbers, and if in doubt get expert advice rather than trusting strangers on the web. (Go not to the Internet for legal advice, for it shall say both mu and ni.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "364aa391ce2767ea2480cbba56ed93eb",
"text": "> 1. What exactly happens when I deposit $1000 to the bank? Does it lend to other parties $900 of what I have given them? Yep. > Or it turns my whole deposit into their reserve, then borrows $9000 from the central bank, and lends this sum to their customers? No, the bank can't loan more money than it has in deposits. Note that this does create money because, in this example, the bank loaned someone $900 but it still owes you $1000. > 2. What happens when I'll make final payment on my loan? Is this a different example or are we assuming your original $1000 was loaned to you? Regardless, every time you make a payment on a loan the bank can re-loan that money to someone else. > Does the bank also pay its base to the central bank (+ base interest rate) and keeps only their interests? The central bank has not been involved in this transaction so it doesn't receive anything. > Does the central bank remove from the circulation money it received back? Yes but I think you're switching topics. A central bank's transactions are more about managing the money supply and inflation of a [fiat currency](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_money#Money_creation_and_regulation). Ideally a central bank trades a bank's paper assets for reserves adding or subtracting to the bank's ability to issue loans.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4460aa5eb5a249d9056dd222a6242b4f",
"text": "\"Some rich people want to make money without working. So they give their money to a company like Apollo Global Management, and then Apollo Global Management takes the money that they were given and decides how they will turn that money into more money, which they can give back to the person who gave it to them. That money they give back is called return, or \"\"return on investment.\"\" That's how the person who gave the money, makes money -- from return on investment. The company's only real purpose is to make money with the money you give them. The company takes the money and sometimes they let other companies borrow that money, either for a long period of time or short period of time. They have different things called stocks, bonds, commodities and other things that they trade back and forth, and they only hope that they will make money doing it. It is sort of like they are going to work and playing the lottery every day, except, they do a lot of math to try and figure out how they can win the money from other companies as quick as possible. Instead of buying lotto tickets, they are buying those things I mentioned, stocks, bonds, commodities, and other things. By buying or selling these things, they are betting that a company will either make or lose money. It is basically like a game, with you and other people and companies, all as players. You are betting that the other players in the game will either make or lose money, based on what you see other players doing. As a player, you can win big or small, and you can lose big or small. There's a thing called the SEC. To play the game, you have to follow the rules that the SEC makes, or you will end up in jail! They are like the police, they are looking for people who do bad things. When you are older, you can make a lot of money if you work at a company like Apollo, but you can make more money than a lottery winner if you own a company yourself like Apollo.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "75512ce75caa5622bf1637df2265689e",
"text": "\"How can I say this more clearly? SCAM, SCAM, SCAM! This is another one of the oldest scams out there, where you've won a prize or an inheritance has come in, and all you have to do is pay the taxes on it to claim it. Don't be a sucker! Ask yourself why the government couldn't (and wouldn't) just take the taxes due out of the funds they have and give the rest to the person they belong to? Wouldn't that be the smartest and easiest thing to do? As an example, let's say that you have $1,000 that belongs to me, and I owe you $100. Would you tell me to pay you the $100 and then you'll give me the $1,000 or would you take the $100 I owe you out of the $1,000 and give me the remaining $900? The fact this is someone you know from the internet and they want your \"\"help\"\" to claim their money should tell you how much of a scam this is. Stop talking to this person, and don't tell them anything personal about you. They are scam artists, and whatever you tell them could be used to steal your identity or take your money. Be careful, my friend!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "75c4f6840c9c634feb441c398ad5ac39",
"text": "There are lots of red flags here that point to an obvious scam. First, no one, not even people close to you, ever have a valid reason to get your password or security questions. EVER. The first thing they will do is clean out the account you gave them. The second thing they will do is clean out any account of yours that uses the same password. Second, no one ever needs to run money through your account for any reason. If its not your money, don't take it. Third, this person is in the army but was deported to Africa (not to any particular country, just Africa), and is still in the army? This doesn't really make sense at all. This is a blatant obvious scam.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a0fd3892b5b4a6ff7c51355d21f1b976",
"text": "For the US government, they've just credited Person B with a Million USD and haven't gained anything (afterall, those digits are intangible and don't really have a value, IMO). Two flaws in this reasoning: The US government didn't do anything. The receiving bank credited the recipient. If the digits are intangible, such that they haven't gained anything, they haven't lost anything either. In practice, the role of governments in the transfer is purely supervisory. The sending bank debits the sender's account and the receiving bank credits the recipient's account. Every intermediary makes some money on this transaction because the cost to the sender exceeds the credit to the recipient. The sending bank typically receives a credit to their account at a correspondent bank. The receiving bank typically receives a debit from their account at a correspondent bank. If a bank sends lots of money, eventually its account at its correspondent will run dry. If a bank receives lots of money, eventually its account at its correspondent will have too much money. This is resolved with domestic payments, sometimes handled by governmental or quasi-governmental agencies. In the US, banks have an account with the federal reserve and adjust balances there. The international component is handled by the correspondent bank(s). They also internally will credit and debit. If they get an imbalance between two currencies they can't easily correct, they will have to sell one currency to buy the other. Fortunately, worldwide currency exchange is extremely efficient.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b0a2658de998d12d9dc39a6ad99053ba",
"text": "\"This is not only a scam but it is potentially fraud that may get you in trouble. This \"\"friend\"\" of yours will wire you some money in which you do not know where this money is really from. It's obvious from other answers that his story is fictitious. Thus it is likely that this money was stolen through another scam/hack in which now he wants to wash this money through your bank account. If it turns out that is was stolen, any money you withdrawal for your \"\"cut\"\", will have to be returned and your account will be frozen.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b9ebd8659554d647404cba860998ab27",
"text": "Ask your bank to recall the transfer (as if went to wrong account and you have inform the bank about it). Secondly get a police report in the country where you sent the money from and where it was sent to, and state the person's name and account details. Ethically this person should return the funding, but if he or she wants to play gangsters paradise, then you want to take police action and push your bank to take the funds back by RECALLING THE FUNDS UNDER INDEMNITY. Ask your bank to give you a copy of the message they have sent to the beneficiary's bank. Use this wording and you will have success. Contact the beneficiary bank also and give them details.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5b93a0cb7b43428d2589f99299d68934",
"text": "\"If this is your friend, and he that convinced he will \"\"get rich\"\" from this then there's really nothing you CAN do. You've obviously done your best to explain the situation to him, but he's been caught up in their sales pitch, and that's more convincing to him. I worked in sales for many years, and the answers he gives you (the one about not needing to know the details of how your smartphone works is a classic variation of typical objection-handling that salespeople are taught) proves that he has been sucked in by their scheme. At this stage, all you're going to do is ruin your friendship with him if you continue to press the matter, because he has made it clear he can't be convinced that this is anything other than legitimate. The reality is, he is probably in too deep at this stage to just walk away from it, so he has to convince himself that he made a wise choice. Schemes like this use a \"\"scarcity\"\" approach (there's only so much to go around, and if you don't get yours now then someone else will get it) coupled with ego-boosting (boy, Mr. Prospect, this is such a great opportunity, and you're one of only a few who are sophisticated enough to understand and take advantage of it) to get people to lower their guard and not ask a whole lot of probing questions. Nobody wants to feel stupid, and they don't want others to think they're stupid, so these schemes will present the information in such a way that ordinarily prudent questions come across as sounding dumb, making the questioner seem not so smart. Rather than walking away from it, peoples' pride will sometimes make them double down on it, and they'll just go along with it to come across as though they get it, even when they really don't. The small payouts at early stages are a classic sign of a Ponzi scheme. Your friend will never listen to you as long as those little checks continue to come in, because to him they're absolute proof he's right and you're wrong. It's those checks (or payouts, however they're doing it) that will make him step up his efforts to recruit other people into the scheme or, worse yet, invest more of his own money into this. Keep in mind that in the end, you really have no power to do anything in this situation other than be his friend and try to use gentle persuasion. He's already made it clear that he isn't going to listen to your explanations about why this is a scam, for a couple reasons. First (and probably greatest), it would be an admission that he's dumb, or at least not as smart as you, and who wants that? Second, he continues to get little checks that reinforce the fact this must be \"\"real\"\", or why else would he be getting this money? Third, he has already demonstrated his commitment to this by quitting his job, so from his point of view, this has become an all-or-nothing ticket to wealth. The bottom line is, these schemes work because the sales pitch is powerful enough to overcome ordinary logic for people who think there just has to be an easy way to Easy Street. All you can do is just be there as his friend and hope that he sees the light before the damage (to himself and anyone else) gets too great. You can't stop him from what he's doing any more than you can stop the sun from rising as long the message (and checks) he's getting from other people keep him convinced he's on the right path. EDIT After reading the comments posted in this thread, I do want to amend my statements, because many good points have been raised here. You obviously can't just sit by and do nothing while your friend talks others into taking the same (or worse) risks that he is. That's not morally right by any measure At the same time however, be VERY careful about how you go about this. Your friend, as you stated, sounds pretty much like he's all in with this scheme, so there's definitely going to be some serious emotional commitment to it on his part as well. Anyone and everything that threatens what he sees as his ticket to Easy Street could easily become a target when this all comes crashing down, as it inevitably will. You could very well be the cause of that in his eyes, especially if he knows you've been discouraging people from buying into this nightmare. People are NOT rational creatures when it comes to money losses. It's called \"\"sunken costs\"\", where they'll continue to chase their losses on the rationale they'll make up for it if they just don't give up. The more your friend committed to this, the worse his anxieties about losing, so he'll do whatever he has to in order to save his position. This is what gamblers do and why the house does so well for itself. Some have suggested making anonymous flyers or other means of communicating that don't expose you as the person spreading the message, and that's one suggestion. However, the problem with this is that since the receiver has no idea who sent the message, they're not likely to give it the kind of credibility or notice that they would to something passed to them by a person they know and trust, and your anonymous message will have little weight in the face of the persuasive pitch that got your friend to commit his own money (and future). Another problem, as you've noted, is that you don't travel in the same circles as the people he's likely to recruit, so how would you go about warning them? How would they view their first contact with you when it comes with a message not to trust what someone else they already know is about to tell them? Would they write it off as someone who's butty? Hard to tell. Another huge ploy of these schemes is that they tend to preemptively strike at what you propose doing -- that is, warning people to stay away. They do this by projecting the people giving the warnings as losers who didn't see the opportunity for themselves and now want to keep others away from their own financial success. They'll portray you as someone who isn't smart enough to see this \"\"huge opportunity\"\", and since you can't understand it, you don't think anyone else does either. They'll point out that if you were so good with finances, why aren't you already successful? These guys are very good, and they have an answer for every objection you can raise, whether its to them or to someone else. They've spent a long time honing their message, which makes it difficult for anyone to say something persuasive enough to sway others away from being duped. This is a hard path, no doubt. I hope you are able to warn others away. Just be aware that it may come at a cost to you as well, and be prepared for what that might be. I hope this helps. Good luck!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "186cbf2542e253e3663c6133f88a1bbb",
"text": "There's a good explanation of this type of scam at the following link; It's known as a Spot-Delivery scam. https://www.carbuyingtips.com/top-10-scams/scam1.htm Also, I read this one a while back, and immediately this post reminded me of it: http://oppositelock.kinja.com/when-the-dealership-steals-back-the-car-they-just-sold-1636730607 Essentially, they claim you'll get one level of financing, let you take the car home, and then attempt to extort a higher financing APR out of you or request more money / higher payments. Check your purchasing agreement, it may have a note with something along the lines of 'Subject to financing approval' or something similar. If it does, you might be 'out of luck', as it were. Contact an attorney; in some cases (Such as the 'oppositelock.kinja.com' article above) consumers have been able to sue dealers for this as theft.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "842bd5665f06182cd5f9685bd0f398cb",
"text": "\"They're taking advantage of float. Like so many things in the financial world today, this practice is a (strictly legal) fraud. When you make the transaction, the money is available immediately, for reasons that should be intuitively obvious to anyone who's ever used PayPal. It doesn't take 3 minutes for the broker to get that money, let alone 3 days. But if they can hold on to that money instead of turning it over to you, they can make money from it for themselves, putting money that rightfully belongs to you to work for them instead, earning interest on short-term loans, money market accounts, etc. The SEC mandates that this money must be turned over to you within 3 days so it should not surprise anyone that that's exactly how long the \"\"we have to wait for it to clear\"\" scam runs for. Even if it doesn't seem like very much money per transaction, for a large brokerage with hundreds of thousands of clients, all the little bits add up very quickly. This is why they feel no need to compete by offering better service: offering poor service is making them a lot of money that they would lose by offering better service.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9f293c3173d07543b8ffd67b7f3a5569",
"text": "The typical scam is that they overpay you - 'accidentially', or for some obscure reason they claim, and they ask you to wire the extra money either back or to someone else. Because you wire it, that money is gone for sure. Then they undo the original transaction (or it turns out it was fake anyway), and you end up with a loss. Maybe he claims that he wants to buy some more stuff, and the fees are high, so he sends you all the payments in one amount, and you pay the other sellers from it, something like that. There are honest nigerians though, actually most of them. Either way, the real problem is that the original payment is fake. Whichever way it comes to you, you need to make sure that it cannot be reversed or declared invalid after you think you have it. Wire transfer is the only way I know that is not reversible. Bank transfers are reversible; don't think you have it just because it arrives in your bank account. Talk to your bank about what all can happen. If you make the deal, when you send the bike, think about insuring it (and make him pay for that too). That way, you are out of any loss risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a2e4dbf57b23a3f2d34258f0f1ab06a5",
"text": "For Facebook and such companies, their ability to earn billions only happens through an IPO because that business model doesn't generate revenue. Without some drastic change that no one has mentioned, Facebook cannot make a profit, much less multi-billion dollar yearly profits. So you launch an IPO to rip off the suckers",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2840d9ee82b4c6fb1f2cc39abdf0e4da",
"text": ">1. A big project to automate the entry of 2 invoices per month from a supplier. Is would take an employee less than 10 minutes a month to enter those 2 invoices manually into the system. I am curious. Can't they apply the same solution for other suppliers?",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a8a6e1120deacaf2991b787254b95925
|
What is meant by one being in a “tax bracket”?
|
[
{
"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": "2c3f715ad21d7342bb9dcc0b681bad51",
"text": "\"As ApplePie discusses, \"\"tax bracket\"\" without any modifiers refers to a single jurisdiction's marginal tax rate. In your case, this is either your California's \"\"tax bracket\"\" or your Federal \"\"tax bracket\"\" (not including marginal Social Security and Medicare taxes). But if someone says \"\"combined state and federal tax bracket\"\", they probably mean the combination of your state and federal income tax brackets (again, lot including sales taxes, business and occupational taxes, social security taxes, and medicare taxes). The math to combine the state and federal marginal tax rates is a bit tricky, because most people can deduct either their state and local income taxes, or their state and local general sales taxes when computing their income for federal income tax purposes. (The federal \"\"alternative minimum tax\"\" restricts this deduction for some people.) For a single person earning $ 100,000 of salaries and wages in California, whose state income taxes are close to their standard deduction, the calculations for the combined marginal income tax rate look something like this: As mentioned above, this understates the tax bite on marginal \"\"earned income\"\". To find the true marginal rate, we need to add in Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes, sales taxes, and business & occupation taxes. The Social Security and Medicare taxes are sometimes called \"\"self employment taxes\"\". This math omits unemployment insurance and workers' compensation insurance, because those taxes are typically capped well below $ 100,000 per year of income. This math also omits B & O taxes, because this question is California specific. If an employer wishes to increase an employee's pay by $ 1,076.50, the first $ 76.50 will go to the employer's share of Social Security and Medicare taxes. The remaining $ 1,000.00 will be subject to the combined marginal income tax rate discussed above, plus will have $ 76.50 go to the employee's share of Social Security and Medicare taxes. The employee might buy some extra things with some of their extra money, and pay sales tax on them. In 2016, a 9 % sales tax rate was common in California's largest cities. The IRS estimated that (for a single person with no dependents making $ 100,000 per year who did not buy a boat, RV, motor vehicle, or major home construction), about 9 % of their marginal gross income was subject to sales tax.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"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": "dfffe32e4a61b08b126c5f51fb1efeef",
"text": "\"I am going to skip over the potential debate on \"\"zero-sum\"\" taxes and regulation because you are missing my point. I don't understand ***why that matters***. If Person A and Person B both have lives that are improving, is it that big of deal that Person A's life is improving faster than Person B other than jealousy? Both people are better off today than they were yesterday. That is a good thing. If real wages in the middle and lower classes were falling I would see a huge issue with that, but that is not what is happening.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b89efd85008528b0a810487f2897b43b",
"text": "I suppose if you consider tax liability, and when you moved back in with your parents they started claiming you as a dependent on their taxes, but otherwise single-filer means you are your own household regardless of who rents to you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "992674f8684d5708dcff9648a574e10e",
"text": "I think sometimes this is simply ignorance. If my marginal tax rate is 25%, then I can either pay tax deductible interest of $10K or pay income tax of $2.5K. I think most americans don't realize that paying $10K of tax deductible interest (think mortgage) only saves them $2.5K in taxes. In other words, I'd be $7.5K ahead if I didn't have the debt, but did pay higher taxes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7459b191c1be264f853ccecaf5d0890c",
"text": "Taxes were much higher in the period immediately following the Second World War which is widely considered one of the most productive and stable periods of US economic history. This guy is saying that he is able to run a company only when fiscal policy is dramatically bent to favor corporations and the rich. More competitive companies will pick up the slack, or the goods and services he offers will go away.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "200fcef0533e0e0a2d7806632fc623de",
"text": "\"For example, if I have an income of $100,000 from my job and I also realize a $350,000 in long-term capital gains from a stock sale, will I pay 20% on the $350K or 15%? You'll pay 20% assuming filing single and no major offsets to taxable income. Capital gains count towards your income for determining tax bracket. They're on line 13 of the 1040 which is in the \"\"income\"\" section and aren't adjusted out/excluded from your taxable income, but since they are taxed at a different rate make sure to follow the instructions for line 44 when calculating your tax due.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7af6de2300ef6bb4adbd025f53c0dfad",
"text": "\"Do you have other income that you are not considering? Interest and dividends would be an example, but there are all sorts of options. Also with your witholding is it set up such that your employers have any idea of your tax bracket ultimately based on your combined incomes? Usually what they do is take out money assuming you will be in the tax bracket of any given paycheck spread out over the course of a year. For example, for federal I had an option to select (in an online form that fills out my W4 for me) \"\"married: withold at higher single rate\"\" and did to try and cover this fact. Eventually I may end up having to calculate my own witholding to fix a too-low problem like yours.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "94d6cab7397de0ae8041fbfe4bf52214",
"text": "This actually makes sense, although it's about twice as complicated as any concept I've seen laid out in a business, rather than economics context, so it's no surprise that people (as you say) get it wrong. Also, it emphasizes that corporate taxation is not exactly an easy thing to deal with.",
"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": "b746fa726e1723cb28bd6ebb60a627b5",
"text": "\"My answer has nothing to do with tax brackets or mathematics (I'm taking advantage of the leeway your question allowed), but rather it has to do with career goals and promotion. Large companies often have large \"\"Policies & Procedures\"\" booklets to go with them. One policy that sometimes exists which would make it a bad idea to accept a raise is: Employee cannot be given more than one salary increase in a 12-month period This means that if you accept a standard-of-living or merit increase of say, 2% or 3% in April, and then you apply for a job that would otherwise warrant a pay grade increase, you may be forced to wait until the following year to get bumped to the proper pay grade. Of course, this totally depends on the company, but it would be advisable to check your company's H.R. policy on that, if you're considering a move (even a lateral one) in the future.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c9fd3b5f25bb9d6af63423130795181e",
"text": "\"Do I have to explain the source of all income on my taxes? \"\"Yes, you do\"\", say the ghosts of Ermenegildo and Mary Cesarini. https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/general/what-to-know-about-taxes-on-found-property/L9BfdKz7N The Cesarinis argued to the IRS that the money wasn’t income, and so it should not be taxed as such. The IRS wasn’t swayed by the couple’s argument. The case went to federal court, and the IRS won. “Found” property and money has been considered taxable income ever since. The IRS plainly states that taxpayers must report “all income from any source,\"\" even income earned in another country, unless it is explicitly exempt under the U.S. Tax Code. This covers a wide range of miscellaneous income, including gambling winnings. According to the Cesarini decision, money you find isn’t explicitly exempt. The tax impact won’t be significant if you find an item of property with a fair market value of only $500 and are in the 25% tax bracket. You’ll owe the IRS $125 ($500 x .25 = $125). However, if you are a finder and keeper of $10,000, your tax burden will be $2,500 ($10,000 x .25 = $2,500).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d02bb6df67310819e9dfe2d81a0cfe9c",
"text": "The focus of this article isn't on tax revenue. The author is discussing income disparity. The laffer curve doesn't tell the whole story. You are correct, a higher tax rate does not imply higher tax revenue, and a lower tax rate does not imply less revenue. Changing tax rates isn't going to significantly affect tax revenue. However, there are a broad range of other effects when changing tax rates. In evaluating adjustments to tax rates, our focus needs to be on these secondary effects. We are taxed on *income* not *revenue*. When I sell you a $10 widget that I paid a worker $2 to produce from $5 of materials, I pay taxes on the $3 net income, not the $10 revenue I received from you. The main way businesses avoid high marginal tax rates is by increasing deductible expenses, such that their net income after these expenses keeps them below their desired tax bracket. It is far better to spend that money on something that can benefit the business than simply give it to the government. Any businessman would rather keep his earnings if possible. If that is not possible, he'd prefer to spend them on something that can help him, rather than squandering it on junk or giving it away to the government. For most businesses, the largest deductible expense is payroll. Any decent employer would prefer to pay out a Christmas bonus instead of giving that same amount to Uncle Sam. Any businessman would prefer to pay for additional advertising, or a charitable donation to a worthy cause, rather than paying the IRS. Run up the top-tier tax rate and suddenly, businessmen feel a compelling need to lower their prices and pay their workers more. Run up the tax rate, and income disparity shrinks. Run up the tax rate, and you put more money in the hands of consumers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d80c18ea48134a0b736e4a9b6d587ae9",
"text": "It means you must pay federal (and possibly state) tax on any income you produce in America -- including Internet and mail-order sales. Tax treaties may keep you from having to pay tax on it again in your own country, or may not.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9d9301aeeb22f02c6b102b172cb2fdfc",
"text": "@gef05 He was making a reference to expatriation and renouncing citizenship. Citizens have to pay taxes wherever they are no matter how long they are there, people that renounce their citizenship have to continue paying income taxes to the US IRS for several years",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "29ad97f4a26d6e68e79c1801143d434a",
"text": "I like how whether or not its okay to do *exactly* what the tax code says is determined by your presumed intent in following the tax code, and not whether or not you actually followed the tax code. Besides, what reasonable person or business *doesn't* minimize their tax burden, in the same way they minimize *every* and *any* burden?",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
9d54aef17c3deb2f08a9acb0a2643fe7
|
should the Market Capitalization be equal to the Equity of the firm
|
[
{
"docid": "3c3623605989b5c930a54bf89e907c7f",
"text": "\"Lots of questions: In general, no. Market Capitalization and Equity represent 2 different things. Equity first, the equity of a firm is the value of the assets (what it owns) less its liabilities (what it owes) and consists (broadly) of two components - share capital (what the firm gets when it sells to investors as part of an IPO or subsequent share issue) and retained earnings (what the firm has as a result of making profits and not paying them out as dividends). This is the theoretical liquidation value of the firm - what it is worth if it stops trading, sells all its assets and pays all its debts. Market Capitalization is the current value of the future cash flow of the firm as perceived by the market - the value today of all the dividends that the firm will pay in the future for as long as it exists. This is the theoretical going concern value of the firm - what it is worth as a functioning business. In general, Market Capitalization is bigger than Equity - if it isn't the firm is worth more as scrap than as an operating business. Um ... no. If you don't have any shares then you are by definition not an owner. Having shares is what makes you an owner. What I think you mean is, is it possible for the owner(s) of a private company to sell all of its shares when it goes public? The answer is yes. It is uncommon for a start-up owner to do this but it is standard practice for \"\"corporate raiders\"\" who buy failing companies, take them private, restructure them and then take them public again - they have done their job and they are not interested in maintaining an ownership stake. Nope. See above and below. Not at all, equity is an accounting construct and market capitalization is about market sentiment. Consider the following hypothetical firm: It has $1m in equity, it makes $4m in profit and will do for the foreseeable future, it pays all of that $4m out as dividends - if we work on a simple ROI of 10% then this firm is worth $40m dollars - way more than its equity.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "980e48c749e05c0432b46adffc11cd8a",
"text": "Imagine a poorly run store in the middle of downtown Manhattan. It has been in the family for a 100 years but the current generation is incompetent regarding running a business. The store is worthless because it is losing money, but the land it is sitting on is worth millions. So yes an asset of the company can be worth more than the entire company. What one would pay for the rights to the land, vs the entire company are not equal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b6ed8fecb07ede6439c758eb40d85dfe",
"text": "Market cap should be share price times number of shares, right? That's several orders of magnitude right there...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a61f99d43c86c34dedffa68f7dda820e",
"text": "Proportional is good, but we don't need redistribution. The market mechanism does that on its own when it's free. The bailouts of the banks and auto industry should have shown that the only thing stopping a major, but poorly run business from bankruptcy (and having its assets redistributed) is government intervention. Maybe the change will light a fire under complacent companies and they'll start earning their profits again, or maybe they'll fail. There's no way to know ahead of time, but with no legal barriers to entry, the playing field will be fair again.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7dc3912bdb7e7a71ae405133330accb6",
"text": "\"Some companies issue multiple classes of shares. Each share may have different ratios applied to ownership rights and voting rights. Some shares classes are not traded on any exchange at all. Some share classes have limited or no voting rights. Voting rights ratios are not used when calculating market cap but the market typically puts a premium on shares with voting rights. Total market cap must include ALL classes of shares, listed or not, weighted according to thee ratios involved in the company's ownership structure. Some are 1:1, but in the case of Berkshire Hathaway, Class B shares are set at an ownership level of 1/1500 of the Class A shares. In terms of Alphabet Inc, the following classes of shares exist as at 4 Dec 2015: When determining market cap, you should also be mindful of other classes of securities issued by the company, such as convertible debt instruments and stock options. This is usually referred to as \"\"Fully Diluted\"\" assuming all such instruments are converted.\"",
"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": "9cf796c92ec075db88a0620253a15499",
"text": "\"The answer to your question depends on what you mean when you say \"\"growth\"\". If you mean a literal increase in the aggregate market capitalization of companies, across the entire market, then, no, this sort of growth is not possible without concomitant economic growth. The reason why is that the market capitalization of each company is proportional to its gross revenue, and the sum of all revenue from selling \"\"final goods\"\" (i.e., things purchased and used by consumers) is, apart from a few technicalities, the definition of GDP. The exact multiplier might fluctuate up or down depending on investors' expectations about how sales will grow or decline going forward, but in a zero-growth economy this multiplier should be stable over the long run. It might, however, still fluctuate over the short term, but more about that in a minute. Note that all of this applies to aggregate growth across all firms. Individual firms can still grow, of course, but as they must do this by gaining market share from other companies such growth would be balanced by a decline for some other firm. Also, I've assumed zero net exports (that's one of the \"\"technicalities\"\" I mentioned above) because obviously you could have export-driven growth even if the domestic economy were stationary. However, often when people talk about \"\"growth\"\" in the market, what they really mean is \"\"return\"\". That is, how much does your investment earn for you. This isn't really the same thing as growth, but people often think of it that way, particularly in the saving phase of their investing career, when they are reinvesting their returns, and therefore their account balances are growing. It is possible to have a positive return, averaged across the market, even in a stationary economy. The reason why is that there are really only two things a firm can do with its net profits. One possibility is that it could invest it in growing the business. However, there is not much point in doing that in a stationary economy because by assumption no increase in aggregate consumption (and therefore, in the long run, aggregate production) are possible. Therefore, firms are left with only the second option, which is to pay them out to investors as dividends. Those dividends provide a return that is independent of economic growth. Would the stock market still be a good investment in such an economy? Yes. Well, sort of. The rate of return from firms' dividend payouts will depend on investors' demand (in aggregate) for returns on their investments. Stock prices will rise or fall, causing returns to respectively fall or rise, to find that level. If your personal desire for returns is lower than the average across the investing public, then the stock market would look like a good investment. If your desired return is higher than the average, then it will look like a poor investment. The marginal investor will, of course be indifferent. The practical upshot of this is that the people who invest in the stock market in this scenario will be precisely the ones for whom the stock market is a good investment, given their personal propensity to save and desire for returns, and so forth. Finally, you mentioned that in your scenario the GDP stagnation is due to declining population. I am less certain what this means for investment, but my first thought is that you would have a large retired population selling its investments to fund late-life consumption, and you would have a comparatively small (relative to history) working population buying those assets. This would lead to low asset prices, and therefore high rates of return. However, that's assuming that retirees need to sell assets to fund their retirement consumption. If the absolute returns on retirees' assets are large enough to fund their retirement consumption then you would wind up with relatively few sellers, resulting in high prices and therefore relatively low rates of return. It's not obvious to me which effect would dominate, and so it's hard to say whether or not the resulting returns would look attractive to the working-age population.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ec54a8c54ec30ce5f44f84bf3f18a2a",
"text": "none of which give a good return if the underlying economy is shit. the underlying economy will be shit if there hasn't been sufficient investment in more productive endeavors. if the underlying economy hasn't been sufficiently capitalized, that will present juicy returns to investors. it's a complete substance-less threat that if we fail to continue to coddle the rentiers, the economy will collapse because they'll do X with their money (X being something other than maximizing return)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "3d2d90e1bda83babf879836b40840068",
"text": "\"If you look at the biotech breakdown, you'll find a lot of NAs when it comes to P/E since there are many young biotech companies that have yet to make a profit. Thus, there may be something to be said for how is the entire industry stat computed. Biotechnology can include pharmaceutical companies that can have big profits due to patents on drugs. As an example, look at Shire PLC which has a P/E of 1243 which is pretty high with a Market Capitalization of over a billion dollars, so this isn't a small company. I wonder what dot-com companies would have looked like in 1998/1999 that could well be similar as some industries will have bubbles you do realize, right? The reason for pointing out the Market Capitalization is that this a way to measure the size of a company, as this is merely the sum of all the stock of the company. There could be small companies that have low market capitalizations that could have high P/Es as they are relatively young and could be believed to have enough hype that there is a great deal of confidence in the stock. For example, Amazon.com was public for years before turning a profit. In being without profits, there is no P/E and thus it is worth understanding the limitations of a P/E as the computation just takes the previous year's earnings for a company divided by the current stock price. If the expected growth rate is high enough this can be a way to justify a high P/E for a stock. The question you asked about an industry having this is the derivation from a set of stocks. If most of the stocks are high enough, then whatever mean or median one wants to use as the \"\"industry average\"\" will come from that.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "75ffcd067af42e2df03285f2b01a8697",
"text": "\"From Wikipedia: Usage Because EV is a capital structure-neutral metric, it is useful when comparing companies with diverse capital structures. Price/earnings ratios, for example, will be significantly more volatile in companies that are highly leveraged. Stock market investors use EV/EBITDA to compare returns between equivalent companies on a risk-adjusted basis. They can then superimpose their own choice of debt levels. In practice, equity investors may have difficulty accurately assessing EV if they do not have access to the market quotations of the company debt. It is not sufficient to substitute the book value of the debt because a) the market interest rates may have changed, and b) the market's perception of the risk of the loan may have changed since the debt was issued. Remember, the point of EV is to neutralize the different risks, and costs of different capital structures. Buyers of controlling interests in a business use EV to compare returns between businesses, as above. They also use the EV valuation (or a debt free cash free valuation) to determine how much to pay for the whole entity (not just the equity). They may want to change the capital structure once in control. Technical considerations Data availability Unlike market capitalization, where both the market price and the outstanding number of shares in issue are readily available and easy to find, it is virtually impossible to calculate an EV without making a number of adjustments to published data, including often subjective estimations of value: In practice, EV calculations rely on reasonable estimates of the market value of these components. For example, in many professional valuations: Avoiding temporal mismatches When using valuation multiples such as EV/EBITDA and EV/EBIT, the numerator should correspond to the denominator. The EV should, therefore, correspond to the market value of the assets that were used to generate the profits in question, excluding assets acquired (and including assets disposed) during a different financial reporting period. This requires restating EV for any mergers and acquisitions (whether paid in cash or equity), significant capital investments or significant changes in working capital occurring after or during the reporting period being examined. Ideally, multiples should be calculated using the market value of the weighted average capital employed of the company during the comparable financial period. When calculating multiples over different time periods (e.g. historic multiples vs forward multiples), EV should be adjusted to reflect the weighted average invested capital of the company in each period. In your question, you stated: The Market Cap is driven by the share price and the share price is determined by buyers and sellers who have access to data on cash and debts and factor that into their decision to buy or sell. Note the first point under \"\"Technical Considerations\"\" there and you will see that the \"\"access to data on cash and debts\"\" isn't quite accurate here so that is worth noting. As for alternatives, there are many other price ratios one could use such as price/earnings, price/book value, price/sales and others depending on how one wants to model the company. The better question is what kind of investing strategy is one wanting to use where there are probably hundreds of strategies at least. Let's take Apple as an example. Back on April 23, 2014 they announced earnings through March 29, 2014 which is nearly a month old when it was announced. Now a month later, one would have to estimate what changes would be made to things there. Thus, getting accurate real-time values isn't realistic. Discounted Cash Flow is another approach one can take of valuing a company in terms of its future earnings computed back to a present day lump sum.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "532b028ee0febd16e415f834038090ea",
"text": "The market cap always reflect the company's equity. Except that you cannot fix a stock price in a free market. A company with such profit pattern would have stock price behave like present value of a perpetuity (future income stream discounted by risk free rate) Since your assumption is unachievable, there is no point in determining the logic.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6332c443215c5f6a7e53bd0f681b871a",
"text": "\"If your business is structured as a partnership or sole proprietorship you call this investment \"\"partner equity\"\". If instead it is structured as a corporation, then the initial investment is called \"\"paid-in capital\"\". Either way, this represents the capital the initial investors or partners provided to the company in exchange for their ownership stake. The most important thing in your case is that since that initial investment is in the form of inventory, you are going to have to document the value of that investment somehow. You will definitely need a comprehensive manifest of what you contributed, including titles and condition, and if possible you should document the prices at which similar items are being offered for sale at the time you start operating. Having this information will support your claims as to the fair market value of the start-up contribution, should the tax authorities decide to question it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8611f8cbadc0cf3ddc4051b954763ed2",
"text": "How are shareholders sure to receive a fair percentage of each company? At the time the split occurs, each investor owns the same proportion of each new company that they owned in the first. What the investor does with it after that (selling one, for example) is irrelevant from a fairness perspective. Suppose company A splits into companies B and C. You own enough stock to have 1% of A. It splits. Now you have a bunch of shares of B and C. How much? Well, you have 1% of B and 1% of C. What if all the profitable projects are in B? Then shares of B will be worth more than those of C. But it should be the case that the value of your shares of B plus the value of your shares of C are equal to the original value of your shares of A. Completely fair. In fact, if the split was economically justified, then B + C > A. And the gains are realized proportionally by all equityholders. Remember, when a stock splits, every share splits so that everyone owns both companies in the same proportion as everyone else. Executives don't determine what the prices of the resulting companies are...that is determined by the market. A fair market will value the child companies such that together they are worth what the original was.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dec41fd2fd4de93670cbe6efed4c292d",
"text": "On a company level ROCE over WACC would be more meaningful in my view but the end result should be be pretty much the same. This concept is closely related to value creation. Value can only be created when a company's ROCE is exceeding its cost of funding - WACC. This is also tightly related with the NPV concept. Value is only created when the NPV on a project is >0. And to directly answer OP. Study in detail WACC. (weighted average cost of capital). Focus on the Modigliani–Miller theorem with taxes and financial distress costs. Good luck.",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
9fe22fe3377a69de8f81a81835604ad4
|
Buying a multi-family home to rent part and live in the rest
|
[
{
"docid": "e507268d58b60766aaa40e5ec677d1d4",
"text": "\"The biggest question is do you want to be a landlord? There are a lot of ups and down to managing property from bad tenants to having to fix a water heater or replace a fridge. If you aren't interested in being a landlord, it is definitely a bad idea. If you do want to be a landlord, then the question is how close do you want to be to your tenants? What if they are up late making noise, etc.? What if they watch TV all night and you hear it through the walls? What is your plan? You ask if people have trouble \"\"sharing\"\" a house. If you are the landlord and the other party the tenant, then you aren't \"\"Sharing\"\", you are leasing. It's a different relationship with different strains.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aae6aa95ca158a1d7d4a9e369456150d",
"text": "\"You are a \"\"strategic\"\" investor, which is to say that you are in the best position to evaluate the deal because you already live there. Others don't have this advantage going in, which is why they might not be inclined to do what you're doing. Your biggest advantage is that you know at least one tenant. In essence, you are your own \"\"tenant\"\" for the top floor You also presumably have a pretty good idea of the neighborhood. These are arguments for owning your own home, although it does get a bit trickier with a second tenant, whom you may not know. Do check credit and references, etc. You might ask the landlord why he wants to sell. Presumably it's because he wants to retire or move, and not a problem with the property. But it does no harm to ask.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6835502ad860e9f4f3f3b98c28415bc6",
"text": "First, you can look up the property tax of the building you are in for an exact number. Go to you town's tax office or look at Zillow. You need to claim the rent as income, but will take all expenses as well as depreciation on half the building. The numbers may well work in your favor, especially as a resident landlord. I still own a rental in the next state, but it's 2 hour away, so I'm paying pros to do the simplest things. On site, you can handle all maintenance and save that way. If the cash flow looks like it's better than what you have right now, it might be time to buy. Without seeing the numbers I can't point out what you might be missing.",
"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": "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": "257c70a9f954a96a7657e3761647efee",
"text": "Think carefully about the added expenses. It may still make sense, but it probably won't be as cheap as you are thinking. In addition to the mortgage and property taxes, there is also insurance and building maintenance and repairs. Appliances, carpets, and roofs need to be replaced periodically. Depending on the area of the country there is lawn maintenance and now removal. You need to make sure you can cover the expenses if you are without a tenant for 6 months or longer. When tenants change, there is usually some cleaning and painting that needs to be done. You can deduct the mortgage interest and property taxes on your part of the building. You need to claim any rent as income, but can deduct the other part of the mortgage interest and taxes as an expense. You can also deduct building maintenance and repairs on the rental portion of the building. Some improvements need to be depreciated over time (5-27 years). You also need to depreciate the cost of the rental portion of the building. This basically means that you get a deduction each year, but lower the cost basis of the building so you owe more capital gains taxes when you sell. If you do this, I would get a professional to do your taxes at least the first year. Its not hard once you see it done, but there are a lot of details and complications that you want to get right.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ffb80c3cb2326ad48361b84743963ec9",
"text": "Also, does anyone know of any books on doing this sort of thing, i.e. renting out half of your home to a tenant and living in the ret? Head down to your local library. Mine has a state guide for renters and another one for landlords. There will likely be a lot of Nolo Press books around there too. You can also research the property tax on a lot; many counties run an arcGIS server that will tell you who owns a given property, what the assessed value is and the total tax bill, etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e1bb7601dea531b298bd690f611f754",
"text": "A professional home inspection will clue you in on any problems you might be buying, so it's important in any real estate transaction. If the seller finances the loan, you need a lawyer. It might be a nice opportunity - being in the right place at the right time. You just have to investigate all angles.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "77b59558c9d957cfd8149d31f8d1c34c",
"text": "Disadvantage is that tenant could sue you for something, and in an unfavorable judgement they would have access to your house as property to possess. You could lose the house. Even if you make an LLC to hold the house, they'll either sue you or the LLC and either way you could lose the house. This might be why the landlord is moving to Florida where their house cannot be possessed in a judgement because of the state's strong homestead exemption ;)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6a2cb763fd0664e7b980f8f0dbcd1d6e",
"text": "This is one of those too good to be true things that is actually true. Why? Because only you can do this. Only you can deduct for primary home mortgage interest, only you can get a low cost mortgage (others would have to get investor mortgages at a higher interest rate). So its only a great deal for you. More people would do it if they could, but they can't, thats why you can and should do this. I have a similar setup and it is terrific.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "9f47d532ee2ff1cd4da42aa86e7f3042",
"text": "Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) and the University of Pittsburgh (Pitt) have different end of term dates but by less than a month. Both have summer sessions, but most students do not stay over the summer. You can rent over the summer, but prices fall by a lot. Thirty to forty thousand students leave over the summer between the two. Only ten to twenty thousand remain throughout the year and not all of those are in Oakland (the neighborhood in Pittsburgh where the universities are located). So many of the landlords in Oakland have the same problem. Your competitors will cut their rates to try to get some rent for the summer months. This also means that you have to handle eight, nine, and three month leases rather than year long and certainly not multiyear leases. You're right that you don't have to buy the latest appliances or the best finishes, but you still have to replace broken windows and doors. Also, the appliances and plumbing need to mostly work. The furnace needs to produce heat and distribute it. If there is mold or mildew, you will have to take care of it. You can't rely on the students doing so. So you have to thoroughly clean the premises between tenants. Students may leave over winter break. If there are problems, the pipes may freeze and burst, etc. Since they're not there, they won't let you know when things break. Students drop out during the term and move out. You probably won't be able to replace them when that happens. If you have three people in two bedrooms, two of them may be in a romantic relationship. Romantic relationships among twenty-year olds end frequently. Your three people drops back to two. Your recourse in that case is to evict the remaining tenants and sue for breach of contract. But if you do that, you may not replace the tenants until a new term starts. Better might be to sue the one who left and accept the lower rent from the other two. But you likely won't get the entire rent amount for the remainder of the lease. Suing an impoverished student is not the road to riches. Pittsburgh is expected to have a 6.1% increase in house prices which almost all of it is going to be pure profit. I don't know specifically about Pittsburgh, but in the national market, housing prices are about where they were in 2004. Prices were flat to increasing from 2004 to 2007 and then fell sharply from 2007 to 2009, were flat to decreasing from 2009 to 2012, and have increased the last few years. Price to rent ratios are as high now as in 2003 and higher than they were the twenty years before that. Maybe prices do increase. Or maybe we hit a new 20% decrease. I would not rely on this for profit. It's great if you get it, but unreliable. I wouldn't rely on estimates for middle class homes to apply to what are essentially slum apartments. A 6% average may be a 15% increase in one place and a 3% decrease in another. The nice homes with the new appliances and the fancy finishes may get the 15% increase. The rundown houses in a block where students party past 2 AM may get no increase. Both the city of Pittsburgh and the county of Allegheny charge property taxes. Schools and libraries charge separate taxes. The city provides a worksheet that estimates $2860 in taxes on a $125,000 property. It doesn't sound like you would be eligible for homestead or senior tax relief. Realtors should be able to tell you the current assessment and taxes on the properties that they are selling you. You should be able to call a local insurance agent to find out what kinds of insurance are available to landlords. There is also renter's insurance which is paid by the tenant. Some landlords require that tenants show proof of insurance before renting. Not sure how common that is in student housing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "27ad0e1d3743243190091ec762ea034c",
"text": "Yes, but how does that compare to those with multiple houses? I build homes in the Seattle area for a living and one lifestyle who own several rentals... One thing them do is use equity for their 4 homes to purchase another.. Writing off the the interest paid on the loan(s)... I'm not saying it's a deduction normal people don't use... I'm just saying that it strikes me as a deduction that the wealthiest landlords use more with better results...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d33cfed182d3f8615b0308ee695e4067",
"text": "As a landlord for 14 years with 10 properties, I can give a few pointers: be able and skilled enough to perform the majority of maintenance because this is your biggest expense otherwise. it will shock you how much maintenance rental units require. don't invest in real estate where the locality/state favors the tenant (e.g., New York City) in disputes. A great state is Florida where you can have someone evicted very quickly. require a minimum credit score of 620 for all tenants over 21. This seems to be the magic number that keeps most of the nightmare tenants out makes sure they have a job nearby that pays at least three times their annual rent every renewal, adjust your tenant's rent to be approximately 5% less than going rates in your area. Use Zillow as a guide. Keeping just below market rates keeps tenants from moving to cheaper options. do not rent to anyone under 30 and single. Trust me trust me trust me. you can't legally do this officially, but do it while offering another acceptable reason for rejection; there's always something you could say that's legitimate (bad credit, or chose another tenant, etc.) charge a 5% late fee starting 10 days after the rent is due. 20 days late, file for eviction to let the tenant know you mean business. Don't sink yourself too much in debt, put enough money down so that you start profitable. I made the mistake of burying myself and I haven't barely been able to breathe for the entire 14 years. It's just now finally coming into profitability. Don't get adjustable rate or balloon loans under any circumstances. Fixed 30 only. You can pay it down in 20 years and get the same benefits as if you got a fixed 20, but you will want the option of paying less some months so get the 30 and treat it like a 20. don't even try to find your own tenants. Use a realtor and take the 10% cost hit. They actually save you money because they can show your place to a lot more prospective tenants and it will be rented much sooner. Empty place = empty wallet. Also, block out the part of the realtor's agreement-to-lease where it states they keep getting the 10% every year thereafter. Most realtors will go along with this just to get the first year, but if they don't, find another realtor. buy all in the same community if you can, then you can use the same vendor list, the same lease agreement, the same realtor, the same documentation, spreadsheets, etc. Much much easier to have everything a clone. They say don't put all your eggs in one basket, but the reality is, running a bunch of properties is a lot of work, and the more similar they are, the more you can duplicate your work for free. That's worth a lot more day-to-day than the remote chance your entire community goes up in flames",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "54586d646c58ca462fe5b9b1041724b9",
"text": "In most cases an rent with option to buy is structured as follows: The renter/buyer will place a deposit/premium (not the same as a security deposit) that purchases the option( the right ) to buy the home at a future date at a specific price. The renter / buyer will often pay extra rent in addition to market rent. Many times this additional rent is contracted to be applied to the purchase price of the home. The risks to the renter/buyer are as follows: Also, something to note: Many people will recommend that you use the additional rents to be applied specifically towards the downpayment. Be wary of this. There are no institutional lenders available today that will allow the additional rent money to be applied towards your downpayment. That means you must come up with the downpayment in cash before closing. The additional rent payments can be used towards the price. Hope that helps. Good luck!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2c4bc25e5ecf9f7dd4e2a49e2fe716ba",
"text": "\"To add to what other have stated, I recently just decided to purchase a home over renting some more, and I'll throw in some of my thoughts about my decision to buy. I closed a couple of weeks ago. Note that I live in Texas, and that I'm not knowledgeable in real estate other than what I learned from my experiences in the area when I am located. It depends on the market and location. You have to compare what renting will get you for the money vs what buying will get you. For me, buying seemed like a better deal overall when just comparing monthly payments. This is including insurance and taxes. You will need to stay at a house that you buy for at least 5-7 years. You first couple years of payments will go almost entirely towards interest. It takes a while to build up equity. If you can pay more towards a mortgage, do it. You need to have money in the bank already to close. The minimum down payment (at least in my area) is 3.5% for an FHA loan. If you put 20% down, you don't need to pay mortgage insurance, which is essentially throwing money away. You will also have add in closing costs. I ended up purchasing a new construction. My monthly payment went up from $1200 to $1600 (after taxes, insurance, etc.), but the house is bigger, newer, more energy efficient, much closer to my work, in a more expensive area, and in a market that is expected to go up in value. I had all of my closing costs (except for the deposit) taken care of by the lender and builder, so all of my closing costs I paid out of pocket went to the deposit (equity, or the \"\"bank\"\"). If I decide to move and need to sell, then I will get a lot (losing some to selling costs and interest) of the money I have put in to the house back out of it when I do sell, and I have the option to put that money towards another house. To sum it all up, I'm not paying a difference in monthly costs because I bought a house. I had my closing costs taking care of and just had to pay the deposit, which goes to equity. I will have to do maintenance myself, but I don't mind fixing what I can fix, and I have a builder's warranties on most things in the house. To really get a good idea of whether you should rent or buy, you need to talk to a Realtor and compare actual costs. It will be more expensive in the short term, but should save you money in the long term.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f30788f8fb761d716f81b5eca3e2ce50",
"text": "\"This might be a good idea, depending on your personality and inclinations. Key points: How close is the building to you? Do not buy any building that is more than 20 minutes travel from where you are. Do you have any real hard experience with doing construction, building maintenance and repair? Do you have tools? Example: do you have a reciprocating saw? do you know what a reciprocating saw is? If your answer to both those questions is \"\"no\"\", think twice about acquiring a property that involves renovation. Renovation costs can be crushing, especially for someone who is not an experienced carpenter and electrician. Take your estimates of costs and quadruple them. Can you still afford it? Do you want to be a landlord? Being a landlord is a job. You will be called in the middle of the night by tenants who want their toilet to get fixed and stuff like that. Is that what you want to spend your time doing, driving 20 minutes to change lightbulbs and fix toilets?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d7f2ec50f536b2657b9f925dc42462e",
"text": "'Rent to own' is not a precise, single agreement. It can be whatever the seller and you agree to. It's a unique seller that would agree to this. Keep in mind, most sellers are needing to get their money in full to buy their next house. You might find an investor willing to work with you, but only for an inflated price, interest rate, or both. The ideal seller would be underwater (owing more than the value of the home) but needing to move. In which case, they are hoping to find someone to buy them some time to get situated in their new house before moving forward with you and the bank to arrange a sale. At its simplest, you might pay a premium on your rent to fix the price, giving you the option to buy during a particular period at that price. It can be a much higher premium where you are renting and paying extra until you hit 20%, at which point you agree to finance the balance either with a bank loan or through the seller. Buying a home you will live in is a personal decision. With no numbers offered, it's not like we can tell you if it's a wise purchase.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7a66da7a6d68a0dceacd379e7774fb33",
"text": "It's hard to financially justify buying a house just for one person to live in. You end up being 'over-housed' (and paying for it). Would you rent a whole house for yourself? A condo might be an option - but TO ME the maintenance fees are hard to take (and they are notorious for increasing dramatically as the building ages). You could consider buying a house that includes 1 or 2 rental units, or sharing with a friend. You do run the risk of having bad tenants though, and you have additional maintance to deal with. Having a rental unit in my modest house has worked out very well for me (living alone), and I have been VERY fortunate with tenants.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "111c9c2ea2d0a7d3f61b4dbcf20c7cf3",
"text": "What kind of financial analysis would make you comfortable about this decision? The HELOC and ARM are the biggest red flags to me in your current situation. While I don't expect interest rates to skyrocket in the near future, they introduce an interest rate risk that is easy to get rid of. Getting rid of the HELOC and converting to a fixed mortgage would be my first priority. If you also want to upgrade to a new home at the same time (meaning buy a new home contingent on the sale of your first, paying off the HELOC and mortgage), that's fine, but make sure that you can comfortably afford the payment on a fixed-rate mortgage with at least 20% down. I would not take additional cash out of your equity just to save it. You're going to pay more in interest that you're going to get in savings. From there things get trickier. While many people would keep the first property on a mortgage and rent it out, I am not willing to be a landlord for a part-time job, especially when the interest on the mortgage gouges my return on the rent. PLus leverage increases the risks as well - all it takes is to go one or two months without rent and you can find yourself unable to make a mortgage payment, wrecking your credit and possibly risking foreclosure. So my options in order of precedence would be: At what point does it make sense to become a landlord? The complicated answer is when the benefits (rent, appreciation) relative to the costs (maintenance, interest, taxes, etc.) and risks (lost rent, bad renters, home value variance) give you a better return that you could find in investments of similar risk. The simple answer is when you can pay cash for it. That takes interest and lost rent out of the equation. Again, some are willing to take those risks and pay 20% down on rental property. Some are able to make it work. Some of those go broke or lose their properties. when calculating the 20% down of a new property, does that need to be liquid funds, or can that be based on the value of the home you are selling You can make the purchase of the new home contingent on the sale of the first if you need to get the equity out of it to make the 20%. Do NOT refinance the first just to pull out the equity to make a down payment. It's not worth the fees of a refinance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d4ac983d6ee94356118fbf13209c0313",
"text": "\"Your lack of numbers makes the question a difficult read. What I'm hearing is \"\"I want a house requiring a mortgage 8X my income.\"\" This alone is enough to suggest it's a bad deal. On a personal note, when my wife and I bought our house, it was 2.5X our income. 20% down, so the mortgage was exactly 2X income. And my wife was convinced we were in over our heads. The use of a partner who will take a portion of the profit is interesting, but doesn't change the fact that you are proposing to live in a house that costs far too much for you. If you are determined to buy such a house, I'd suggest you do it with the plan to rent out a room or two to roommates. If you are living in an area where the cost of buying is so high, the demand for rentals is likely high as well. Absent a plan to bring ion more income, I see no good coming from this. Heed the warnings posted in the other two answers as well.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7360b35a07963916bbe09aa2a6d83bae",
"text": "Buying a starter home is not a bad idea if you have a stable job and plan to stay in the area for a long time. Owning a house that you can afford is a very good idea. Purchasing a home that you do not want to live in long term is not a good idea. People who move frequently pay a lot in real estate commissions, as you've mentioned, but they also pay loan origination and title fees. Mortgage interest is tax-deductible, and many people consider home ownership to better than renting because of that fact alone. What they do not consider are costs of property taxes, HOA fees (common in condos and townhouses, but also possible in single family homes), and being tied to piece of real estate if the job market changes and they need to move. The easy rule of thumb is to consider the ratio of total price to one year of rent. If you could purchase for $200k, but you would rent for $800 per month then the price to rent ratio is 20.83. Depending on the market most homes fall between 10 and 20. When the ratio is less than 10, then you would be at a great disadvantage renting instead of purchasing, when the ratio is greater than 20, you would be foolish to buy instead of rent unless there was some other compelling factor motivating the purchase.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe641ec5ad4250f5b01cdca09248e555",
"text": "What you haven't mentioned is the purchase risk. You say that she will buy but then say you will be on the loan. If you are on the loan, essentially you will be purchasing a rental property and renting to your mother. So that is the analysis you need to consider. You need to be financially able to take on this purchase and be willing to be a landlord. The ten year timeline looks good on paper. This may not be realistic, especially with an aging parent. What if after 4 years, she can't stay in that condo? What renting buys is flexibility. If she needs money for any reason, it is not tied up in an asset and unavailable. She is able it move if necessary. If she won't need the money, she should buy in cash. That, by far, gives her the best deal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "479c8b6628202b3947d4a2c9b7c84bbf",
"text": "\"Buying now with a mortgage gets you: Waiting to buy with all cash gets you: These are also some of the pros or cons for the rent or buy dilemma that Paul mentioned in comments to the OP. This is a very complex, multi-faceted question, that would not respond well to being put into any equation or financial model. Most people answer the question with \"\"buy the home now with a mortgage\"\" if they can pay for the down payment. This is why the mortgage industry exists. The people who would want to finance now rather than buy with all cash later would not only be analyzing the question in terms of financial health but also in terms of general well being. They might consider the tremendous pride that comes with home ownership and living under a roof of one's own. Who can say that those people are wrong?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
21f6c2d9117abd3e513148ca181ed668
|
Tax Form 1099 and hourly worker do i file a W-2 if my employer filed the 1099 for me?
|
[
{
"docid": "97cbde3c965690a53a5b344eaf7ebe19",
"text": "Forms 1099 and W2 are mutually exclusive. Employers file both, not the employees. 1099 is filed for contractors, W2 is filed for employees. These terms are defined in the tax code, and you may very well be employee, even though your employer pays you as a contractor and issues 1099. You may complain to the IRS if this is the case, and have them explain the difference to the employer (at the employer's expense, through fines and penalties). Employers usually do this to avoid providing benefits (and by the way also avoid paying payroll taxes). If you're working as a contractor, lets check your follow-up questions: where do i pay my taxes on my hourly that means does the IRS have a payment center for the tax i pay. If you're an independent contractor (1099), you're supposed to pay your own taxes on a quarterly basis using the form 1040-ES. Check this page for more information on your quarterly payments and follow the links. If you're a salaried employee elsewhere (i.e.: receive W2, from a different employer), then instead of doing the quarterly estimates you can adjust your salary withholding at that other place of work to cover for your additional income. To do that you submit an updated form W4 there, check with the payroll department on details. Is this a hobby tax No such thing, hobby income is taxed as ordinary income. The difference is that hobby cannot be at loss, while regular business activity can. If you're a contractor, it is likely that you're not working at loss, so it is irrelevant. what tax do i pay the city? does this require a sole proprietor license? This really depends on your local laws and the type of work you're doing and where you're doing it. Most likely, if you're working from your employer's office, you don't need any business license from the city (unless you have to be licensed to do the job). If you're working from home, you might need a license, check with the local government. These are very general answers to very general questions. You should seek a proper advice from a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your state) for your specific case.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c14d942d1cffc6f843d1aefbbc04b1f5",
"text": "\"1099's and other official tax forms are often reported to the IRS by the issuer, whether or not you include a copy in your return. You should not neglect to include this income in your 2016 return in an attempt to balance out the two tax years. It's up to you whether or not you feel like filing an amended 2015 return to recover over-payment of taxes from that tax year. You have up to three years to amend tax returns using form 1040X. Since you couldn't have furnished a 1099 for this when you filed your 2015 return (otherwise you wouldn't be in receipt of it for tax year 2016), I'm assuming you reported it simply as \"\"Other Income\"\" and therefore would have been [over] taxed your marginal rate on it. From irs.gov: When to amend a return. You should file an amended return if you need to correct your filing status, number of dependents, total income, tax deductions or tax credits. The instructions for Form 1040X, Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, list additional reasons to amend a return.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "59e75daa5e86124187e195b99c1a93f1",
"text": "In general What does this mean? Assume 10 holidays and 2 weeks of vacation. So you will report to the office for 240 days (48 weeks * 5 days a week). If you are a w2 they will pay you for 260 days (52 weeks * 5 days a week). At $48 per hour you will be paid: 260*8*48 or $99,840. As a 1099 you will be paid 240*8*50 or 96,000. But you still have to cover insurance, the extra part of social security, and your retirement through an IRA. A rule of thumb I have seen with government contracting is that If the employee thinks that they make X,000 per year the company has to bill X/hour to pay for wages, benefits, overhead and profit. If the employee thinks they make x/hour the company has to bill at 2X/hour. When does a small spread make sense: The insurance is covered by another source, your spouse; or government/military retirement program. Still $2 per hour won't cover the 6.2% for social security. Let alone the other benefits. The IRS has a checklist to make sure that a 1099 is really a 1099, not just a way for the employer to shift the costs onto the individual.",
"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": "4541068da76cb92f024a769b9d81d85d",
"text": "You can have multiple W2 forms on the same tax return. If you are using software, it will have the ability for you to enter additional W2 forms. If you are doing it by paper, just follow the instructions and combine the numbers at the correct place and attach both. Similarly you can also have a 1099 with and without a W2. Just remember that with a 1099 you will have to pay the self employment tax ( FICA taxes, both employee and employer) and that no taxes will be withheld. You will want to either adjust the withholding on your main job or file quartely estimated taxes. Travel reimbursement should be the same tax exempt wise. The difference is that with a 1098, you will need to list your business expenses for deduction on the corresponding tax schedule. The value on the 1099 will include travel reimbursement. But then you can deduct your self employment expenses. I believe schedule C is where this occurs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0fb8ad9020bf14fbf901fe9c1f18a4c4",
"text": "\"If you receive a 1099-MISC from YouTube, that tells you what they stated to the IRS and leads into most tax preparation software guided interviews or wizards as a topic for you to enter. Whether or not you have a 1099-MISC, this discussion from the IRS is pertinent to your question. You could probably elect to report the income as a royalty on your copyrighted work of art on Schedule E, but see this note: \"\"In most cases you report royalties in Part I of Schedule E (Form 1040). However, if you ... are in business as a self-employed writer, inventor, artist, etc., report your income and expenses on Schedule C or Schedule C-EZ (Form 1040).\"\" Whether reporting on Schedule E or C is more correct or better for your specific circumstances is beyond the advice you should take from strangers on the internet based on a general question - however, know that there are potentially several paths for you. Note that this is revenue from a business, so if you paid for equipment or services that are 100% dedicated to your YouTubing (PC, webcam, upgraded broadband, video editing software, vehicle miles to a shoot, props, etc.) then these are a combination of depreciable capital investments and expenses you can report against the income, reducing the taxes you may owe. If the equipment/services are used for business and personal use, there are further guidelines from the IRS as to estimating the split. These apply whether you report on Sch. E, Sch. C, or Sch C-EZ. Quote: \"\"Self-Employment Income It is a common misconception that if a taxpayer does not receive a Form 1099-MISC or if the income is under $600 per payer, the income is not taxable. There is no minimum amount that a taxpayer may exclude from gross income. All income earned through the taxpayer’s business, as an independent contractor or from informal side jobs is self-employment income, which is fully taxable and must be reported on Form 1040. Use Form 1040, Schedule C, Profit or Loss from Business, or Form 1040, Schedule C-EZ, Net Profit from Business (Sole Proprietorship) to report income and expenses. Taxpayers will also need to prepare Form 1040 Schedule SE for self-employment taxes if the net profit exceeds $400 for a year. Do not report this income on Form 1040 Line 21 as Other Income. Independent contractors must report all income as taxable, even if it is less than $600. Even if the client does not issue a Form 1099-MISC, the income, whatever the amount, is still reportable by the taxpayer. Fees received for babysitting, housecleaning and lawn cutting are all examples of taxable income, even if each client paid less than $600 for the year. Someone who repairs computers in his or her spare time needs to report all monies earned as self-employment income even if no one person paid more than $600 for repairs.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7774c2bceeeac395e113b4bb31b43ee7",
"text": "Many of the custodians (ie. Schwab) file for an extension on 1099s. They file for an extension as many of their accounts have positions with foreign income which creates tax reporting issues. If they did not file for extension they would have to send out 1099s at the end of January and then send out corrected forms. Obviously sending out one 1099 is cheaper and less confusing to all. Hope that helps,",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f012c327a053717409f2d055434bc7a",
"text": "Basically, it will depend on the documents your employer gives you. If your employer gives you a 2015 W-2 then you would claim it as income on your 2015 taxes. If the first W-2 they give you is for 2016, then you claim it on your 2016 taxes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b17812fbcc51ba2eaa7f18c455796b30",
"text": "Should I have a W-2 re-issued? A W-2 can be corrected and a new copy will be filed with the IRS if your employer incorrectly reported your income and withholding on a W-2 that they issued. In this case, though the employer didn't withhold those taxes, they should not reissue the W-2 unless they plan to pay your portion of the payroll taxes that were not withheld. (If they paid your share of the taxes, that would increase your gross income.) Who pays for the FICA I should have paid last year? Both you and your employer owe 7.65% each for FICA taxes. By law your employer is required to pay their half and you are required to pay your half. Both you and your employer owe additional taxes because of this mistake. Your other questions assume that your employer will pay your portion of the taxes withheld. You employer could decide to do that, but this also assumes that it was your employer's fault that the mistakes were made. If you transitioned to resident alien but did not inform your employer, how is that your employer's fault?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9dab4f4eba07fe5cdd610a1ed0521d85",
"text": "You mentioned that the 1099B that reports this sale is for 2014, which means that you got the proceeds in 2014. What I suspect happened was that the employer reported this on the next available paycheck, thus reporting it in the 2015 period. If this ends up being a significant difference for you, I'd argue the employer needs to correct both W2s, since you've actually received the money in 2014. However, if the difference for you is not substantial I'd leave it as is and remember that the employer will not know of your ESPP sales until at least several days later when the report from the broker arrives. If you sell on 12/31, you make it very difficult for the employer to account correctly since the report from the broker arrives in the next year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c68cedbd4aa170b06821aa99ccc65c1",
"text": "\"There are two different issues that you need to consider: and The answers to these two questions are not always the same. The answer to the first is described in some detail in Publication 17 available on the IRS website. In the absence of any details about your situation other than what is in your question (e.g. is either salary from self-employment wages that you or your spouse is paying you, are you or your spouse eligible to be claimed as a dependent by someone else, are you an alien, etc), which of the various rule(s) apply to you cannot be determined, and so I will not state a specific number or confirm that what you assert in your question is correct. Furthermore, even if you are not required to file an income-tax return, you might want to choose to file a tax return anyway. The most common reason for this is that if your employer withheld income tax from your salary (and sent it to the IRS on your behalf) but your tax liability for the year is zero, then, in the absence of a filed tax return, the IRS will not refund the tax withheld to you. Nor will your employer return the withheld money to you saying \"\"Oops, we made a mistake last year\"\". That money is gone: an unacknowledged (and non-tax-deductible) gift from you to the US government. So, while \"\"I am not required to file an income tax return and I refuse to do voluntarily what I am not required to do\"\" is a very principled stand to take, it can have monetary consequences. Another reason to file a tax return even when one is not required to do so is to claim the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) if you qualify for it. As Publication 17 says in Chapter 36, qualified persons must File a tax return, even if you: (a) Do not owe any tax, (b) Did not earn enough money to file a return, or (c) Did not have income taxes withheld from your pay. in order to claim the credit. In short, read Publication 17 for yourself, and decide whether you are required to file an income tax return, and if you are not, whether it is worth your while to file the tax return anyway. Note to readers preparing to down-vote: this answer is prolix and says things that are far too \"\"well-known to everybody\"\" (and especially to you), but please remember that they might not be quite so well-known to the OP.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f32d820d97c3f202be1a3c1a88a1820b",
"text": "\"Does he need to file a tax return in this situation? Will the IRS be concerned that he did not file even if he received a 1099? No. However, if you don't file the IRS may come back asking why, or \"\"make up\"\" a return for you assuming that the whole amount on the 1099-MISC is your net earnings. So in the end, I suspect you'll end up filing even though you don't have to, just to prove that you don't have to. Bottom line - if you have 1099 income (or any other income reported to the IRS that brings you over the filing threshold), file a return.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0b01955977794a02a7d27bdbfa46c7c1",
"text": "Contractors regularly deposit checks like this; if the income is legitimate don't worry. Report it to the IRS as income whether or not the customer issues you a 1099. With deposits like this you should be making quarterly payments to the IRS for your projected income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "938db83ce9d0d8d64a670ca38b919a3b",
"text": "Note: This is not professional tax advice. If you think you need professional tax advice, find a licensed professional in your local area. What are the expected earnings/year? US$100? US$1,000? US$100,000? I would say if this is for US$1,000 or less that registering an EIN, and consulting a CPA to file a Partnership Tax return is not going to be a profitable exercise.... all the earnings, perhaps more, will go to paying someone to do (or help do) the tax filings. The simplest taxes are for a business that you completely own. Corporations and Partnerships involve additional forms and get more and more and complex, and even more so when it involves foreign participation. Partnerships are often not formal partnerships but can be more easily thought of as independent businesses that each participants owns, that are simply doing some business with each other. Schedule C is the IRS form you fill out for any businesses that you own. On schedule C you would list the income from advertising. Also on schedule C there is a place for all of the business expenses, such as ads that you buy, a server that you rent, supplies, employees, and independent contractors. Amounts paid to an independent contractor certainly need not be based on hours, but could be a fixed fee, or based on profit earned. Finally, if you pay anyone in the USA over a certain amount, you have to tell the IRS about that with a Form 1099 at the beginning of the next year, so they can fill out their taxes. BUT.... according to an article in International Tax Blog you might not have to file Form 1099 with the IRS for foreign contractors if they are not US persons (not a US citizen or a resident visa holder).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "046c3a367b30527c5d320c397e8de7c7",
"text": "If you are in the US and a regular employee, this will have to show up on your year-end W2 form as income. If it doesn't, there is some funky accounting business going and you should probably consult a professional for advice.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
556e342b08475ae9fec913573fc9fa01
|
Should I refi a rental property to reduce income tax from positive cash flow and use the equity pulled out to fund an annuity?
|
[
{
"docid": "309cfe3599915bf4a193f66e589a27ef",
"text": "\"You need to do a bit more research and as @littleadv often wisely advises, consult a professional, in this case a tax layer or CPA. You are not allowed to just pull money out of a property and write off the interest. From Deducting Mortgage Interest FAQs If you own rental property and borrow against it to buy a home, the interest does not qualify as mortgage interest because the loan is not secured by the home itself. Interest paid on that loan can't be deducted as a rental expense either, because the funds were not used for the rental property. The interest expense is actually considered personal interest, which is no longer deductible. This is not exactly your situation of course, but it illustrates the restriction that will apply to you. Elsewhere in the article, it references how, if used for a business, the interest deduction still will not apply to the rental, but to the business via schedule C. In your case, it's worse, you can never deduct interest used to fund a tax free bond, or to invest in such a tax favored product. Putting the facts aside, I often use the line \"\"don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog.\"\" Borrowing in order to reduce taxes is rarely a wise move. If you look at the interest on the 90K vs 290K, you'll see you are paying, in effect, 5.12% on the extra 200K, due the higher rate on the entire sum. Elsewhere on this board, there are members who would say that given the choice to invest or pay off a 4% mortgage, paying it off is guaranteed, and the wiser thing to do. I think there's a fine line and might not be so quick to pay that loan off, an after-tax 3% cost of borrowing is barely higher than inflation. But to borrow at over 5% to invest in an annuity product whose terms you didn't disclose, does seem right to me. Borrow to invest in the next property? That's another story.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "158a63615addb9a4abf5b13f930e9c11",
"text": "It is great that you came up with a plan to own a rental home, free and clear, and also move up in home. It is also really good of you to recognize that curtailing spending has a profound effect on your net worth, many people fail to acknowledge that factoid and prefer to instead blame things outside their control. Good work there. Here are some items of your plan that I have comments on. 11mo by aggressively curtailing elective spending How does your spouse feel about this? They have to be on board, but it is such a short time frame this is very doable. cashing out all corporate stock, This will probably trigger capital gains. You have to be prepared to pay the tax man, but this is a good source of cash for your plan. You also have to have an additional amount that will likely be due next April 15th. redirecting all contributions to my current non-matched R401(k) This is fine as well because of the short time frame. withdrawing the principal from a Roth IRA This I kind of hate. We are so limited in money that we can put into tax favored plans, that taking money out bothers me. Also it is that much more difficult to save in a ROTH because of the sting of taxes. I would not do this, but would favor instead to take a few extra months to make your plan happen. buy home #2 How are you going to have a down payment for home #2? Is your intention to pay off home and save a while, then purchase home #2? I would do anything to avoid PMI. Besides I would take some time to live in a paid for house. Overall I would grade your plan a B. If take a bit longer, and remove the withdrawing from the ROTH, it then becomes an A-. With a good explanation of how you come up with the down payment for house 2, you could easily move to an A+.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "26063f8b48952df9d44916db1b78b668",
"text": "Purchase capital asset (deductible expense). Sell capital asset next year, then use the proceeds of the sale to pay your employees. Unless you buy in a quickly gentrifying area you'll have a fair amount of unrecoverable expenses like closing costs, repairs, etc that you won't make up with an increase in property value. Plus property taxes, utilities, etc. And who knows how quickly you can sell the place, might end up with a bloated useless asset and no money to pay employees. And in an audit an asset purchased with no actual use to the business will get disallowed. Either retain the earnings and take the tax hit, or make a deal with your employees to pre pay them their next year's salary. Of course if you fire someone or they quit good luck getting the overpaid portion back.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "559bcb23af398eac7d3065409eed3ab5",
"text": "If your mortgage interest is tax-deductible, it's generally a bad idea to pay down the principal on the mortgage because you'd be losing the tax deduction. You could instead invest it in a tax-free municipal bond fund, especially if you're in a high tax bracket (including state and local marginal tax rates). For example, if you have a 5% rate mortgage on your home, you could invest in a 3.5% municipal bond and still come out ahead when you apply the tax deduction to your income at a 44% (33% federal + 7% state + 4% city in NYC) marginal tax rate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3fcd316ac05b8ae0bdeabc00453d5ab6",
"text": "Wow, hard to believe not a single answer mentioned investing in one of the best asset classes for tax purposes...real estate. Now, I'm not advising you to rush out and buy an investment property. But rather than just dumping your money into mutual funds...over which you have almost 0 control...buy some books on real estate investing. There are plenty of areas to get into, rehabs, single family housing rentals, multifamily, apartments, mobile home parks...and even some of those can have their own specialties. Learn now! And yes, you do have some control over real estate...you control where you buy, so you pick your local market...you can always force appreciation by rehabbing...if you rent, you approve your renters. Compared to a mutual fund run by someone you'll never meet, buying stocks in companies you've likely never even heard of...you have far more control. No matter what area of investing you decide to go into, there is a learning curve...or you will pay a penalty. Go slow, but move forward. Also, all the advice on using your employer's matching (if available) for 401k should be the easiest first step. How do you turn down free money? Besides, the bottom line on your paycheck may not change as much as you think it might...and when weighed against what you get in return...well worth the time to get it setup and active.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "310ce16fe56a397df07b40162c76b9cb",
"text": "Definitely don't borrow from your 401K. If you quit or get laid off, you have to repay the whole amount back immediately, plus you are borrowing from your opportunity cost. The stock market should be good at least through the end of this year. As one of the commentators already stated, have you calculated your net savings by reducing the interest rate? You will be paying closing costs and not all of these are deductible (only the points are). When calculating the savings, you have to ask yourself how long you will be hanging on the property? Are you likely to be long term landlords, or do you have any ideas on selling in the near future? You can reduce the cost and principal by throwing the equivalent of one to two extra mortgage payments a year to get the repayment period down significantly (by years). In this way, you are not married to a higher payment (as you would be if you refinanced to a 15 year term). I would tend to go with a) eat the appraisal cost, not refinance, and b) throw extra money towards principal to get the term of the loan to be reduced.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "deb2bff6905ef128e60e380efdfb843f",
"text": "In general you do not want to show a taxable gain on rental properties if you can avoid it. One of the more beneficial advantages of owning cash flowing rental properties, is that the income is tax deferred because of the depreciation. I say deferred, because depreciation affects the cost basis of your property. Also since you are considering financing, it sounds like you don't need the cash flow currently. You usually can get better returns by financing and buying more rental properties, especially with investment mortgages at historical lows (Win via inflation over time)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "acd62faed95438bed45b8762abf9ebfb",
"text": "\"http://www.investopedia.com/articles/mortgages-real-estate/08/tax-deductible-mortgage-canada.asp > This strategy is not for everyone. Borrowing against your home is psychologically difficult, and if the investments don't yield expected returns, this strategy could yield negative results. By re-borrowing the equity in your home, you are also removing your \"\"cushion\"\" of safety if the real estate (or investment) markets take a turn for the worse. By creating an income-producing portfolio in an unregistered account, there can also be additional tax consequences - so always consult with a professional financial advisor to determine whether this strategy is for you, and if it is, have it tailor-made to you and your family's personal financial situation.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d43af4b1dc8286b7debd6994eaf2ae9",
"text": "Basically there are 2 ways you can make money from an investment, through income (eg: rent or dividends) and through the price of the investment going up (capital growth or gains). Most people associate negative gearing with investment properties but it can be done with shares and other investments where you borrow money to buy the investment and it produces an income of some sort. If the investment does not produce an income then you cannot negative gear it. Using a property as an example (in Australia), if all your expenses each month (loan interest payments, council and water rates, insurance and/or strata, advertising and management fees, depreciation, and maintenance expense) are greater than your income (rent), then you are negative gearing the investment property. This is a monthly loss on your investment which can be used to offset and reduce the amount of tax you pay during the year. So most people negative gearing an investment property will get a nice sum back when they do their tax returns. The problem with negative gearing is that you have to lose money in order to save some tax. So as an example, if you are on a marginal tax rate of 30%, for every $1 you lose from the investment property you will save 30c in tax. If your marginal tax rate is 45% then will save 45c in tax for every $1 lost on the investment property. Thus negative gearing becomes more tax effective the higher your income (and tax bracket). But you are still losing money overall. The problem is that most novice investors buy an investment property for the main purpose of reducing their taxes. This can be dangerous because the main reason to buy any investment should be that you consider it to be a good investment, not to save you tax. Because if the investment is not a good one, then you will not only lose money on the income side but also on the capital side. Negative gearing should be looked at as a bonus or additional benefit when chosing a good investment to buy, not as the reason to buy the investment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"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": "b4e446ef6ed7ae3dba27349e0b3fede8",
"text": "You're not crazy, but the banks are. Here's the problem: You're taking 100% LTV on property A - you won't be able to get a second mortgage for more than 80% total (including the current mortgage) LTV. That's actually something I just recently learned from my own experience. If the market is bad, the banks might even lower the LTV limit further. So essentially, at least 20% of your equity in A will remain on the paper. Banks don't like seeing the down-payment coming from anywhere other than your savings. Putting the downpayment from loan proceeds, even if not secured by the property which you're refinancing, will probably scare banks off. How to solve this? Suggest to deal with it as a business, putting both properties under a company/LLC, if possible. It might be hard to change the titles while you have loans on your properties, but even without it - deal with it as if it is a business. Approach your bank for a business loan - either secured by A or unsecured, and another investment loan for B. Describe your strategy to the banker (preferably a small community bank in the area where the properties are), and how you're going to fund the properties. You won't get rates as low as you have on A (3.25% on investment loan? Not a chance, that one is a keeper), but you might be able to get rid of the balloon/variable APR problem.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7a0bb7979da8c6d219194fbe361f039b",
"text": "You can't pay your bills with equity in your house. Assuming you paid off the mortgage, where would the money come from that you plan to live off of? If that is your whole retirement savings I'd say do neither. Maybe an annuity (not variable) for SOME of the money, keep the rest invested in conservative investments some of it in cash for emergencies.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b214c21bfffcc07a9824cab573471df1",
"text": "That is a decision you need to make, but some of the pros and cons you could consider to help your decision making include: Pros: If bought at the right time in the property cycle and in a good growth area, it can help you grow your net worth much quicker than having money in the bank earning near zero interest. You would be replacing rent payments with mortgage payments and if your mortage payments are less than your current rent you will have additional money to pay for any expenses on the property and have a similar cashflow as you do now. You will be able to deduct your interest payments on the mortgage against your income if you are in the USA, thus reducing the tax you pay. You will have the security of your own house and not have to worry about moving if the landlord wants you out after your lease expires. Cons: If bought in a bad area and at the top of the property cycle you may never make any capital gains on the property and in fact may lose money on it long term. If the mortgage payments are more than your current rent you may be paying more especially at the start of your mortgage. If you buy a house you are generally stuck in one spot, it will be harder to move to different areas or states as it can cost a lot of money and time to sell and buy elsewhere, if renting you can generally just give notice and find a new place to rent. Property maintenance costs and taxes could be a drain on your finances, especially if the mortgage repayments are more than your current rent. If your mortgage payments and property expenses are way more than your current rent, it may reduce what you could be investing in other areas to help increase your net worth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8458e6ebcc66911b291d37d15bc50a86",
"text": "To start, I hope you are aware that the properties' basis gets stepped up to market value on inheritance. The new basis is the start for the depreciation that must be applied each year after being placed in service as rental units. This is not optional. Upon selling the units, depreciation is recaptured whether it's taken each year or not. There is no rule of thumb for such matters. Some owners would simply collect the rent, keep a reserve for expenses or empty units, and pocket the difference. Others would refinance to take cash out and leverage to buy more property. The banker is not your friend, by the way. He is a salesman looking to get his cut. The market has had a good recent run, doubling from its lows. Right now, I'm not rushing to prepay my 3.5% mortgage sooner than it's due, nor am I looking to pull out $500K to throw into the market. Your proposal may very well work if the market sees a return higher than the mortgage rate. On the flip side I'm compelled to ask - if the market drops 40% right after you buy in, will you lose sleep? And a fellow poster (@littleadv) is whispering to me - ask a pro if the tax on a rental mortgage is still deductible when used for other purposes, e.g. a stock purchase unrelated to the properties. Last, there are those who suggest that if you want to keep investing in real estate, leverage is fine as long as the numbers work. From the scenario you described, you plan to leverage into an already pretty high (in terms of PE10) and simply magnifying your risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6474f9e233c80bd3d4a1c35ff0746bcd",
"text": "Your question is best asked of a tax expert, not random people on the internet. Such an expert will help you ask the right questions. For example you did not point out the country or state in which you live. That matters. First point is that you will not pay tax on 60K, its expensive to transact real estate, so your net proceeds will be closer to 40K. Also you can probably the deduct the costs of improvements. You implied that you really like this rental property. If that is the case, why would you sell...ever? This home could be a central part of your financial independence plan. So keep it until you die. IIRC when it passes to your heirs, a new cost basis is formed thereby not passing the tax burden onto them. (Assuming the property is located in the US.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8670fe180d96963e64f7335cd3d86721",
"text": "\"First, let's look at the tax brackets for single taxpayers in 2016: The cutoff between the 25% and 28% tax bracket is $91,150. You said that your gross is $87,780. This will be reduced by deductions and exemptions (at least $10,350). Your rental income will increase your income, but it is offset in part by your rental business expenses. For this year, you will almost certainly be in the 25% bracket, whether or not you receive your backpay this year. Next year, if you receive your backpay then and your salary is $11k higher, I'm guessing you'll be close to the edge. It is important to remember that the tax brackets are marginal. This means that when you move up to the next tax bracket, it is only the amount of income that puts you over the top that is taxed at the higher rate. (You can see this in the chart above.) So if, for example, your taxable income ends up being $91,160, you'll be in the 28% tax bracket, but only $10 of your income will be taxed at 28%. The rest will be taxed at 25% or lower. As a result, this probably isn't worth worrying about too much. A bit more explanation, requested by the OP: Here is how to understand the numbers in the tax bracket chart. Let's take a look at the second line, $9,276-$37,650. The tax rate is explained as \"\"$927.50 plus 15% of the amount over $9,275.\"\" The first $9,275 of your taxable income is taxed at a 10% rate. So if your total taxable income falls between $9,276 and $37,650, the first $9,275 is taxed at 10% (a tax of $927.50) and the amount over $9,275 is taxed at 15%. On each line of the chart, the amount of tax from all the previous brackets is carried down, so you don't have to calculate it. When I said that you have at least $10,350 in deductions and exemptions, I got that number from the standard deduction and the personal exemption amount. For 2016, the standard deduction for single taxpayers is $6,300. (If you itemize your deductions, you might be able to deduct more.) Personal exemptions for 2016 are at $4,050 per person. That means you get to reduce your taxable income by $4,050 for each person in your household. Since you are single with no dependents, your standard deduction plus the personal exemption for yourself will result in a reduction of at least $10,350 on your taxable income.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
9e83d39e1677ec902f95cd24efe5735e
|
Multiple accounts stagnant after quitting job.
|
[
{
"docid": "c272626701d3d9b5cce218299824fd1e",
"text": "Adapted from an answer to a somewhat different question. Generally, 401k plans have larger annual expenses and provide for poorer investment choices than are available to you if you roll over your 401k investments into an IRA. So, unless you have specific reasons for wanting to continue to leave your money in the 401k plan (e.g. you have access to investments that are not available to nonparticipants and you think those investments are where you want your money to be), roll over your 401k assets into an IRA. But I don't think that is the case here. If you had a Traditional 401k, the assets will roll over into a Traditional IRA; if it was a Roth 401k, into a Roth IRA. If you had started a little earlier, you could have considered considered converting part or all of your Traditional IRA into a Roth IRA (assuming that your 2012 taxable income will be smaller this year because you have quit your job). Of course, this may still hold true in 2013 as well. As to which custodian to choose for your Rollover IRA, I recommend investing in a low-cost index mutual fund such as VFINX which tracks the S&P 500 Index. Then, do not look at how that fund is doing for the next thirty years. This will save you from the common error made by many investors when they pull out at the first downturn and thus end up buying high and selling low. Also, do not chase after exchange-traded mutual funds or ETFs (as many will likely recommend) until you have acquired more savvy or interest in investing than you are currently exhibiting. Not knowing which company stock you have, it is hard to make a recommendation about selling or holding on. But since you are glad to have quit your job, you might want to consider making a clean break and selling the shares that you own in your ex-employer's company. Keep the $35K (less the $12K that you will use to pay off the student loan) as your emergency fund. Pay off your student loan right away since you have the cash to do it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a49a54204023c175881cedcd8f91556f",
"text": "What is my best bet with the 401K? I know very little about retirement plans and don't plan to ever touch this money until I retire but could this money be of better use somewhere else? You can roll over a 401k into an IRA. This lets you invest in other funds and stocks that were not available with your 401k plan. Fidelity and Vanguard are 2 huge companies that offer a number of investment opportunities. When I left an employer that had the 401k plan with Fidelity, I was able to rollover the investments and leave them in the existing mutual funds (several of the funds have been closed to new investors for years). Usually, when leaving an employer, I have the funds transferred directly to the place my IRA is at - this avoids tax penalties and potential pitfalls. The student loans.... pay them off in one shot? If the interest is higher than you could earn in a savings account, then it is smarter to pay them off at once. My student loans are 1.8%, so I can earn more money in my mutual funds. I'm suspicious and think something hinky is going to happen with the fiscal cliff negotiations, so I'm going to be paying off my student loans in early 2013. Disclaimer: I have IRA accounts with both Fidelity and Vanguard. My current 401k plan is with Vanguard.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "60c52cf4bde6b6a5ccd6aadd0997b568",
"text": "\"What is my best bet with the 401K? I know very little about retirement plans and don't plan to ever touch this money until I retire but could this money be of better use somewhere else? If you don't know your options, I would suggest reading some material on it that might be a little more extensive than an answer here (for instance, http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/ has some good and free information about a myriad of financial topics). With retirement accounts you can roll it over or leave it in the current account. Things to look at would be costs of the accounts, options you have in each account, and the flexibility of moving it if you need to. Depending on what type of retirement account it is (Roth 401K, Traditional 401K, etc, you may have some advantages with moving it to another type). The student loans.... pay them off in one shot? I have the extra money and it would not be a hardship to do so unless that money can be best used somewhere else? Unless I was making more money in a savings/investing/business opportunity, I would pay off the student loans in a lump sum. The reason is basic opportunity cost (economics) - if a better opportunity isn't on the horizon with your money, kill the interest you're paying because it's money you're losing every month. With the money just sitting in the bank I get a little sick feeling thinking that I can be doing something better with that. Outside of general savings you could look at investing in stocks, ETFs, mutual funds, currencies, lending club loans (vary by state), or something similar. Or you could try to start a business or invest in a start up directly (though, depending on the start up, they may not accept small investors). Otherwise, if you don't have a specific idea at this time, it's best to have money in savings while you ponder where else it would serve you. Keep in mind, having cash on hand, even if it's not earning anything, can bail you out in emergencies or open the door if an opportunity arises. So, you're really not \"\"losing\"\" anything by having it in cash if you're patiently waiting on opportunities.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "35298261a2ee06ab01d4624c2c450040",
"text": "\"You ask multiple question here. The 401(k) - move it to an IRA. As others stated,this will lower your costs, and open up a potential I didn't see mentioned, the conversion to a Roth IRA. A year in which your income is lower than average is a great opportunity to convert a bit of the IRA enough to \"\"top off\"\" the lower bracket in which you may find yourself. The company stock? If you never worked for the company would you have bought this stock? Would you buy it now? If not, why keep it? The loan is the toughest decision. Will you sleep better if it were paid in full? What's the rate? 6% or more, I'd pay it off, under 4%, less likely. I'd invest much of the cash and the $8000 in stock in a Dilip-recommended VFINX, and use the dividends to pay the loan each month.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "ca6ef94cbabc04ae7b7ef2188c6eb6df",
"text": "Bank of America is the worst. Once I had a joint account with another individual that I had funded out of my account to make payroll. When I found out that he had screwed two other people by stealing the payroll money I decided to disburse it myself and transferred it back to my corporate account on which I was the only signer. He went back to the bank and effected a withdrawal from my account to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars, put the money in the joint account and removed me as a signer. The bank wouldn't give me my money back and I never collected from him. Another time I tried to close my sons' accounts which were in inactive status. Every day for a week they told me they could not close the account until it was active, but they were working on making it active. Chase could do this in a minute. I finally went to a branch and loudly informed the manager that maybe the bank was insolvent and that I should call the FDIC to see why they won't release my money. He wanted to take me into his office. I told him loudly, I know all about DDAs, Savings and CDs, I have run deposit operations for a major bank and wrote software to process them. Just put a hold on the account, write me two cashiers check and offset them with a suspense voucher. You do know how to write a suspense voucher don't you? It's just a general ledger entry to a suspense account. Well he was so embarassed he would do anything to get me out of the branch and gave me the cashier's checks. Fuck B of A.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e5bd30df315f45d3433c7b6140119124",
"text": "\"I'm no accounting expert, but I've never heard of anyone using a separate account to track outstanding checks. Instead, the software I use (GnuCash) uses a \"\"reconciled\"\" flag on each transaction. This has 3 states: n: new transaction (the bank doesn't know about it yet), c: cleared transaction (the bank deducted the money), and y: reconciled transaction (the transaction has appeared on a bank statement). The account status line includes a Cleared balance (which should be how much is in your bank account right now), a Reconciled balance (which is how much your last bank statement said you had), and a Present balance (which is how much you'll have after your outstanding checks clear). I believe most accounting packages have a similar feature.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "98a527b30097928edd73bebb529339ae",
"text": "This discussion indicates that the accounts are not reported to credit agencies, but the post is also over a year old, and who knows how reliable the information is (it's fairly well-traveled, though). It's based on one person calling up Trans Union and E-Trade and asking people directly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1bed398557ab5aed028262e5a1c0a590",
"text": "\"I assume you get your information from somewhere where they don't report the truth. I'm sorry if mentioning Fox News offended you, it was not my intention. But the way the question is phrased suggests that you know nothing about what \"\"pension\"\" means. So let me explain. 403(b) is not a pension account. Pension account is generally a \"\"defined benefit\"\" account, whereas 403(b)/401(k) and similar - are \"\"defined contribution\"\" accounts. The difference is significant: for pensions, the employer committed on certain amount to be paid out at retirement (the defined benefit) regardless of how much the employee/employer contributed or how well the account performed. This makes such an arrangement a liability. An obligation to pay. In other words - debt. Defined contribution on the other hand doesn't create such a liability, since the employer is only committed for the match, which is paid currently. What happens to your account after the employer deposited the defined contribution (the match) - is your problem. You manage it to the best of your abilities and whatever you have there when you retire - is yours, the employer doesn't owe you anything. Here's the problem with pensions: many employers promised the defined benefit, but didn't do anything about actually having money to pay. As mentioned, such a pension is essentially a debt, and the retiree is a debt holder. What happens when employer cannot pay its debts? Employer goes bankrupt. And when bankrupt - debtors are paid only part of what they were owed, and that includes the retirees. There's no-one raiding pensions. No-one goes to the bank with a gun and demands \"\"give me the pension money\"\". What happened was that the employers just didn't fund the pensions. They promised to pay - but didn't set aside any money, or set aside not enough. Instead, they spent it on something else, and when the time came that the retirees wanted their money - they didn't have any. That's what happened in Detroit, and in many other places. 403(b) is in fact the solution to this problem. Instead of defined benefit - the employers commit on defined contribution, and after that - it's your problem, not theirs, to have enough when you're retired.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f852b2dde85d5a0bd328e9ec0f79c75",
"text": "Your last sentence is key. If you have multiple accounts, it's too easy to lose track over the years. I've seen too many people pass on and the spouse has a tough time tracking the accounts, often finding a prior spouse listed as beneficiary. In this case, your gut is right, simpler is better.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6de2264a0a9d82015be6c5d897c27ebd",
"text": "I have a car loan paid in full and even paid off early, and 2 personal loans paid in full from my credit union that don't seem to reflect in a positive way and all 3 were in good standing. But you also My credit card utilization is 95%. I have a total of 4 store credit cards, a car loan, 2 personal loans. So assuming no overlap, you've paid off three of your ten loans (30%). And you still have 95% utilization. What would you do if you were laid off for six months? Regardless of payment history, you would most likely stop making payments on your loans. This is why your credit score is bad. You are in fact a credit risk. Not due to payment history. If your payment history was bad, you'd likely rank worse. But simple fiscal reality is that you are an adverse event away from serious fiscal problems. For that matter, the very point that you are considering bankruptcy says that they are right to give you a poor score. Bankruptcy has adverse effects on you, but for your creditors it means that many of them will never get paid or get paid less than what they loaned. The hard advice that we can give is to reduce your expenses. Stop going to restaurants. Prepare breakfast and supper from scratch and bag your lunch. Don't put new expenses on your credit cards unless you can pay them this month. Cut up your store cards and don't shop for anything but necessities. Whatever durables (furniture, appliances, clothes, shoes, etc.) you have now should be enough for the next year or so. Cut your expenses. Have premium channels on your cable or the extra fast internet? Drop back to the minimum instead. Turn the heat down and the A/C temperature up (so it cools less). Turn off the lights if you aren't using them. If you move, move to a cheaper apartment. Nothing to do? Get a second job. That will not only keep you from being bored, it will help with your financial issues. Bankruptcy will not itself fix the problems you describe. You are living beyond your means. Bankruptcy might make you stop living beyond your means. But it won't fix the problem that you make less money than you want to spend. Only you can do that. Better to stop the spending now rather than waiting until bankruptcy makes your credit even worse and forces you to cut spending. If you have extra money at the end of the month, pick the worst loan and pay as much of it as you can. By worst, I mean the one with the worst terms going forward. Highest interest rate, etc. If two loans have the same rate, pay the smaller one first. Once you pay off that loan, it will increase the amount of money you have left to pay off your other loans. This is called the debt snowball (snowball effect). After you finish paying off your debt, save up six months worth of expenses or income. These will be your emergency savings. Once you have your emergency fund, write out a budget and stick to it. You can buy anything you want, so long as it fits in your budget. Avoid borrowing unless absolutely necessary. Instead, save your money for bigger purchases. With savings, you not only avoid paying interest, you may actually get paid interest. Even if it's a low rate, paid to you is better than paying someone else. One of the largest effects of bankruptcy is that it forces you to act like this. They offer you even less credit at worse terms. You won't be able to shop on credit anymore. No new car loan. No mortgage. No nice clothes on credit. So why declare bankruptcy? Take charge of your spending now rather than waiting until you can't do anything else.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c92aca1f7227e4c3bc1b62c167806fc1",
"text": "\"No, this is not true. All of these banks are subject to audits by one of the four largest accounting firms in the country. These firms are worth billions of dollars. They would not risk their reputation opining on the validity of financial statements of companies that are \"\"allowed to keep two sets of books.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "39c82585353ac6f469c103758f56eea7",
"text": "Well, you're business/accounting acumen is nothing to brag about and your character is still out for judgment, though your insistence on trying to make this point despite being wrong is sort of working against you. Other than that, I don't know anything else about you to make that kind of assessment. Though you are tenacious, I'll give you that. You keep arguing with me despite saying you were done with this. So that could possibly be a positive character trait.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a5bb0e9b47404b931db4000eeea9f93",
"text": "It's sad. My mother lost her job after a brutal divorce. BOA bought up Countrywide, then when my mother pleaded for assistance BOA said they could not help her unless she was behind/in default of her mortgage. She tried to do a deed-in-lieu with a lawyer and BOA refused to accept the deed-in-lieu many times. Then BOA sold her mortgage to Green Tree (?) and they refused her deed-in-lieu as well. This went on for over 2 years and they foreclosed on the house. I told my mother to sue because they should have accepted her deed-in-lieu because it was approved by the court in her bankruptcy but she was tired of trying to save her house that she just walked away. 6 months after she left and moved in with my sister Green Tree called her offering a refinance at a lower rate and a mortgage payment that was less than a typical car payment. Now 5 years later my mom is just going to pay cash for her house and never do a mortgage again.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "7ac28e80f3aded6c61b2c5c30003cc89",
"text": "Sounds like they need to tighten the regulation around that and specify how long one can be off and tie that to further employment. In other words, you can't go off and come back to just quit, but need a specified time off, and a specified time back on the job. Beyond entry level, can't you hire contract workers for the interim? Surely the UK has temp agencies for just this sort of thing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "57abae6c2d43dc8a8a1ff90716c636d9",
"text": "Wow, that is filled with misinformation. What are you trying to achieve here? L1 has a 5yr limit, and requires a ton of evidence to support the fact that you were previously working in a managerial/executive function with the same parent company. In order to prove that, you need to be making a reasonably large salary too. It has to be applied for by the employing company, through a lawyer. What a load of hogwash, don't write about topics you have no knowledge of.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "91fa8adecec3d85a8d239f24f373c472",
"text": "I don't still have an account there, but ING Direct used to do that for you. They would set it so money would be freed up every 6 months but after a while you would have like 5-year ones to maximize returns.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5aba3db1c635fb56858a3325e635d1f4",
"text": "\"Page 62, https://assets.pershingsquareholdings.com/media/2017/01/26223015/2016-PSH-Annual-Update-Presentation-FOR-DISTRIBUTION.pdf Looking at Pershing Square's 13-F, Bill Ackman is gonna see his money soon Recently I posted a friend's resume on craigslist and some brainwashed herbalife chick was spamming e-mail responses to all the people who had posted their resume, regardless of whether the position the candidate was seeking or qualifications the candidate had was relevant or not. I told her it's a bad idea to spam using her real name and that MLMs are trash. Also, the person whose resume I posted was looking for a job in finance and that she clearly didn't read the ad. Her responses: \"\"Thanks for your opinion. We are all entitled to them. Finance to me means money! I teach people how to make money! Putting their skills to work for themselves. Good luck to you in your search! You sound like you got a shining personality.\"\" \"\"PS, if you are in finance you probably know your stuff! Go ahead and check out what Carl Icahn thinks about network marketing. He's undeniably the wealthiest man in the United States of America. He knows a thing or two about Finance. He backs are company amazing. Maybe I'll be close-minded. I don't want to work with you, but you don't really know what you're talking about.\"\" made me lol and facepalm\"",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
7f95cc4025e4ea768146ee2ac0997eb5
|
A check I received was lost. My options?
|
[
{
"docid": "4c38a224a7b26fa45a87c6115e016aa9",
"text": "Lost checks happen occasionally, and there are procedures in place (banking & business) to handle the situation. First and foremost you need to: Note: The money is legally yours, so the company is obligated to work with you here. If they refuse to cancel or reissue the check, at a minimum you'll want to contact the state government and let them know about the company's actions, if small claims court is not an option. Businesses aren't permitted to keep 'forfeited funds' in most states, instead they are required to turn them over to the government who would then return them to you when you ask for it. It's rather scummy of the government bureaucrats, because it puts them in the sole position to benefit from forgotten money, but that's the system we've given ourselves. Since you've moved overseas since the last time you worked with this company, you might need to exercise a little patience and be willing to jump through some hoops to get this resolved. Be prepared to provide them proof of who you are, and be ready to pay for extra security such as certified mail / FedEx so that you're both sure that the new check is delivered to you and only you. Last of all, learn from your mistake this time and be a little more cautious / proactive in keeping track of checks and depositing them in the future.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c27b0051ac85e22b49fa005196d2d05b",
"text": "You still owe the money because there is a high probability that some other organization bough the account and assets of the failed creditor. That means they will have bought your debt. I have to assume there is language in your note that explains that they might sell your debt. But what should one do if they don't know who bought the entity? You can't pay a non-existent entity, but if you don't have an address, how can you pay the new owner of the debt? First step, is to assume there will be a new owner. A government, a company, an individual; somebody will buy that debt. Read the news and see if you can't figure out what other entity owns your note. You might have to contact them to enquire about where to send payment. Keep records of any such contact. If you put in an honest effort, but just cannot figure out who owns your note, I'd suggest continuing to make regular on-time payments. But put your payments into a new bank account that you open just for this purpose. So when the new owner of the debt does come calling, you'll have reasonable proof you were attempting to pay. You simply settle up from the special account. Any reasonable company will just take the money, and if anybody gets unreasonable and you have to appear in court, you have a paper trail indicating your attempts to honour the debt. You'd have to consult a lawyer if nobody comes asking for the money. There are probably statutes of limitation, but I wouldn't count on that ever happening.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee6e7c24edf75cb54bb9377ca4d39ee8",
"text": "It's not your money. According to one article, the interest on the money could be negotiated in some cases to be yours, but I wouldn't plan on it. From MSN: According to a complaint filed by the state of Minnesota, the 37-year-old social worker received a $2.6 million payment from the state Department of Human Services that had been intended for a local hospital. Instead of immediately reporting the mistake, the woman and a friend opened investment accounts, bought jewelry, purchased four vehicles including two Land Rovers and spent $3,817 at Best Buy. Six weeks after getting the money, she called the Human Services Department to ask why the check had been sent to her, according to the complaint. When informed the payment was an error and the money had to be returned, the woman reportedly told the department to talk to her attorney and refused to respond to follow-up calls. As the prosecutor said to a St. Paul Pioneer Press reporter, there's a big difference between keeping money when you can't reasonably be expected to determine the true owner -- like that $20 bill on the street -- and keeping money when you can. The state had the pair's accounts frozen and is prosecuting for theft as well as civil charges, though the woman returned the unspent money and the property she bought. More from MSN Money A better approach to an unexplained windfall is to keep the money in a separate account while you track down the source. Who gets to keep the interest earned will be one of those things you work out with the rightful owner's attorneys. Bankrate has a similar story posted as well.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "719f1685a89d9fb9de133c901e3092fc",
"text": "Have the check reissued to the proper payee.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5f1f8ff31dd3660e2605889bd69b79fc",
"text": "They can go to an ATM and deposit it in to their account. The ATM does not care to read the name, and the bank does not care to verify anything if the check goes through (meaning the bank it is drawn on pays). So if nobody complains, that's it, he has your money. You would need to go to the check-writer's bank and ask for help, or look at the check-writer's cancelled check copy if you get to it. That bank can find out where it was deposited to, and then you have to go after the guy and get your money back - if it is still recoverable! - if it is a poor sod and he already blew your 5 grand, you can sue his pants off, but there are no 5 grand in them anywhere. So bad luck for you. Technically, the bank is not supposed to accept the check if the name doesn't match. At the counter, that might get a question, but as said above, there are deposit ATMs, and he could also just endorse the check to himself and sign the endorsement with some illegible scrawling, and claim that this is your signature - how would Joe the teller know? Either way, he gets the check in his account, and then he can take it out and blow it. It is legally clearly theft or fraud, and probably a federal crime, but if the guy is bankrupt, that doesn't help you much. Depending on that bank's fine-print, they might or might not cover your loss, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Better don't lose a check.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e5fe8aaa425cd08ca576a07c27c3f16",
"text": "You'd have to consult a lawyer in the state that the transaction took place to get a definitive answer. And also provide the details of the contract or settlement agreement. That said, if you clearly presented the check as payment (verbally or otherwise) and they accepted and cashed the check, and it cleared, you should have good legal standing to force them to finalize the payment. While they had every right to refuse the payment, and also every right to place a hold on the credit until the transaction cleared their bank, they don't have the right to simply claim the payment as a gift just because it came in a different form than they specified in the contract. Obviously this is a lesson learned on reading the fine print though. And, to be frank, it sounds like someone wants to make life difficult for you for whatever reason. And if that is the case I would refer back to my initial comment about contacting a lawyer in that state.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dbc64c870685d9d3c4e4e506ee4e6c5f",
"text": "I do know that a blank check has all the information they need for the electronic transfer. They probably add it as a customer service to streamline future payments. Though I don't think automatically adding it makes good business sense. It is possible that the form used to submit the check included a line to added the account to the list of authorized accounts. He might have been lucky he didn't set up a recurring payment. I would check the website to see if there is a tool to remove the account info from the list of payment options. There has to be a way to edit the list so that if you change banks you can update the information, yet not keep the old accounts on the list. Talk to customer service if the website doesn't have a way of removing the account. Tell them that you have to edit the account information. And give them your info. If they balk at the change tell them that they could be committing fraud if the money is pulled from an unauthorized account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf71d5a84316745ad55ad0519e6ee5db",
"text": "\"What does it mean that the bank will \"\"hold you responsible\"\"? Clearly the money won't be credited. Will you be charged a fee like an NSF cheque? Will they try to prosecute you? Is there any way to confirm whether a cashiers cheque is forged? Could you for example tell your bank that you were uncertain of the origin, and ask them to confirm it? Can you call the issuer and verify (from the serial number) that they did in fact issue a cheque for that amount with you as the payee? Even calling the bank might not help. The first verification is that the bank exists, and that the account number and name match and that they did issue a check. But that doesn't cover the situation where the person that sent you the check wasn't who they claimed to be. That is the theft that could take weeks to find.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "288030820e1d78decd491525378e6253",
"text": "\"There are at least three financial institutions involved here: your insurance company's bank, the money center, and your bank. Normally, they would keep records, but given that the money center didn't even ask for your signature, \"\"normal\"\" probably doesn't apply to them. Still, you can still ask them what records they have, in addition to the other two institutions; the company's bank and your bank likely have copies of the check.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9bb78deeb91af610c9616f3121904d4e",
"text": "\"First, congratulations on the paycheck! :-) On the holds: Is it possible that by allowing your account balance to go negative (into overdraft) that you triggered such treatment of your account? Perhaps the bank is being more cautious with your account since that happened. Just how long did you have their $150 on hold? ;-) Or, perhaps it's not you specifically but the bank is being more cautious due to credit conditions that have been prevalent these last years. Consider: allowing you to cash a check immediately – when it technically hasn't cleared yet – is a form of credit. Maybe it isn't you they don't trust well enough yet, but the company that issued the check? Checks bounce, and not by fault of the depositor. I once had a new account, years ago, and discovered a 5 day hold on deposits. The irony was it was a check drawn on the same bank! I called my banker and asked about it – and suggested I'd take my business back to my old bank. I was in the process of applying for a mortgage with the new bank. Holds were removed. But you may have some trouble with the \"\"I'll walk\"\" technique given the climate and your recent overdraft situation and no leverage – or if you do have some leverage, consider using it. But before you assume anything, I would, as JohnFx suggested, ask your bank about it. Pay your branch a visit in person and talk to the manager. Phone calls to customer service may be less successful. If it's not a big issue and more a minor technical policy one, the bank may remove the holds. If they won't, the manager ought to tell you why, and what you can do to solve it eventually.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a2c8ee8ee3ef896bb3dc414204aa9de5",
"text": "Citibank just sent me a $100 check. Here's how I got it:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1f69580b17dd1e0f0938967cdcd6d0f",
"text": "\"Did I do anything wrong by cashing a check made out to \"\"trustee of <401k plan> FBO \"\", and if so how can I fix it? I thought I was just getting a termination payout of the balance. Yes, you did. It was not made to you, and you were not supposed to even be able to cash it. Both you and your bank made a mistake - you made a mistake by depositing a check that doesn't belong to you, and the bank made a mistake by allowing you to deposit a check that is not made out to you to your personal account. How do I handle the taxes I owe on the payout, given that I had a tax-free 1099 two years ago and no 1099 now? It was not tax free two years ago. It would have been tax free if you would forward it to the entity to which the check was intended - since that would not be you. But you didn't do that. As such, there was no withdrawal two years ago, and I believe the 401k plan is wrong to claim otherwise. You did however take the money out in 2014, and it is fully taxable to you, including penalties. You should probably talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). My personal (and unprofessional) opinion is that you didn't withdraw the money in 2012 since the check was not made out to you and the recipient never got it. You did withdraw money in 2014 since that's when you actually got the money (even if by mistake). As such, I'd report this withdrawal on the 2014 tax return. However, as I said, I'm not a professional and not licensed to provide tax advice, so this is my opinion only. I strongly suggest you talk to a licensed tax adviser to get a proper opinion and guidance on the matter. If it is determined that the withdrawal was indeed in 2012, then you'll have to amend the 2012 tax return, report the additional income and pay the additional tax (+interest and probably underpayment penalty).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e50f6d3b54844133f771525f6a664b3b",
"text": "\"Anyone can walk into a bank, say \"\"Hi, I'm a messenger, I have an endorsed check and a filled out deposit slip for Joe Blow who has an account here, please deposit this check for him, as he is incapacitated. Straight deposit.\"\" They'll fiddle on their computer, to see if they can identify the deposit account definitively, and if they can, and the check looks legit, \"\"thanks for taking care of our customer sir.\"\" Of course, getting a balance or cashback is out of the question since you are not authenticated as the customer. I have done the same with balance transfer paperwork, in that case the bank knew the customer and the balance transfer was his usual. If the friend does not have an account there, then s/he should maybe open an account at an \"\"online bank\"\" that allows deposit by snapping photos on a phone, or phone up a branch, describe her/his situation and see if they have any options. Alternately, s/he could get a PayPal account. Or get one of those \"\"credit card swipe on your phone\"\" deals like Square or PayPal Here, which have fees very close to nil, normally cards are swiped but you can hand-enter the numbers. Those are fairly easy to get even if you have troubles with creditworthiness. S/he would need to return the check to the payer and ask the payer to pay her/him one of those ways. The payer may not be able to, e.g. if they are a large corporation. A last possibility is if the check is from a large corporation with whom s/he continues to do business with. For instance, the electric company cashiers out your account after you terminate service at your old location. But then you provision service at a new location and get a new bill, you can send their check right back to them and say \"\"Please apply this to my new account\"\". If s/he is unable to get any of those because of more serious problems like being in the country illegally, then, lawful behavior has its privileges, sorry. There are lots of unbanked people, and they pay through the nose for banking services at those ghastly check-cashing places, at least in America. I don't have a good answer for how to get a check cashed in that situation.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af1106a29d58d5538e4e2baea1dc30ea",
"text": "The insurance company issued the check. I'd contact the insurance company to have the current check voided and a new one issued to the pharmacy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0fd2da9df7baaa52029b315da91a9a2b",
"text": "A) Q1) No, you beat the system, you benefit from flip side of 'use it or lose it' Q2) You need to ask, they may have a $50/week limit, or they may divide the amount you wish by remaining time in year. They may also not let you start till next enrollment period. B) Q1) No, in fact, you just lost $400 that you deposited but didn't spend. Q2) You missed the opportunity to spend an extra $1000 as well, but the loss was opportunity not pocket. Q3) Same as Q2 above, ask them. C) These accounts are not coupled. I'd change the law to do so, however, I am not a congressman.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "daeffb1714d8e8a6204b007f0b5e978a",
"text": "Fellow Torontonian here - I'm seeing the same things you're seeing, but what worries me the most is the sheer number of people I know in my professional circles who can't so much as use a wrench, and have no clue what extra surprises you might run into when owning, but are attracted by the low mortgage rates into buying 2-3 properties and using them as rental properties purely as an investment. It's not so bad for the detached homes (which tend to be bought up by developers/contractors), but the semidetached and condos are rife with this type of owner. They don't realize that being a landlord is _a job_: things break, you're responsible, and you definitely can't rely on your tenants always acting as reasonable, promptly-paying people. I move to somewhere else in Toronto about once every 1.5 years, each time researching many units online, and seeing ~20 in person, and while there may be an increase in quality for the detached homes, every other type of rental property's quality is in steep decline as the market fills with all these non-expert, get-rich-quick types of owners.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
d7365baf8c1622322109e3b7446bb14b
|
Are those “auto-pilot” programs a scam or waste of time?
|
[
{
"docid": "87da2357c61d0267338d13fbd7c6e88e",
"text": "\"Genuine (nearly) passive income can be had from some kinds of investing. Index funds are an example of a mostly self-managing investment. Of course investment involves some risk (the income is essentially paying you for taking that risk) and returns are reasonable but proportional to the risk -- IE, not spectacular unless the risk is high. If someone is claiming they can get you better than market rate of return, look carefully at what they are getting out of it and what the risks are. Fees subtract directly from your gains, and if they claim there is no additional risk, they need to prove that. You are giving someone your money. Be very sure you are going to get it back. If it isn't self-evident where the income comes from, it's probably a scam. If someone is using the term \"\"auto-pilot\"\", it is almost certainly a scam. If they are talking about website advertising and the like, it is far from autopilot if you want to make any noticable amount of money (though you may make money for them).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e87224867cd3c568ecb5b135d8643ff6",
"text": "These have been around for decades. In the 80's and 90's they had you setup small ads in local newspapers and you would sell a brochure tells people how to make money, or solve some other problem. The idea was that money would roll in. The more ads you placed the more money you made. In the late 90's they had you setup a small website instead of a small newspaper advertisement , but the rest was the same. They were also done with eBay as the medium. Now they are live streams. Most of the money made is by the people selling you the course materials to show you exactly how to make money. Some of the people pitching these ideas though books, websites and infomercials were able to update their shtick to change with the medium, but the end result was always the same. Most people didn't make serious cash. The initial description of how it works is done for free and isn't enough information to know how to do it. The real secrets are after you pay for the advanced course. Of course to really make them work you need the expensive coaching sessions.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "2c4b20570bbb4a6d49d5486f1d59c65f",
"text": "in the context of AI and self driving, yup I believe it! But development of software is typically much cheaper than development of drugs still because software is intrinsic to a system we understand and built (computers) while the human body still has so many mysteries. That was part of the reason why I didn't wanna go into pharma :l",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "163d56b61d3d45be9bdca5119ca44eeb",
"text": "\"If you read the first sentence of the article, you'll notice that the orders were placed, then canceled. The only reason this is done is to front run real incoming orders and get in. \"\"Translation: the ultimate goal of many of these programs is to gum up the system so it slows down the quote feed to others and allows the computer traders (with their co-located servers at the exchanges) to gain a money-making arbitrage opportunity.\"\" If you are an investor without access to floor space within 3 meters of the exchange computer to place a computer of your own, you are being defrauded of the true market price by this machine.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "931e58620b5cc67e8cda9a268b5b77cd",
"text": "SECTION | CONTENT :--|:-- Title | Humans Need Not Apply Description | Discuss this video: http://www.reddit.com/r/CGPGrey/comments/2dfh5v/humans_need_not_apply/ http://www.CGPGrey.com/ https://twitter.com/cgpgrey ## Robots, Etc: Terex Port automation: http://www.terex.com/port-solutions/en/products/new-equipment/automated-guided-vehicles/lift-agv/index.htm Command | Cat MieStar System.: http://www.catminestarsystem.com/capability_sets/command Bosch Automotive Technology: http://www.bosch-automotivetechnology.com/en/de/specials/specials_for_more_driving_safety/... Length | 0:15:01 **** ^(I am a bot, this is an auto-generated reply | )^[Info](https://www.reddit.com/u/video_descriptionbot) ^| ^[Feedback](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=video_descriptionbot&subject=Feedback) ^| ^(Reply STOP to opt out permanently)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "54b33a0d7a6668b7619df65ce7efa448",
"text": "\"If so then what? If thew overall accident rate is almost 50% higher than comparable vehicles *including* the purported marvels of \"\"autopilot\"\" (i.e. more or less what my new Toyota comes with) then when not using autopilot it is, what, 100% higher?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "25c1f7fba19ad029e14de1080a2ee686",
"text": "\"sometimes. Very often, there is two things at play: with the good ones, you exchange money for a service that cuts down on the time it takes to learn or improve certain skills. This can be done by specific trainings, this can be done by making a digestible summary of information etc. In that case, I don't think it's a waste of time or a waste of money. However, on facebook you see a lot of \"\"business trainers\"\" that don't bring added value; the one literally repeating what facebook has in their manuals but charge for it. the ones who are not bringing new insights on how you can improve and run your business, or how you can improve your management skills... Because as your business grows, you will need to learn more of those and you'll have less time to learn them in. It's about weeding the bullshit out.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "58e29c34fcc3a95022ae5988ef5a8eb5",
"text": "Every job that I've had, I have automated myself out of. I'm an engineer and have always designed the tools to create the final product rather than the final product itself. It's mostly an easy task and getting much easier. Ever since college when I was interning, I've questioned the implications of this and don't have any answers. In many ways things simultaneously take longer and shorter to come to pass.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "629c8aab0e4702e39a45ae2de8bad1e1",
"text": "\"There are some people that don't have the cognitive resources to move into management (or to successfully branch out into a new career field independently). That might sound harsh, and it is harsh, but that is a harsh reality. During my education I was surrounded by what society would call \"\"intelligent\"\" people. Advanced classes and so forth. It wasn't until I entered the job market that I started really interacting on a deep level with people who would not have been the kinds of people who would have been in advanced classes in grade school. I don't know how much experience you have with people that don't have great cognitive resources, but from what I have seen most of them are capable of having better-paying jobs, but they have a difficult time appraising opportunities. Let me put it this way: I've got a fat-burning pill that will help you lose the water weight; this is a debt- consolidation plan that will allow you to make your credit score higher; become a phlebotomist, the pay is great after a quick certification course; the energy market is great right now because consumers have choice - we're going to give them the best value because we are a nimble company that is locally based. Which of the above are scams? Without researching at all do you know which one is legit? How do you evaluate which ones are scams? Suppose you're working 14 hours a day. How much time will you give to that question? Suppose you don't have the internet at hime and only use it for confirming you got paid (and you might not even know how to do that).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e061956711bb54b146179109c5f0c95",
"text": "We already have remote-controlled drone planes. It's entirely conceivable that in the near future, airlines might have a tiny staff of pilots in a room on the ground, there to take over remotely if there's something odd happening, but otherwise letting the planes fly themselves. EDIT: Commercial planes are all fly-by-wire anyway, so if there's an instrument failure you're screwed anyway, whether there's a pilot physically there or not.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b437367ccc051f43e39a65d10c1f1851",
"text": "I drive 20 miles highway with almost no human intervention, you can take your eyes off the road too. But it is highly not recommended for safety reasons. If you google tesla autopilot there are many videos online to show what I'm talking about.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0644bea83d844d62f2f2ef527c2c4574",
"text": "In the long run the drivers are getting pulled from the equation. I don't care how much regulatory pressure the self driving car industry faces, they'll have it figured out in 5 years. You are talking about an interest group that includes Google, Tesla, Uber, Lyft, Ford, GM and probably Apple. They are all spending billions on the technology and want a return on that investment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "41e09419289189507c7879037930fb31",
"text": "Not only do you not understand tech, you apparently don't understand science either. You made the original claim. Not me. What I said is that you're wrong. I CAN provide proof of that, since I happen to do this particular flavor of tech stuff for a living and have reference docs sitting all around me as I write this, but first I'm really interested in seeing what on earth you believe to be true that led you to make your original statement. It's okay though, we both know you can't offer any explanation on that. The objectively verifiable reason is that you're wrong. > you can plainly see whenever you open the uber app that it has your location. You think that just happens magically? So do you have anything to back up what you were getting at in this claim or are you still unsure of how conversation works?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d324bd5407ca2ec2645d21f04adab67d",
"text": "What you mentioned are mature enough technologies to have planes fly themselves now; in fact they already do most of the time. What is missing is software to handle complicated contingencies and probably some additional computing power on-board the plane itself . Computers have been responsible for most of the flying done in the past 10-15 years and there haven't been many tragedies at all, in fact air travel is the safest form of travel; your fears are unfounded.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cf406fc668170807dc692a9f9092dd32",
"text": "\"There is a lot misinformation in this thread that I'd like to clear up. In fact, you're more than welcomed to PM me if you wish to see any backup to the statements I'm about to make. First, I'd like to say that as an Uber/Lyft driver, the experience has been nothing short of exhilarating. I normally work in the L.A. and O.C. areas of So. Cal and the amount of interesting, super successful, and wonderful people I meet on a daily basis is off the charts. It's as if I'm some sort of talk show host on wheels. Initially, I applied for Lyft, as the social and community angle of its service intrigued the hell out of me. I'm an outgoing guy and I'm also an artist of some type who receives a royalty check only once a month. Instead of doing kickstarters and begging for money, I thought doing Lyft would be a great idea instead. So far my customers have been nothing short of an inspiration. Anyway, after passing a background check, a driving test with my mentor, a driving record check, alongside submitting all my documentation (license, registration, insurance) , and a quick vehicle inspection (my car is rather new and in great condition) I was hired quickly. That same day I decided to get to work quickly, see how the whole system works. As soon as I got to the destination I wanted to get to I got my first call on my phone within 5 minutes. I use my GPS and rush to pick my customer up (while obeying all traffic laws, of course). After a couple of minutes of chit chat I come to find out my first Lyft customer ever is an Uber recruiter. She likes my car and my approach so she hands me a Uber logo'd black bag with an iPhone, a car charger, and a mount. I asked her if this means I have to work exclusively for Uber, she says, \"\"Nope.\"\" My eyes then light up like some medieval lights in the sky, chicken little for the peasantry, ancient aliens approved phenomena when I realize I'll have access to both customer bases just one week removed from not being able to pay my phone bill. After submitting a background check, a driving record check, and pretty much all the stuff Lyft asked for, I was driving for both Uber and Lyft a week after I was hired for Lyft. The good news for you the consumer is that both companies are being cut throat because they want your money! There's never been a better time to hitch a ride on the cheap. Both companies have thrown millions of dollars over the past couple of months through social media, driver bonuses, and other venues, so you're able to get a free ride or a deep discount off a long ride. If you haven't tried both services, now's the time. Don't want to risk getting a DUI just for driving down a couple of blocks to your favorite bar this weekend? You'll probably be able to get a free ride there (if you scour gently for specials) and pay between $7-13 for the trip back. Better than getting your car impounded, losing your license, and paying $10,000+ in penalties and court fees, eh? You have no idea how many poor saps I take to and from work who can't drive because they just got a D.U.I., and who are now plunking $25-35 per ride just to get to where they gotta go. **INSURANCE** As for insurance, both companies have given me supplemental insurance. I have full coverage on my car for when I'm off the clock (which was required at time of hiring, btw). So here's how the insurance for Lyft and Uber works. [For Lyft](http://i.imgur.com/mc6hanN.jpg) When App is turned on (on the way to pick up client) -or- \"\"Contingent Liability\"\" 1. * up to $50k/person (bodily injury) 1. * up to $100k/accident (bodily injury) 1. * up to $25k/accident (Property damage) When you pick up client(s) in the car and you're on your way to the destination. Excessive liability & UM/UIM 1. Up to $1,000,000/occurence Contingent Collision & Comprehensive 1. up to $50,000/accident ($2500 deductible) [For UberX](http://i.imgur.com/k9kIvzB.png) When App is turned on (on the way to pick up client) -or- \"\"Contingent Liability\"\" 1. up to $50k/person (bodily injury) 1. up to $100k/accident (bodily injury) 1. up to $25k/accident (Property damage) When you pick up client(s) in the car and you're on your way to the destination. Excessive liability & UM/UIM Up to $1,000,000/occurence Contingent Collision & Comprehensive up to $50,000/accident ($1000 deductible) Other than the deductible, as you can see both plans are pretty much the same. Which in my opinion, should be more than enough. **SERVICES & EXPECTATIONS** Both apps are easy to use and within 5-10 minutes (sometimes much sooner, there've been many times where I get a call and the customer is on the sidewalk a few feet from where I was parked waiting for my next call). Both passengers and drivers adhere to a rating system. As of today, if either driver or passenger fail to maintain a rating of 4.6 and above they risk being booted from using the app. So it's important that drivers know what the hell they are doing (like being courteous, respectful, professional, clean, and know how to use a GPS while driving accurately and safely and/or knowing their routes instinctively) and passengers should also be polite, respectful, communicative (very important since drivers aren't psychics). Also, don't be so drunk that you either pass out or throw up in the back and make sure that if your bring your friends along for the ride, that they adhere to the code of conduct expected of passengers. I've run into numerous instances where an otherwise perfect passenger gets dinged for their drunk and/or rude friends. Also, as a driver, for your insurance to work, don't EVER end a drive early because you made a wrong turn or were late for a pick up. You're risking an insurance hiccup in the event of an incident, and passengers should also make sure that their driver has their app online throughout the entire trip, as well as making sure the driver's pic of him/her and his/her car match the profile you see on the app. As for safety, I've yet to hear from a passenger they felt they were ever in immediate danger. Did they get a creepy vibe from one of their drivers? Sure, not everyone is a social butterfly, and there has been an inundation of ex-cab drivers going over to Uber (which is good, cause' the service is getting pro drivers with experience, but could prove detrimental, since they're gonna have a hard time competing with Lyft on the charisma side of things). However, I've already numerous accounts from young women in Hollywood who are now refusing to call for a yellow cab or taxis on Hollywood Blvd and Sunset and the surrounding areas due to unwelcome sexual advances by drivers looking to take advantage of their sometimes solitary and inebriated drive home. It's heartwarming and great to hear whenever you drop one of these young women off at their places and they thank you for being both professional, courteous, welcoming, and above all else, trustworthy, all while paying a fraction of the cost of what a cab would normally run at that time of night. **MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE (IN SUMMARY)** I'm literally having the time of my life. My other job requires me to interact with humanity, pick its brain, and then express those experiences to everyone else in an invigorating, positive, and inspirational manner. What better way to do it--while earning some decent money--than driving around for Uber and Lyft. These services are, without a doubt, revolutionary, and are being used and employed by both young and old, men and women, struggling students, and strategically utilized by incredibly wealthy and successful Hollywood types and investment bankers. It's cheap, reliable, and very fun too. It's also bringing back the long lost art of human interaction and conversation back into our daily lives. So far, so good, and it breaks my heart whenever I hear misinformation and astroturfing about these services throughout the internet, and I'm supremely angered as to how certain municipalities are colluding with taxi cab lobbies to prevent Uber and Lyft and other ride-share services from competing fairly at a time where cities are desperate to ease congestion, reduce DUI's, and make sure their citizens are happy and are left with more money in their pocketbooks.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1a9a530ba517a645ba425ac0da5378cf",
"text": "Ahh, that's embarassing. I read two articles on Uber on hackernews this morning, one with this title, and the other talking about uberPool which said that they aggressively offered discounts because without those rebates drivers wouldn't have enough passengers, but if they could reach a critical number of users they would have enough passengers that the ride was (barely) profitable. I went back and found the articles posted on hackernews and feel pretty silly now. I should definitely tone down my smugness in the future, so sorry for that. Glad you found it amusing though! [Here is the link to the story I thought this was, in case you were interested](https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=/amp/s/techcrunch.com/2017/05/31/uberpool-sf-buzzfeed-documents-burn-rate/amp/&ved=0ahUKEwjI8IqTuKDUAhUByoMKHT7zCHsQFggwMAQ&usg=AFQjCNFMBLxrbnKD1QDka1w0Jm99Xs6OFg&sig2=-efzgIxdqrDmb0j7oAiPyw)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "038bf6297ea749899249e19c6f949763",
"text": "Why is that acceptable? That's just bad math. Currently, autopilot for cars isn't fleshed out yet. Humans cumulatively have 1 crash every 470 million miles, while Tesla's autopilot has 1 crash for every 220 million miles, but that's with the old hardware, with one forward camera. the new hardware suite has 8 cameras, along with all the other radar/sonar sensors. It's yet to be turned on. If that system proves to have 1 crash every half billion miles, then the car is safer than human driving. If it reaches 1 crash per billion miles, then it's kind of a no-brainer. When you get in a taxi, bus, or airplane, you're still putting your life in the hands of something that's not under your control. You just trust that they have a good safety record and let them drive you. Driverless cars will be the same way. Nothing will ever be 100% safe, ever. That's just not possible. A sinkhole can open up under the car at any moment. A meteor could hit the car. No matter what, something will be able to beat the system and cause a fatality, but the goal is to minimize fatalities, not eliminate them all together. 100% will never happen.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
3320e1f405f93ed55abbdcfa0f47527d
|
When you're really young and have about 2K to start investing $ for retirement, why do some people advise you to go risky?
|
[
{
"docid": "dcb85e88d4c066807dd1b56c02535c74",
"text": "\"Why it is good to be risky The reason why it is good to be risky is because risky investments can result in higher returns on your money. The problem with being risky, is there is a chance you can lose money. However, in the long term you can usually benefit from higher returns even if you have a few slip ups. Let me show you an example: These two lines are based off of placing $2,000 in a retirement fund at age of 20 and then at age of 25 start investing $6,500 a year (based off of a salary of $65,000 with a company that will 1 to 1 match up to 5% IRA contribution, presumably someone with a Master's should be able to get this) and then being able to increase your contribution amount by $150 a year as your salary begins to increase as well. The blue line assumes that all of this money that you are putting in a retirement account has a fixed 3% interest (compounded yearly for simplicity sake) every year until you retire. The red line is earning a 12% interest rate while you are 20 years old and then decreasing by 0.5% per year until you retire. Since this is using more risky investments when you are younger, I have even gone ahead and included losing 20% of your money when you are 24, another 20% when you are 29, and then again another 20% when you are 34. As you can see, even with losing 20% of your money 3 different times, you still end up with more money then you would have had if you stuck with a more conservative investment plan. If I change this to 50% each 3 times, you will still come out about equal to a more conservative investment. Now, I do have these 3 loses placed at a younger age when there is less to lose, but this is to be expected since you are being more risky when you are young. When you are closer to retirement you have less of a chance of losing money since you will be investing more conservatively. Why it is OK to be risky when you are young but not old Lets say you loose 20% of your $2,000 when you are young, you have 30-40 years to make that back. That's roughly $1 a month extra that you are having to come up with. So, if you have a risky investment go bad when you are young, you have plenty of time to account for it before you retire. Now lets say you have $1,000,000 when you are 5 years from retiring and loose 20% of it, you have to come up with an extra $3,333 a month if you want to retire on time. So, if you have a risky investment go bad when you are close to retiring, you will most likely have to work for many more years just to be able to recover from your loses. What to invest in This is a little bit more difficult question to answer. If there was one \"\"right\"\" way to invest your money, every one would be doing that one \"\"right\"\" way and would result in it not turning out to be that good of investment. What you need to do is come up with a plan for yourself. My biggest advice that I can give is to be careful with fees. Some places will charge a fixed dollar amount per trade, while others might charge a fixed dollar amount per month, while even others might charge a percentage of your investment. With only having $2,000 to invest, a large fee might make it difficult to make money.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4967fe2c74d0aeec195b34cb27b16a01",
"text": "\"First of all, \"\"going risky\"\" doesn't mean driving to Las Vegas and playing roulette. The real meaning is that you can afford higher risk/return ratio compared to a person who will retire in the following ten years. Higher return is very important since time works for you and even several extra percent annually will make a big difference in the long run because of compound interest effect. The key is that this requires the investment to not be too risky - if you invest in a single venture and it fails you lose all the money and that's worse that some conservative investment that could yield minimum income. So you still need the investment to be relatively safe. Next, as user Chris W. Rea mentions in the comment funds and ETFs can be very risky - depending on the investment policy they can invest into some very risky ventures or into some specific industry and that poses more risk that investing into \"\"blue chips\"\" for example. So a fund or an ETF can be a good fit for you if you choose a right one.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f6a4b614e25fe764d2a329c2265444da",
"text": "\"Those who say a person should invest in riskier assets when young are those who equate higher returns with higher risk. I would argue that any investment you do not understand is risky and allows you to lose money at a more rapid rate than someone who understands the investment. The way to reduce risk is to learn about what you want to invest in before you invest in it. Learning afterward can be a very expensive proposition, possibly costing you your retirement. Warren Buffet told the story on Bloomberg Radio in late 2013 of how he read everything in his local library on investing as a teenager and when his family moved to Washington he realized he had the entire Library of Congress at his disposal. One of Mr. Buffett's famous quotes when asked why he doesn't invest in the tech sector was: \"\"I don't invest in what I do not understand.\"\". There are several major asset classes: Paper (stocks, bonds, mutual funds, currency), Commodities (silver, gold, oil), Businesses (creation, purchase or partnership as opposed to common stock ownership) and Real Estate (rental properties, flips, land development). Pick one that interests you and learn everything about it that you can before investing. This will allow you to minimize and mitigate risks while increasing the rewards.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7366cb823333bf38dfaed036b84e535e",
"text": "Great question and great of you to be paying attention to this. Right now having the ability to save $2K per year might seem very out of reach. However with the right career path and by paying attention to personal finance saving 2K per month will become possible sooner than you may think. As a student you are already investing in your future, by building your greatest wealth building tool: your income. Right now concentrate on that. If you have extra money throw it in a boring old savings account and don't touch it other than emergencies. An emergency is defined as something that will preclude you from completing your education. It is not paying for the latest xbox game/skateboard/once in a lifetime trip. An important precursor to investing is having an emergency fund that sits in a boring old savings account earning almost nothing. Think of it as an insurance policy that prevents you from liquidating your investments in case of and emergency. Emergencies often come during economic downturns. If you have to liquidate your investment to cover these times then you will lock in negative returns. Once you are done with school, moved into a place of your own, and have your first job you will have a nice start on your emergency fund. Then you can start investing. Doing it in the right order you will be amazed how quickly your savings can accumulate. I'd be shooting for that 2 million by the time you are 40, not 65.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a73a32e9c0c175cc10a1014387ee433f",
"text": "\"Your are mixing multiple questions with assertions which may or may not be true. So I'll take a stab at this, comment if it doesn't make sense to you. To answer the question in the title, you invest in an IRA because you want to save money to allow you to retire. The government provides you with tax incentives that make an IRA an excellent vehicle to do this. The rules regarding IRA tax treatment provide disincentives, through tax penalties, for withdrawing money before retirement. This topic is covered dozens of times, so search around for more detail. Regarding your desire to invest in items with high \"\"intrinsic\"\" value, I would argue that gold and silver are not good vehicles for doing this. Intrinsic value doesn't mean what you want it to mean in this context -- gold and silver are commodities, whose prices fluctuate dramatically. If you want to grow money for retirement over a long period, of time, you should be invested in diversified collection of investments, and precious metals should be a relatively small part of your portfolio.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4dcd512d72c0534795299c5d977528a9",
"text": "Are you trolling right now? If you knew what you were doing when you made that bet, you might consider reinvesting that money. 24yr olds don't buy first-time houses anymore. Houses today are meant for existing landowners and wealthy foreign investors willing to pay cash.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1cc1cbf238b28b58a628df8b2952238f",
"text": "he general advice I get is that the younger you are the more higher risk investments you should include in your portfolio. I will be frank. This is a rule of thumb given out by many lay people and low-level financial advisors, but not by true experts in finance. It is little more than an old wive's tale and does not come from solid theory nor empirical work. Finance theory says the following: the riskiness of your portfolio should (inversely) correspond to your risk aversion. Period. It says nothing about your age. Some people become more risk-averse as they get older, but not everyone. In fact, for many people it probably makes sense to increase the riskiness of their portfolio as they age because the uncertainty about both wealth (social security, the value of your house, the value of your human capital) and costs (how many kids you will have, the rate of inflation, where you will live) go down as you age so your overall level of risk falls over time without a corresponding mechanical increase in risk aversion. In fact, if you start from the assumption that people's aversion is to not having enough money at retirement, you get the result that people should invest in relatively safe securities until the probability of not having enough to cover their minimum needs gets small, then they invest in highly risky securities with any money above this threshold. This latter result sounds reasonable in your case. At this point it appears unlikely that you will be unable to meet your minimum needs--I'm assuming here that you are able to appreciate the warnings about underfunded pensions in other answers and still feel comfortable. With any money above and beyond what you consider to be prudent preparation for retirement, you should hold a risky (but still fully diversified) portfolio. Don't reduce the risk of that portion of your portfolio as you age unless you find your personal risk aversion increasing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cc3d48259d5f94ea4b2f9e5f8ee45386",
"text": "\"The same author wrote in that article “they have a trillion? Really?” But that’s what happens when ten million dollars compounds at 2% over 200 years. Really? 2% compounded over 200 years produces a return of 52.5X, multiply that by 10M and you have $525 million. The author is off by a factor of nearly 2000 fold. Let's skip this minor math error. The article is not about 401(k)s. His next line is \"\"The whole myth of savings is gone.\"\" And the article itself, \"\"10 Reasons You Have To Quit Your Job In 2014\"\" is really a manifesto about why working for the man is not the way to succeed long term. And in that regard, he certainly makes good points. I've read this author over the years, and respect his views. 9 of the 10 points he lists are clear and valuable. This one point is a bit ambiguous and falls into the overgeneraluzation \"\"Our 401(k) have failed us.\"\" But keep in mind, even the self employed need to save, and in fact, have similar options to those working for others. I have a Solo 401(k) for my self employment income. To be clear, there are good 401(k) accounts and bad. The 401(k) with fees above 1%/yr, and no matching, awful. The 401(k) I have from my job before I retired has an S&P index with .02%/yr cost. (That's $200/$million invested per year.) The 401(k) is not dead.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5d2b124795bc36a1421cb615e4b3ab19",
"text": "\"Can you easily stomach the risk of higher volatility that could come with smaller stocks? How certain are you that the funds wouldn't have any asset bloat that could cause them to become large-cap funds for holding to their winners? If having your 401(k) balance get chopped in half over a year doesn't give you any pause or hesitation, then you have greater risk tolerance than a lot of people but this is one of those things where living through it could be interesting. While I wouldn't be against the advice, I would consider caution on whether or not the next 40 years will be exactly like the averages of the past or not. In response to the comments: You didn't state the funds so I how I do know you meant index funds specifically? Look at \"\"Fidelity Low-Priced Stock\"\" for a fund that has bloated up in a sense. Could this happen with small-cap funds? Possibly but this is something to note. If you are just starting to invest now, it is easy to say, \"\"I'll stay the course,\"\" and then when things get choppy you may not be as strong as you thought. This is just a warning as I'm not sure you get my meaning here. Imagine that some women may think when having a child, \"\"I don't need any drugs,\"\" and then the pain comes and an epidural is demanded because of the different between the hypothetical and the real version. While you may think, \"\"I'll just turn the cheek if you punch me,\"\" if I actually just did it out of the blue, how sure are you of not swearing at me for doing it? Really stop and think about this for a moment rather than give an answer that may or may not what you'd really do when the fecal matter hits the oscillator. Couldn't you just look at what stocks did the best in the last 10 years and just buy those companies? Think carefully about what strategy are you using and why or else you could get tossed around as more than a few things were supposed to be the \"\"sure thing\"\" that turned out to be incorrect like the Dream Team of Long-term Capital Management, the banks that were too big to fail, the Japanese taking over in the late 1980s, etc. There are more than a few times where things started looking one way and ended up quite differently though I wonder if you are aware of this performance chasing that some will do.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "63ec4fb4b12a54a05717a90db2f6b3ac",
"text": "Day trading is probably the most often tried and failed activity in the financial world. People think they can parlay $1,000 investment into $1,000,000 in a week with little or no knowledge on how to evaluate stocks and or companies. They think they can just look at where the line graphs' been and forecast where it's going to be next week. Unfortunately if it were that simple everyone would be making money hand over fist in the market. So in short, the reason day trading is considered a risky venture is because most of the people that attempt to do it are willfully ignorant. They intentionally choose not to read about day trading. They intentionally choose not to learn about how to read a company's financial report and they intentionally choose not to learn how to compare one stock to another. They also don't consider the fact that most of their data is 15 or more min old because of the shady rules brokers have worked into the system. Real everyday investors that make money in the market do it by careful evaluation of the purchase they are about to make. Guess what, even they lose time to time. That's the game!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ca3177affb79852e18be3648597ccfe",
"text": "Considering it's all to risky for me, outside of a blind 401k, just having money to try it with is a bigger risk than I'm willing to take. I see this complaint a lot and my response is about the same every time, if you know of something better, please share, so next time we can make it more realistic.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cb1442dc3f4f3e60bf8c5d6bcbaed8b8",
"text": "\"My gut is to say that any time there seems to be easy money to be made, the opportunity would fade as everyone jumped on it. Let me ask you - why do you think these stocks are priced to yield 7-9%? The DVY yields 3.41% as of Aug 30,'12. The high yielding stocks you discovered may very well be hidden gems. Or they may need to reduce their dividends and subsequently drop in price. No, it's not 'safe.' If the stocks you choose drop by 20%, you'd lose 40% of your money, if you made the purchase on 50% margin. There's risk with any stock purchase, one can claim no stock is safe. Either way, your proposal juices the effect to creating twice the risk. Edit - After the conversation with Victor, let me add these thoughts. The \"\"Risk-Free\"\" rate is generally defined to be the 1yr tbill (and of course the risk of Gov default is not zero). There's the S&P 500 index which has a beta of 1 and is generally viewed as a decent index for comparison. You propose to use margin, so your risk, if done with an S&P index is twice that of the 1X S&P investor. However, you won't buy S&P but stocks with such a high yield I question their safety. You don't mention the stocks, so I can't quantify my answer, but it's tbill, S&P, 2X S&P, then you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1064fdecc92155663d3b8808178a2388",
"text": "\"First off, monozok is right, at the end of the day, you should not accept what anyone says to do without your money - take their suggestions as directions to research and decide for yourself. I also do not think what you have is too little to invest, but that depends on how liquid you need to be. Often in order to make a small amount of money grow via investments, you have to be willing to take all the investment profits from that principle and reinvest it. Thus, can you see how your investment ability is governed by the time you plan to spend without that money? They mantra that I have heard from many people is that the longer you are able to wait, the more 'risk' you can take. As someone who is about the same age as you (I'm 24) I can't exactly say yet that what I have done is sure fire for the long term, but I suggest you adopt a few principles: 1) Go read \"\"A Random Walk Down Wall Street\"\" by Burton G. Malkiel. A key point for you might be that you can do better than most of these professional investors for hire simply by putting more money in a well selected index fund. For example, Vanguard is a nice online service to buy indexes through, but they may require a minimum. 2) Since you are young, if you go into any firm, bank, or \"\"financial planner,\"\" they will just think you are naive and try to get you to buy whatever is best for them (one of their mutual funds, money market accounts, annuities, some flashy cd). Don't. You can do better on your own and while it might be tempting because these options look more secure or well managed, most of the time you will barely make above inflation, and you will not have learned very much. 3) One exciting thin you should start learning now is about algorithmic trading because it is cool and super efficient. quantopian.com is a good platform for this. It is a fun community and it is also free. 4) One of the best ways I have found to watch the stock market is actually through a stock game app on my phone that has realtime stock price feed. Seeking Alpha has a good mobile app interface and it also connects you to news that has to do with the companies you are interested in.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6a3ec9b0c7870ef5eef3a926d09037f6",
"text": "\"There are no risk-free high-liquidity instruments that pay a significant amount of interest. There are some money-market accounts around that pay 1%-2%, but they often have minimum balance or transaction limits. Even if you could get 3%, on a $4K balance that would be $120 per year, or $10 per month. You can do much better than that by just going to $tarbucks two less times per month (or whatever you can cut from your expenses) and putting that into the savings account. Or work a few extra hours and increase your income. I appreciate the desire to \"\"maximize\"\" the return on your money, but in reality increasing income and reducing expenses have a much greater impact until you build up significant savings and are able to absorb more risk. Emergency funds should be highly liquid and risk-free, so traditional investments aren't appropriate vehicles for them.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "385ba47d261184ee65a0837ba5d7850c",
"text": "I believe it is because you can withstand a loss in your early life better than you can in your retirement. If you lose 25% in your 20s it is a lot less than 25% in your 60s. You, hopefully earn more in your 60s and you have a lot more already in the bank in your 60s.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "19a399279fa3d682c76b0f1cb8422a2e",
"text": "IMO almost any sensible decision is better than parking money in a retirement account, when you are young. Some better choices: 1) Invest in yourself, your skills, your education. Grad school is one option within that. 2) Start a small business, build a customer base. 3) Travel, adventure, see the world. Meet and talk to lots of different people. Note that all my advice revolves around investing in YOURSELF, growing your skills and/or your experiences. This is worth FAR more to you than a few percent a year. Take big risks when you are young. You will need maybe $1m+ (valued at today's money) to retire comfortably. How will you get there? Most people can only achieve that by taking bigger risks, and investing in themselves.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c4ec080f48901e5d1591782ca087bcba",
"text": "The Trinity study looked at 'safe' withdrawal rates from retirement portfolios. They found it was safe to withdraw 4% of a portfolio consisting of stocks and bonds. I cannot immediately find exactly what specific investment allocations they used, but note that they found a portfolio consisting largely of stocks would allow for the withdrawal of 3% - 4% and still keep up with inflation. In this case, if you are able to fund $30,000, the study claims it would be safe to withdraw $900 - $1200 a year (that is, pay out as scholarships) while allowing the scholarship to grow sufficiently to cover inflation, and that this should work in perpetuity. My guess is that they invest such scholarship funds in a fairly aggressive portfolio. Most likely, they choose something along these lines: 70 - 80% stocks and 20 - 30% bonds. This is probably more risky than you'd want to take, but should give higher returns than a more conservative portfolio of perhaps 50 - 60% stocks, 40 - 50% bonds, over the long term. Just a regular, interest-bearing savings account isn't going to be enough. They almost never even keep up with inflation. Yes, if the stock market or the bond market takes a hit, the investment will suffer. But over the long term, it should more than recover the lost capital. Such scholarships care far more about the very long term and can weather a few years of bad returns. This is roughly similar to retirement planning. If you expect to be retired for, say, 10 years, you won't worry too much about pulling out your retirement funds. But it's quite possible to retire early (say, at 40) and plan for an infinite retirement. You just need a lot more money to do so. $3 million, invested appropriately, should allow you to pull out approximately $90,000 a year (adjusted upward for inflation) forever. I leave the specifics of how to come up with $3 million as an exercise for the reader. :) As an aside, there's a Memorial and Traffic Safety Fund which (kindly and gently) solicited a $10,000 donation after my wife was killed in a motor vehicle accident. That would have provided annual donations in her name, in perpetuity. This shows you don't need $30,000 to set up a scholarship or a fund. I chose to go another way, but it was an option I seriously considered. Edit: The Trinity study actually only looked at a 30 year withdrawal period. So long as the investment wasn't exhausted within 30 years, it was considered a success. The Trinity study has also been criticised when it comes to retirement. Nevertheless, there's some withdrawal rate at which point your investment is expected to last forever. It just may be slightly smaller than 3-4% per year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "36706f4360e99cea6ac360524843ed67",
"text": "Well, whats the source of income from? Social security? Dividends? At 40k that's the good thing about a progressive tax, you wouldn't be taxed heavily. Even 40k of capital gains, which lets be honest is mostly high income individuals, is barely taxed at a higher level than that 40,000k from a fixed income source. Again, that's the gain (aka profit) one is receiving from selling shares of a company.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
585e5d7dee99cf0d0a25c6c5e6970a0c
|
Mailed in One-time Payment by Check
|
[
{
"docid": "dbc64c870685d9d3c4e4e506ee4e6c5f",
"text": "I do know that a blank check has all the information they need for the electronic transfer. They probably add it as a customer service to streamline future payments. Though I don't think automatically adding it makes good business sense. It is possible that the form used to submit the check included a line to added the account to the list of authorized accounts. He might have been lucky he didn't set up a recurring payment. I would check the website to see if there is a tool to remove the account info from the list of payment options. There has to be a way to edit the list so that if you change banks you can update the information, yet not keep the old accounts on the list. Talk to customer service if the website doesn't have a way of removing the account. Tell them that you have to edit the account information. And give them your info. If they balk at the change tell them that they could be committing fraud if the money is pulled from an unauthorized account.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "4f03c1b110541156fe89f80e845b9001",
"text": "When setting these up for my own bill payment, I was surprised, after the fact, to see that a couple I thought would be a mailed check were actually instant transfers, and for others, vice versa. On line banking typically asks you for the due date and they handle from there. If you need this detail before the payment, I'd ask the bank. Else, it's easy to see after the fact for a given payee.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "719f1685a89d9fb9de133c901e3092fc",
"text": "Have the check reissued to the proper payee.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b43468d17ae30e808449541d67848ad",
"text": ">I might have an answer! I imagine they're capitalizing on people's laziness. I live in the Bay Area where some people probably don't mind paying $35 to not have to walk 100 feet to the office and drop off a check. Except that at their end they then have to deal with the cheques, have someone to receive them and so on, deal with the inevitable bounced cheques too.. Seems like a shitty plan, but yeah, I suppose if someone can gouge you they may well do so.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3b115181031954eaaccb2a341b09b63",
"text": "While you can print that on the check, it isn't considered legally binding. If you are concerned about a check not being deposited in a timely manner, consider purchasing a cashier's check instead. This doesn't solve the problem per se, but it transfers responsibility of tracking that check from you to the bank.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e50f6d3b54844133f771525f6a664b3b",
"text": "\"Anyone can walk into a bank, say \"\"Hi, I'm a messenger, I have an endorsed check and a filled out deposit slip for Joe Blow who has an account here, please deposit this check for him, as he is incapacitated. Straight deposit.\"\" They'll fiddle on their computer, to see if they can identify the deposit account definitively, and if they can, and the check looks legit, \"\"thanks for taking care of our customer sir.\"\" Of course, getting a balance or cashback is out of the question since you are not authenticated as the customer. I have done the same with balance transfer paperwork, in that case the bank knew the customer and the balance transfer was his usual. If the friend does not have an account there, then s/he should maybe open an account at an \"\"online bank\"\" that allows deposit by snapping photos on a phone, or phone up a branch, describe her/his situation and see if they have any options. Alternately, s/he could get a PayPal account. Or get one of those \"\"credit card swipe on your phone\"\" deals like Square or PayPal Here, which have fees very close to nil, normally cards are swiped but you can hand-enter the numbers. Those are fairly easy to get even if you have troubles with creditworthiness. S/he would need to return the check to the payer and ask the payer to pay her/him one of those ways. The payer may not be able to, e.g. if they are a large corporation. A last possibility is if the check is from a large corporation with whom s/he continues to do business with. For instance, the electric company cashiers out your account after you terminate service at your old location. But then you provision service at a new location and get a new bill, you can send their check right back to them and say \"\"Please apply this to my new account\"\". If s/he is unable to get any of those because of more serious problems like being in the country illegally, then, lawful behavior has its privileges, sorry. There are lots of unbanked people, and they pay through the nose for banking services at those ghastly check-cashing places, at least in America. I don't have a good answer for how to get a check cashed in that situation.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5ee8c8550decc2affbf4a6d32464e470",
"text": "Several options: Banks - ask in the branches near to you if any of them would do that. They generally only service their account members, but if you smile and talk nicely to the tellers they might do that for you. It may involve some nominal commission. Check cashing places - they're everywhere, and they carry large denomination bills. They will probably do that, but will likely charge a commission. Money orders - if you don't want to give a personal check, buy a money order at the post office, and dump the cash on them. It costs a nominal fee ($1.60 at USPS).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ef100bc0d7e435fdc5fbb103eef4366",
"text": "\"It's a scam. The cashier's check will be forged. Craigslist has a warning about it here (item #3). What kind of payment do you think is not fakable? Or at least not likely to be used in scams? When on craigslist - deal only locally and in person. You can ask to see the person's ID if you're being paid by check When being paid by check, how can seeing his/her ID help? In case the check isn't cashable, I can find that person by keeping record of his/her ID? If you're paid by check, the payers details should be printed on the check. By checking the ID you can verify that the details match (name/address), so you can find the payer later. Of course the ID can be faked too, but there's so much you can do to protect yourself. You'll get better protection (including verified escrow service) by selling on eBay. Is being paid by cash the safest way currently, although cash can be faked too, but it is the least common thing that is faked currently? Do you recommend to first deposit the cash into a bank (so that let the bank verify if the cash is faked), before delivering the good? For Craigslist, use cash and meet locally. That rules out most scams as a seller. What payment methods do you think are relatively safe currently? Then getting checks must be the least favorite way of being paid. Do you think cash is better than money order or cashier order? You should only accept cash. If it is a large transaction, you can meet them at your bank, have them get cash, and you receive the cash from the bank. Back to the quoted scam, how will they later manipulate me? Are they interested in my stuffs on moving sale, or in my money? They will probably \"\"accidentally\"\" overpay you and ask for a refund of some portion of the overpayment. In that case you will be out the entire amount that you send back to them and possibly some fees from your bank for cashing a bad check.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e0ecaebd4337c74aafc2816abb535ab",
"text": "\"I signed the checks \"\"JoeTaxpayer, parent\"\" and never had an issue with my bank. Note, I am in the US, and my experience may just be with my particular bank.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd7362d8729d8ff0c1f67fb347742f71",
"text": "WE're talking about companies. Cooperate companies. What cooperate company is issuing bounced or fake checks to their employees that can also issue debit cards as payments? None. You're trying to split hairs between personal cashed checks and pay roll checks. They aren't the same at all. Payroll checks don't require a 3 day waiting period before the balance is moved to your account, personal checks that don't have a history of bouncing do.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eb1508ea931882b83665fb6c454f4549",
"text": "For an individual its not automatic. One needs to ask the Bank, return the check. For Corporate Customer depending on how big the relationship is, many a times this is given as a service and there is an automatic return",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "37c92235ba646978f24e7933ffa9da44",
"text": "No, we did not apply for the loan. So, this is why we thought it was a bit strange a company just sending you a real check for $30K. It does not say anywhere in big red letters that it is a loan. Probably something in very small letters on a back of a paper. This is really horrible. Especially,if your customers do pay you by check and small business relies on online statement to determine who paid what. I can easily imagine a small outfit that just takes all the checks to the bank, cash them, and then use online statement to update their books. I do not see how it is helpful to businesses to receive pre-approved credit that is so poorly marked. Especially in the age of electronic transfers!!! I am trying to understand why I feel so offended by this, and I guess it all comes down to disgust: I refuse to believe that any serious company would use these sort of tactics and instead of us spending more time developing a better product, we have to put more time and effort into ensuring we do not fall victim to this.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "17609ed5dd1c22d3b7733a7358c9a2a2",
"text": "\"I expect the company wanted to pay you for a product (on a purchase order) rather than as a contract laborer. Whatever. Would they be willing to re-issue the check to you as a sole proprietor of a business named ABC Consulting (or anything like that)? You can register your sole proprietor business with the state using a \"\"Doing Business As\"\" (DBA, or fictitious name), and then open the bank account for your business using the check provided by the customer as the first deposit. (There is likely a smaller registration fee for the DBA.) If they won't re-issue the check and you have to go the LLC route... Scrounge up $125 doing odd jobs or borrowing from a friend or parents. Seriously, anyone can earn that amount of money in a week or two. Besides the filing fee for the LLC, your bank may require you to provide an Operating Agreement (which is not required by the State). The Operating Agreement can be simple, or more complex if you have a partner (even if it's a spouse). If you do have a partner, it is essential to have such an agreement because it would specify the responsibilities and benefits allocated to each partner, particularly in the event of equity distributions (taking money out of the business, or liquidating and ending the LLC). There are websites that will provide you a boilerplate form for Operating Agreements. But if your business is anything more than just single member LLC, you should pay an attorney to draw one up for you so the wording is right. It's a safeguard against potential future lawsuits. And, while we're at it, don't forget to obtain a EIN (equivalent to a SSN) from the IRS for your LLC. There's no cost, but you'll have to have it to file taxes as a business for every year the LLC exists and has income. Good luck!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab4e544caa7e8c7379f2f5832b9df854",
"text": "\"Based on past case law, a check made payable to qualified charity and delivered (e.g., placed in the mail on 12/31 would count as delivered as it is out of the hands of the donor) would fall under the \"\"constructive receipt doctrine\"\". However, for non-charitable gifts (e.g., gifts to family members) it is the date the check is cashed (honored by the receiving bank). This is important as the annual gift exclusion is just that \"\"Annual\"\". Therefore, if I gift my child $14,000 by writing a check on 12/31/2014 but they deposit it on 1/3/2015 then I have used my annual gift exclusion for 2015 and not 2014. This means I could not gift them anything further in 2015. BTW the annual gift amount is for ALL gifts cash and non-cash. Most people don't seem to realize this. If I give $14,000 of cash to my child and then also give them Christmas gifts with a value of $1,000 I have exceeded my annual gift exclusion to that child. Usually there are ways around this issue as I can give $14,000 to each and every person I want and if married my spouse can do the same. This allows us to give $14,000 from each of us to each child plus $14,000 from each of us to their spouse if married and $14,000 from each of us to each of their children if they have any.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2661232f0ca4b7cb6063bd231cb62f70",
"text": "In the United States, post-dating a check, on its own, has no valid use. It can be cashed at any time at the discretion of the bank. You would need to send a notice of postdating to your bank describing the check. This doesn't prevent the recipient of cashing the check, but it does prevent your bank from charging your account until the date you specify NOTE: This may be considered a form of stop payment, and you may be subject to the fees noted by your institution. Source: [Uniform Commercial Code - Article 4A § 4-401] (c) A bank may charge against the account of a customer a check that is otherwise properly payable from the account, even though payment was made before the date of the check, unless the customer has given notice to the bank of the postdating describing the check with reasonable certainty. [...] If a bank charges against the account of a customer a check before the date stated in the notice of postdating, the bank is liable for damages for the loss resulting from its act. The loss may include damages for dishonor of subsequent items under Section 4-402.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
993381ffb7485837cc21b657dd4db76f
|
Multiple people interested in an Apartment
|
[
{
"docid": "e5e682976d0a8348340ceb02e30e1170",
"text": "\"I don't know how many people \"\"a ton\"\" is, but if you are getting more than, say, 6 people who are qualified to rent, you've priced it too low. Better to ask for $1200, and have a potential tenant haggle or ask you to reduce the price than to have 6 people want it for $900. It's worth it to run a credit report, and let that help you choose. I agree with Victor, a bidding war is appropriate for a house sale, not rental apartments. You didn't mention your country, but I'd be sure to find out the local laws regarding tenant choice. You may not (depending where you are) discriminate based on gender, sexual orientation, marital status, race, or religion.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d531e6c8919ffe0ead8462feb2aba3db",
"text": "I wouldn't start a bidding war if I were you. Sometimes you may get potentially bad tenants who cannot find a property anywhere else offering more money just to get in a place. If you know nothing else about these people how can you guarantee they will keep paying the rent once they get in. The things you should be doing is checking the prospective tenant's employment and income status, making sure they are able to easily pay the rent. You should check their credit report to see if they have a history of bad debts. And you should be checking with their previous landlords or real estate agents to see if they caused any damages to their previous properties. You should create a form that prospective tenants can fill out providing you with all the essential information you are after. Get them so sign a statement that gives you authority to ask information about them with other people (their previous landlords/ real estate agents, and their employers). Have a system set out on how you will assess all applicants and for the information the applicants need to provide you with. Treat it as a business.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "63e51e8915f6b5fad4b0c2e725767892",
"text": "I'm surprised by all these complicated answers. Yes @Victor, you can create a form that asks people to put down their financial information but you want to be careful and not put off potential tenants by asking for too many details. Depending on the OP's typical tenants, an extensive background and credit check may not be necessary. For example, if I have proof that someone is a graduate student at the local university, that's usually good enough for me because I am willing to bet that they will follow my contract. Bidding war doesn't sound doable, you advertise a price correct? You can only be haggled down not up. So my suggestion is to look at other rental advertisements in the area. Compare what you're offering (location, quality of house, cleanliness, amenities, etc) to the competition and price accordingly. If you're getting a flood of interest, then you're probably pricing below the average price in your area. Or you live in an area where demand is just much higher than supply, in which case you can also raise your rent.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "366e4f092dbfd5bf75a34ea777a4fe2b",
"text": "Here would be the big two you don't mention: Time - How much of your own time are you prepared to commit to this? Are you going to find tenants, handle calls if something breaks down, and other possible miscellaneous issues that may arise with the property? Are you prepared to spend money on possible renovations and other maintenance on the property that may occur from time to time? Financial costs - You don't mention anything about insurance or taxes, as in property taxes since most municipalities need funds that would come from the owner of the home, that would be a couple of other costs to note in having real estate holdings as if something big happens are you expecting a government bailout automatically? If you chose to use a property management company for dealing with most issues then be aware of how much cash flow could be impacted here. Are you prepared to have an account to properly do the books for your company that will hold the property or would you be doing this as an individual without any corporate structure? Do you have lease agreements printed up or would you need someone to provide these for you?",
"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": "186632702891b096cb961029a47ca4d5",
"text": "Of course, I know nothing about real estate or owning a home. I would love to hear people's thoughts on why this would or would not be a good idea. Are there any costs I am neglecting? I want the house to be primarily an investment. Is there any reason that it would be a poor investment? I live and work in a college town, but not your college town. You, like many students convinced to buy, are missing a great many costs. There are benefits of course. There's a healthy supply of renters, and you get to live right next to campus. But the stuff next to campus tends to be the oldest, and therefore most repair prone, property around, which is where the 'bad neighborhood' vibe comes from. Futhermore, a lot of the value of your property would be riding on government policy. Defunding unis could involve drastic cuts to their size in the near future, and student loan reform could backfire and become even less available. Even city politics comes into play: when property developers lobby city council to rezone your neighborhood for apartments, you could end up either surrounded with cheaper units or possibly eminent domain'd. I've seen both happen in my college town. If you refuse to sell you could find yourself facing an oddly high number of rental inspections, for example. So on to the general advice: Firstly, real estate in general doesn't reliably increase in value, at best it tends to track inflation. Most of the 'flipping' and such you saw over the past decade was a prolonged bubble, which is slowly and reliably tanking. Beyond that, property taxes, insurance, PMI and repairs need to be factored in, as well as income tax from your renters. And, if you leave the home and continue to rent it out, it's not a owner-occupied property anymore, which is part of the agreement you sign and determines your interest rate. There's also risks. If one of your buddies loses their job, wrecks their car, or loses financial aid, you may find yourself having to eat the loss or evict a good friend. Or if they injure themselves (just for an example: alcohol poisoning), it could land on your homeowners insurance. Or maybe the plumbing breaks and you're out an expensive repair. Finally, there are significant costs to transacting in real estate. You can expect to pay like 5-6 percent of the price of the home to the agents, and various fees to inspections. It will be exceedingly difficult to recoup the cost of that transaction before you graduate. You'll also be anchored into managing this asset when you could be pursuing career opportunities elsewhere in the nation. Take a quick look at three houses you would consider buying and see how long they've been on the market. That's months of your life dealing with this house in a bad neighborhood.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c09b3ceefba9b7ee2e3292c658572c77",
"text": "\"Why go for an average two bedroom? I lived for a few years in a low-priced 4 bedroom apartment that I shared with 3 other people. I used the money I saved from living below my means to put a down payment on a duplex, which I used to \"\"live for free.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "913d6e60dc683f93657a78cf4adb14a9",
"text": "Can't pretend to be an expert in construction or real estate but I'm pretty sure that you can approach the people you know and pay them on a per job basis. I'm pretty sure finding other workers on a per job basis will be easy. I wouldn't say its common but its not uncommon either.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1386cee591652b86149fce9fc4447bfa",
"text": "Mixing friendship and money, whether that's loans or landlording, is risky. Often things work out, but sometimes the unexpected happens, and it doesn't. If things go wrong, are you prepared to walk away from either the friendship or the money? After you've considered that, the next question is how your roommates feel about the deal. You're looking to charge your friends $2000 to rent part of a property that, from the sound of it, they could rent much cheaper from a stranger. Maybe the market is different in Cleveland, but in my area, I'd expect to pay $2000 in rent for a place worth closer to $300,000 than $100,000. Have your roommates expressed interest in the idea, and have you discussed dollar values with them? Are you still interested if they ended up paying $1600 in rent? $1000?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e239d909ca156269088da94ad1f39999",
"text": "This is almost exactally what the BK attorneys I work with have always said. If you have trouble offer a larger down payment. . . . that is the point of the down payment after all. You do sometimes have better luck with renting from individual people rather than larger corporately owned rentals. There are options out there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b35e3d4c7fd82ef6e3ecfe25533e072",
"text": "I am a realtor. For our rental business, we use a service that offers a background check. It costs us about $25, and it is passed along in the form of an application fee. I suggest you contact a local real estate agent who you know does rentals. Have a conversation about what you are doing, and see if they will help process the application for you, for a fee of course. If you are truly concerned about your safety (The text you wrote can either read as true concern or sarcasm. Maybe we are really in a wild country?) It's worth even a couple hundred bucks to screen out a potential bad roommate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bcb422c4ffcc892325385f9205b4d82a",
"text": "\"If you or they feel uneasy about you simply paying more rent than them for equal usage, you can work out an agreement where they \"\"pay\"\" in other ways. For example, I once lived with someone that made about double what I did, and so he paid more rent than I did. In exchange, I was responsible for cleaning the kitchen. If your roommates hate cleaning then you could substitute something like running errands, cooking, or looking after plants/landscaping. If they have some specialized skills then they might be able to provide those instead (car maintenance, financial management, etc.). Of course you'll want to agree ahead of time on what the conditions of satisfaction for the task are, such as how often the kitchen will have to be cleaned and what the definition of \"\"clean\"\" is. You also can't be a jerk and make their job extra hard, such as by completely trashing the kitchen every night. Obviously it will depend on the temperament of your roommates whether or not they'll be happy with this or feel insulted being \"\"the help\"\". It worked for us because it was a task he hated and one I didn't mind, and it kept me from feeling like I was mooching off him. I would feel them out when you propose a possible rent and utilities split. If they feel like it's an unfair burden on you, but they can't afford more, then you could suggest this as a way for everyone to contribute equally. Whatever you decide to do, don't hold it over their heads that you pay more. Agree on something that everyone feels is fair, whatever that is. If you want a concession due to paying more (such as you get the garage, get to pick the art on the walls, whatever), then agree to that up front. Then accept that you've made a fair deal and they don't owe you anything beyond what you've all agreed to. It's awful to feel like you live in someone else's home and that you are getting into ever deeper debt with a close friend or significant other, and it will breed resentment. If you can't do that, then don't share an apartment with them at all. The most important thing is that everyone feels it's fair, regardless of the numbers. If you cannot get to that agreement through dollars alone, you can have them contribute to the home in other ways, such as cleaning, cooking, or performing maintenance. Just make sure that everyone truly does feel it's fair and that you are all equals.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a725e173efc1c510701db1d48cbcb5ae",
"text": "The time to have looked into this is before you bought the condo, not now. You are presumably an adult. Your parents have apparently made it possible for you to have a roof of your own over your head for what is probably below rental rates (but I don't know your area, so can't say). From their point of view, they may have been doing you a favor, while giving themselves an investment opportunity. What would they be doing with that money otherwise, and at a higher or lower rate of return, and with greater or lesser risk? Where and how would you be living otherwise? More Importantly, if you can't talk to them about this you have bigger problems than money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e509229e720a3ecee8ad37dc78e1deb8",
"text": "This has happened here in Austin, Texas. If the apartment doesn't have one, you can ask to have one installed and some will either do it or will do it if you pay for some of it (about the same price as installing the wall charger in a house)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "08ffa93897d2f87773cf76ee356b1cca",
"text": "\"In San Francisco (home of super-expensive real estate and more than a bit of marijuana use) you'll see people asking up front for \"\"first and last months' rent\"\" plus a security deposit when you move in somewhere. If someone can't come up with the cash, then it looks like this is the last month... and time to look for a new roommate. of course, it can be difficult to implement this arrangement if you've already moved in with a bunch of people, and if it's not common in an area people may balk at the money required up front, but.... it is a reliable way to deal with people flaking out on the rent money.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1b5b18c47079bb6763c49d2b43c49a47",
"text": "I found [this.](http://homeguides.sfgate.com/terminate-apartment-rental-lease-due-medical-condition-8142.html) It looks like you will need to go over the lease and look for any stipulations that allow your brother (or your parents if they cosigned) to break lease. You might want to talk to an attorney. Most leases stipulate a penalty to break lease, such as a month of rent. It seems unusual that they can charge rent until they find a new tenant, but I'm not a lawyer. Leases are an adhesion contract, meaning they are drafted by the landlord and they have most of the negotiating power. This is not inherantly bad, but it does mean that unusually harsh lease terms could be considered unconscionable, rendering the lease void. I encourage you to reread the lease and contact a lawyer. I know everyone says that, but it's good advice here. It sounds like it would be cheaper than taking this lying down and I haven't heard of many people successfully winning contract law cases pro-say. It can't hurt to get a free consultation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "27ad0e1d3743243190091ec762ea034c",
"text": "Yes, but how does that compare to those with multiple houses? I build homes in the Seattle area for a living and one lifestyle who own several rentals... One thing them do is use equity for their 4 homes to purchase another.. Writing off the the interest paid on the loan(s)... I'm not saying it's a deduction normal people don't use... I'm just saying that it strikes me as a deduction that the wealthiest landlords use more with better results...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3825f236f55ce6c0cc79c0570948647",
"text": "If you buy a townhouse, you often are in a condominium arrangement in the US (when you're really in a rowhouse in particular). So that's a downside right away: you have to have a HOA, or at least some sort of common agreement, though it might not have formal meetings. Everyone who owns an interest in the entire group of townhouses gets some say in landscaping and such. Beyond that though, townhouses (and similarly, condominiums) are often easier to own (as they don't have as much maintenance that you have to do), but more expensive because you pay someone to do it (the landscaping, the external repairs, etc.). You likely don't have as much control over what the external looks like (because you have to be in agreement with the other owners), but you also don't have to do the work, unless your agreement is to collectively do the mowing/landscaping, which you should know in advance. I wouldn't underestimate the value of easier, by the way; it's very valuable to not have to deal with as many repairs and to be able to go a week without thinking about mowing or watering. In that sense it can be a nice transition into ownership, getting some-but-not-all of the obligations. But if that's something you really value, doing the landscaping and mowing and whatnot, that's relevant too. You can always tell your realtor to look for townhouses where the owners do some/all of the landscaping, though that opens up a different can of worms (where you rely on others to do work that they may not do, or do well). They're also somewhat noisier; you may be sharing a wall (but not necessarily, air-gap townhouses do exist) and either way will be closer to your neighbors. Does noise bother you? Conversely, are you noisy? In a college town this is probably something to pay attention to. Price wise, of course stay well within your means; if being close to the city center is important, that may lead you to buy a townhouse in that area. If being further out isn't a problem, you'll probably have similar choices in terms of price as long as you look in cheaper areas for single family homes.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
d64f48515dbca5b4847a42de820f3540
|
“Inflation actually causes people not to spend”… could it be true?
|
[
{
"docid": "d2c3ec39ec3c53bdfdd0d80414f2ef8f",
"text": "Inflation can go up for a number of reasons. Boom times can cause inflation, as everyone is making and spending a lot of money, so prices and inflation goes up. In times like these central banks usually increase interest rates to curb spending and thus bring down inflation. By raising interest rates the central bank is increasing the cost of borrowing money. So with high prices and a higher cost to borrowing money, most people start reducing their spending. When this happens businesses sell less stock and have increased costs (due to higher interest rates) so have to lay off staff or reduce their hours at work, so people will have even less money to spend. This causes prices to fall and reduces inflation and can result in a recession. At this point in time central banks start reducing interest rates to make the cost of borrowing money cheaper and stimulate people to start spending again. And so the cycle continues. The result in this case is that inflation itself didn't kerb demand, but was helped along by the central bank rising interest rates. Another reason causing inflation can be a restriction on the supply of certain goods or services. An example we went through about 2 years ago was when floods caused banana crops up in Northern Australia to be devastated. This caused a lack of supply in bananas for almost a year across Australia. The normal price for bananas here is between $1 to $3 per kg. During this period banana prices skyrocketed up to $14 per kg. The result: very few were buying bananas. So the increase in price here caused a reduction in demand directly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "270f788aa1604e9752831b952c5766aa",
"text": "Not always. You always consider economic factors in conjunction with each other rather than in isolation, which leads to weird assumptions. People spending isn't what you should look at always. When inflation is high, means government is spending. Government is spending on public projects, creating employment, increasing salaries, doling out loans. So you are putting money into the economy and into people's hands. Everybody will be spending, so it will also drive demand(Demand Pull inflation). But there are differences among economists regarding Cost push inflation, which is a dangerous phenomena. At the same time the interest rates, which are a monetary tool for central banks to increase(decrease) the money flow in the economy, are low. Under low interest rate conditions, businesses take loans to invest in projects. Because interest rates are low, people find it logical to spend now than spend later. As interest rates are low, there is an expectation that they cannot earn more in savings than investing in products which will generate benefits in the near term. These all goes on in cycles and after a period of inflation, you will see government taking action to rein in inflation. It will increase interest rates to suck money out of the economy. This is when people will curb spending, because they know they will earn a higher return while saving rather than investing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "09ebbb0d5e20d22affce6d9fd51e8ae3",
"text": "We need to be careful what we are talking about here. Inflation on a economy-level scale at an expected rate will not change consumer habits because the price increase is manageable. You have to realize that prices are not increasing in isolation: wages will have to rise along too. High inflation that is expected will increase consumption of durable goods, as people attempt to 'get rid of their money' before the price changes on them. A good example of this was post-WWI germany, where hyperinflation was so bad that offices began to pay their employees twice daily, so they could adjust their wages, and so that their employees could go out during lunch and after work to buy something with the money before the price changed on them. Unexpected inflation may cause a temporary dip in spending until wages adjust, however consumers still need to buy, so they will likely push for higher wages, leading to consumption to stay about level. There is another effect to inflation as well: People who have savings will have their savings eroded over time if the economy is inflationary. To preserve their wealth, they will invest it. In a deflationary environment, money will increase in value simply by being hoarded, so they will be less willing to invest it. Deflation also increases the cost of interest on a loan, while inflation decreases it. So the overall effect is for an increase in spending under inflation, and a decrease under deflation. The person you have quoted is quite wrong. Price increases in a particular sector will cause consumer spending to decrease but this is a bad example, as it is not inflation, but rather a supply/demand problem of a particular consumer good. They are applying a micro-economic model (price increases of a single good) to a macroeconomic problem (price increases in the entire economy) when price increases at a global scale have the opposite effects. A good theoretical test of this is: what would happen if everyone in the US suddenly had twice as much money? (Ignoring international trade, of course). The answer: prices will double, and nothing else will change. The reason is, people will have more money to spend, but will require more money for their services, so in the end it all cancels out.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "a257296ffba51c81f097e75b69457f5d",
"text": "There is a thing called the consumer price index (CPI) There is a basket of goods that the people who keep the index basically shop for. It is much more detailed for the sake of accuracy, but bottom line is they shop for the same stuff each year. They measure the difference from year to year and that gives you a pretty good idea of inflation from a regular person point of view. http://www.inflationdata.com/Inflation/Consumer_Price_Index/HistoricalCPI.aspx But it isn't without its faults, people bicker about the methodology and what constitutes the index. http://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/consumerpriceindex.asp?viewed=1",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dbd62be03bb002ae46dc41aa9b2276eb",
"text": "I've been hearing storied from Germans that this is happening in Germany, too, but at the bank level. All anecdotal, people I've met telling me their personal stories, but they follow the same pattern. Go to the bank, try to take out a few grand for a vacation or large purchase, bank tells them they can't have that much and that they just have to do with less, even if the account balance covers the withdrawal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5f41628a42fd424dfa5ff0a80e13edf5",
"text": "You can't really avoid inflation. As the population grows, the amount of money needed will grow as well (because the people will grow up and go to work and earn money, and someone has to create it to pay them). One of the definitions of inflation is increasing amount of money. Increasing amount of money causes devaluation (for example, if instead of 1000 dollars we now have 2000 dollars in circulation, because the population tripled in the last 50 years, while in Russia the population remained the same and they have the same 1000 rubles as they had 50 years ago - 1 ruble will no longer cost 1 dollar, but rather 2, i.e.: prices rise). This is very simplified of course, and there are a lot of causes and triggers for inflation. Inflation, when controlled and within certain limits is necessary for growth, as mentioned, but when uncontrolled and very high it causes a lot of damage, and that's what troubles people about inflation, not its mere existence. As to bringing the prices down- the prices don't go down, the gallon of gas will not go back to $0.25. It's just the buying power of the money goes down, because of inflation. You could buy a gallon of gas for 0.25 50 years ago, but you had to work for 1/2 hour to earn these 0.25. Now you have to pay $4, but if you still need to work for 1/2 hour for that, then the price didn't rise, effectively.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e0bae43de83f96806b261949c0951a8e",
"text": "Hyperinflation doesn't mean armaggedon. There have been hundreds of fiat currencies that have ended in hyperinflation i.e. wiemar republic (which the germans fully recovered from in less than 10 years before trying to take over europe). Most all pawn shops buy gold/silver, especially during hyperinflation will people be buying gold/silver. You can't have hyperinflation without demand of commodities going through the roof, that is the driver of inflation. When this happens you can be gauranteed people will buy your gold/silver. In the Wiemar republic, some people bought gold/silver for 1/10,000,000 what they sold it for. But they still lost 99% of their value because the mark still devalued another 1,000,000 times. Because of this, many people aren't even looking to sell it, until they absolutely need it's value. I.e. it's a piggy bank. The best way to deal with a gold/silver stash is to hide it, you can't steal what you can't find. There's a reason pirates are famous for burying their stuff, when they don't have the law on their side.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f573cc1a292826d1bce978f3d56e90e9",
"text": "\"Sensitive topic ;) Inflation is a consequence of the mismatch between supply and demand. In an ideal world the amount of goods available would exactly match the demand for those goods. We don't live in an ideal world. One example of oversupply is dollar stores where you can buy remainders from companies that misjudged demand. Most recently we've seen wheat prices rise as fires outside Moscow damaged the harvest and the Russian government banned exports. And that introduces the danger of inflation. Inflation is a signal, like the pain you feel after an injury. If you simply took a painkiller you may completely ignore a broken leg until gangrene took your life. Governments sometimes \"\"ban\"\" inflation by fixing prices. Both the Zimbabwean and Venezuelan governments have tried this recently. The consequence of that is goods become unavailable as producers refuse to create supply for less than the cost of production. As CrimonsX pointed out, governments do desperately want to avoid deflation as much as they want to avoid hyperinflation. There is a \"\"correct\"\" level and that has resulted in the monetary policy called \"\"Inflation targetting\"\" where central banks attempt to manage inflation into a target range (usually around 2% to 6%). The reason is simply that limited inflation drives investment and consumption. With a guaranteed return on investment people with cash will lend it to people with ideas. Consumers will buy goods today if they fear that the price will rise tomorrow. If prices fall (as they have done during the two decades of deflation in Japan) then the result is lower levels of investment and employment as companies cut production capacity. If prices rise to quickly (as in Zimbabwe and Venezuela) then people cannot save enough or earn enough and so their wealth is drained away. Add to this the continual process of innovation and you see how difficult it is to manage inflation at all. Innovation can result in increased efficiency which can reduce prices. It can also result in a new product which is sufficiently unique to allow predatory pricing (the Apple iPhone, new types of medicines, and so on). The best mechanism we have for figuring out where money should be invested and who is the best recipient of any good is the price mechanism. Inflation is the signal that investors need to learn how best to manage their efforts. We hide from it at our peril.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a59812a36f778c73271b7a09bc30bcaa",
"text": "\"People are naturally pessimistic or optimistic. I am a pessimist, I have a anxiety disorder to prove. Tried to have a business, gave up when I realized I would have to borrow more money to keep on going. My dad on the other hand, he is eternal optimist. He was part of the 80es real estate bubble. It just was in his genes to believe that prizes keep on going up. And they might have, but there were factors at play that he could not foresee (falling of soviet union which influenced Finland). To me, bubbles are born because of 1 simple reason. Government backed loans. If governments would not bail out banks that lend money to speculators. There would not be bubbles. It is that simple. But then the economy would freeze, since banks would demand perfect guarantees before they would loan you a cent. One way to deal with that might be that central banks would naturally print money at a certain rate each year, knowing that a lot of that money will just burn in bad investments, basically forgiving banks for the bad loans they have made. Not too much to cause inflation, yet not too little to cause banks stop lending. This money would be simply printed off thin air. There would have to be a agreement on IMF level at what this \"\"burn rate\"\" could be to invidual countries. But since that burn rate could give an edge to a country that was allowed to print more, it would be very hard to come to an agreement how much each country could print. Or, there could be a international agreement that the money would printed this way only during recessions. Else we are stuck with bust and boom cycles, which are very destructive as I have witnessed first hand.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d242c87b6a5d3359e28cd15a6f25e144",
"text": "\"No, it isn't generally believed that inflation is caused by individual banks printing money. Governments manage money supply through Central Banks (which may, or may not, be independent of the state). There are a number of theories about money supply and inflation (from Monetarist, to Keynesian, and so on). The Quantity Theory of Inflation says that long-term inflation is the result of money-supply but short-term inflation is related to events/local conditions. Short-term inflation is a symptom of economic change. It's like a cough for a doctor. It simply indicates an underlying event. When prices go up it encourages new producers to enter the market, create new supply which will then act to lower prices. In this way inflation is managed by ensuring that information travels throughout the economy. If prices go up for specific goods, then - all things being equal - supply should go up since the increase implies increasing demand. If prices go down then this implies demand has gone down and so producers will reduce supply. Obviously this isn't a perfect relationship. There is \"\"stickiness\"\" which can be caused by a whole bunch of market conditions (from banning of short-selling, to inelasticity of demand/supply). Your question isn't about quantitative easing (which is a state-led way of increasing money-supply and which could increase inflation but is hoped to increase expenditure and investment) so I won't cover that here. The important take-away is that inflation is an essential price signal to investors and business people so that they can assess market cycles. Without it we would end up with vast over- or under-supply and much greater economic disruption.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1279c20458071181639872766799d542",
"text": "What you say about monetary velocity is true, but I don't think its the whole story. Banks also create money by lending out their deposits: if I put $1000 in my account, and the bank lends out $500 of it, I still have my $1000 on deposit but someone else is also spending an extra $500. If the banks are lending less then this effect is reduced and the volume of money reduces as well as its velocity.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "76d142e5fb17aaf1ea6bbf10412bf8fd",
"text": "Preparations for inflation that is not going to happen anytime soon is preventing much needed currency from being injected into the system. The deflationary pressures are so strong that less and less currency is being circulated, as people fear for the future. They save more and spend less, because their neighbor's out of work, and they might be next (if they are lucky enough to still have a job). That's not to mention that huge mortgage that they bought into, and are now massively underwater with. With that, they are constantly removing chunks of currency from circulation. When everyone is taking chunks out, the demand for currency rises, and demand for goods and services dies, creating an ever deepening hole. So yes, I think the government should be making major purchases, damn the deficit. Fiber to everyone's home, absolutely massive funding of clean energy research and projects, combat infrastructure decay, etc etc. Labor and resources are cheap right now, and leaving all these people with stagnating skill sets by the wayside with no options creates an exponential decrease in productivity. We have the methods to control inflation when and if it rears it head.. high taxation and high interest rates. Let's burn that bridge when we get there. The U.S. budget does not work like a household, as alluring as this analogy is. There is no paying back the deficit, and there will never be a problem paying the interest on a a currency we can make more of at any point. The real limitation here is inflation, and we have none.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c75a8d1f2f8b4a731c590e22495c2513",
"text": "I've seen a lot of long and complicated answers here so here is my simple and short answer: Let's say the economy consists of: 10 apples and 10$. Then an apple costs 1$. If you print 10$ more you have: 10 apples and 20$. Then an apple costs 2$. That is it! It's not what Kenshin said: Over time, prices go up! However I would like to add something more on the topic: inflation is theft! If I hack the bank and steal 10% from each account it's obvious that it is theft. It's a bit less obvious when the government prints out money and people loose 10% of the value in their bank accounts but the end result is the same. Final note: some may disagree but I do not consider inflation when 5 of the apples rot and you have: 5 apples and 10$ and an apple now costs 2$. This is a drop in supply and if the demand stays the same prices will rise.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c256cc471cf2a1929507906a781f412f",
"text": "\"Two typical responses to articles/surveys making such claims: **1. People use other forms of asset for emergency savings because interest rates are low - clearly false.** **2. People use other forms of saving than a saving account therefore such surveys as the X% can't handle a $500 emergency are wrong on their face - this is false the vast majority use a savings account.** I've chosen a topic that absolutely annoys the shit out of me every time it comes up, how people save their money. Every time this topic comes up about X% of americans can't come up with $Y dollars in an emergency or have less than $Z in savings someone inevitably chimes in with the linked response. I have *never* seen anyone attempt to source their hand waving response beyond their own anecdote, which is usually a thinly veiled brag about how financially savvy they are with their wealth. Perhaps people who have no assets, or crippling debt don't go out of their way to brag about it... I could link multiple reddit posts making a similar response, which I address with my own stock response about once every 1-2 months. Instead I've decided to expand with data from several other sources. This is the prototypical good/bad research problem. If you're asserting something, but qualify your statement with, \"\"I\"\"m sure we'd find...if we looked into...\"\" then you're doing it wrong. A good researcher or journalist doesn't put bullshit like that in their work because it's their job to actually look for sources of data; data which should exist with multiple government and independent groups. So let's get started (all data as recent as I could find, oldest source is for 2010): * [Most americans don't invest in the stock market](https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2014/pdf/scf14.pdf) About 48.8% of americans owned publicly traded stock directly or indirectly, with a much smaller percent (13.8%) owning stock directly - pages 18 and 16 respectively. It's important to note the predominance of indirect ownership which suggests this is mostly retirement accounts. It's entirely possible people are irresponsible with their emergency savings, but I think it safe to say we should not expect people to *dip into their retirement accounts* for relatively minor emergency expenses. The reason is obvious, even if it covers the expense they now have to make up the shortfall for their retirement savings. This is further supported by the same source: >\"\"The value of assets held within IRAs and DC plans are among the most significant compo-nents of many families’ balance sheets and are a significant determinant of their future retirement security.\"\" Ibid (page 20, PDF page 20 of 41) There is also a break down of holdings by asset type on page 16, PDF page 16 of 41. * [This data is skewed by the top 10% who keep more of their wealth in different asset types.](http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html) For a breakdown between the 1st, 10th, and 90th percentiles see **table 3.** So far it seems pretty hard to maintain a large percent of americans have their wealth stored outside of savings accounts, mattresses aside. * [Here's my original reply as to the breakdown of americans assets by type and percent holding.](https://imgur.com/a/DsLxB) Note this assumes people *have* assets. [Source for images/data.](https://www.census.gov/people/wealth/data/dtables.html) Most people use savings accounts, with runner up falling to checking accounts. This will segue into our next topic which is the problem of unbanked/underbanked households. * [A large number of individuals have no assets; breaking down by asset types assumes people *have* assets in the first place.](https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/) To quote the FDIC: >*\"\"Estimates from the 2015 survey indicate that 7.0 percent of households in the United States were unbanked in 2015. This proportion represents approximately 9.0 million households. An additional 19.9 percent of U.S. households (24.5 million) were underbanked, meaning that the household had a checking or savings account but also obtained financial products and services outside of the banking system.\"\"* That's right there are millions of households *so finance savvy* they don't even have bank accounts! Obviously it's because of low interest rates. Also, most people have a checking account as well as savings account, the percent with \"\"checking and savings\"\" was 75.8% while those with \"\"checking only\"\" were 22.2% (page 25, PDF page 31 of 88). It's possible in some surveys people keep all their money in checking, but given other data sources, and the original claim this fails to hold up. If the concern was interest rates it makes no sense to keep money in checking which seldom pays interest. This survey also directly addresses the issue of \"\"emergency savings\"\": > *\"\"Overall, 56.3 percent of households saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies in the past 12 months.\"\"* (page 37, PDF page 43 of 88) Furthermore: >*\"\"Figure 7.2 shows that among all households that saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies, savings accounts were the most used savings method followed by checking accounts:* **more than four in five (84.9 percent) kept savings in one of these accounts.** *About one in ten (10.5 percent) households that saved maintained savings in the home, or with family or friends.\"\"* Emphasis added. * [Why don't people have wealth in different asset classes? Well they don't save money.](http://cdn.financialsamurai.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/savings-rates-by-wealth-class.png) This is further supported by the OECD data: * [Americans \"\"currency and deposits\"\" are 13% vs 5.8% for \"\"securities and other shares\"\" as % of total financial assets.](https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-financial-assets.htm) Additionally: * [Interest earning checking accounts: 44.6% of american households (second image)](https://imgur.com/a/DsLxB) * [\"\"Among all households that saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies, savings accounts were the most used savings method followed by checking accounts...\"\" (page 7, PDF page 13 of 88)](https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/2015/2015report.pdf) * ~70% saved for an emergency with a savings account vs ~24% who used checking. *Ibid.* In fairness the FDIC link does state *banked* americans were more likely to hold checking accounts than savings accounts (98% vs ~77% respectively) but that doesn't mean they're earning interest in their checking account. It's also worth noting median transaction account value was for 2013 (this is the federal reserve data) $4100.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "08b144c1dbd53dbc258e027166a0287b",
"text": "\"I disagree, the article is clear that it isn't necessarily the fault of the individual, or their spending habits. > Certainly we can all do the hard work of cutting back on our expenses, says Tescher. But she says the results of this study show something more structural than individual spending. > \"\"People are spending a shockingly large amount of income on housing. They have to pay for transportation to get to a job. These costs are going up while their wages stay the same.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2eb573161fb05e0424582e3be1785ea3",
"text": "\"There are several causes of inflation. One is called cost push — that is, if the price of e.g. oil goes up sharply (as it did in the 1970s), it creates inflation by making everything cost more. Another is called demand pull: if labor unions bargain for higher wages (as they did in the 1960s), their wage costs push up prices, especially after they start buying. The kind of inflation that the banks cause is monetary inflation. That is, for every dollar of deposits, they can make $5 or $10 of loans. So even though they don't \"\"print\"\" money (the Fed does) it's as if they did. The result could be the kind of inflation called \"\"too much money chasing too few goods.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b4e87a814da9242f7855873f3fdeff89",
"text": "I believe there are two ways new money is created: My favorite description of this (money creation) comes from Chris Martenson: the video is here on Youtube. And yes, I believe both can create inflation. In fact this is what happened in the US between 2004 and 2007: increasing loans to households to buy houses created an inflation of home prices.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ece04d2bd05cd3126ea8db90f178fe7e",
"text": "\"It's not possible to determine whether you can \"\"expect a refund\"\" or whether you are claiming the right number of exemptions from the information given. If your wife were not working and you did not do independent contracting, then the answer would be much simpler. However, in this case, we must also factor in how much your contracting brings in (since you must pay income tax on that, as well as Medicare and, probably, Social Security), whether you are filing jointly or separately, and your wife's income from her business. There are also other factors such as whether you'll be claiming certain child care expenses, and certain tax credits which may phase out depending on your income. If you can accurately estimate your total household income for the year, and separate that into income from wages, contracting, and your wife's business, as well as your expenses for things like state and local income and property taxes, then you can make a very reasonable estimate about your total tax burden (including the self-employment taxes on your non-wage income) and then determine whether you are having enough tax withheld from your paycheck. Some people may find that they should have additional tax withheld to compensate for these expenses (see IRS W-4 Line #6).\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
460eab5b242dd71d4dc4beb0fab8b672
|
property owned 50/50 between my brother and me
|
[
{
"docid": "fff2035f2cc2849e6eba49a486a61c8c",
"text": "\"Not sure what you are talking about. The house isn't part of a business so neither of you can deduct half of normal maintenance and repairs. It is just the cost of having a house. The only time this would be untrue is if the thing that you are buying for the house is part of a special deduction or rebate for that tax year. For instance the US has been running rebates and deductions on certain household items that reduce energy - namely insulation, windows, doors, and heating/cooling systems (much more but those are the normal things). And in actuality if your brother is using the entire house as a living quarters you should be charging him some sort of rent. The rent could be up to the current monthly market price of the home minus 50%. If it were my family I would probably charge them what I would pay for a 3% loan on the house minus 50%. Going back to the repairs... Really if these repairs are upgrades and not things caused by using the house and \"\"breaking\"\" or \"\"wearing\"\" things you should be paying half of this, as anything that contributes to the increased property value should be paid for equally if you both are expecting to take home 50% a piece once you sell it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0df687f9e6ccd72053a10020ee9f6e67",
"text": "\"ASSUMING you're talking about a property in the United States, the answer generally would be \"\"no\"\". You aren't actually paying any of the expenses for the property and yet you want to take the deductions for doing so? That's a rather cheeky move, I'd say! (grin) It probably would lead to some real strife with your brother, since he would have proper claim to those credit on the basis he's the one footing the bills for the property. Before you do anything like what you're talking about, it might be best to speak with him, because both of you are running the very real risk of an audit, and if that happens then I can guarantee the IRS will slap the daylights out of you for it. Your brother, I'm sure, is already claiming all of the deductions he can for what he's putting into the property, and on top of that you want to file for your half. What half are you referring to, when your out-of-pocket is zero? So what you're saying is, you think that between you and your brother you should be able to take a credit of 150% of the actual deductions...Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. I strongly encourage you to talk to a tax professional, but if you get a different answer to this than what I've already given then I'd be stunned. I hope this helps. Good luck!\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "235844a2d25fb6628b055a1f80b77c6c",
"text": "\"Because this question seems like it will stick around, I will flesh out my comments into an actual answer. I apologize if this does not answer your question as-asked, but I believe these are the real issues at stake. For the actual questions you have asked, I have paraphrased and bolded below: Firstly, don't do a real estate transaction without talking to a lawyer at some stage [note: a real estate broker is not a lawyer]. Secondly, as with all transactions with family, get everything in writing. Feelings get hurt when someone mis-remembers a deal and wants the terms to change in the future. Being cold and calculated now, by detailing all money in and out, will save you from losing a brother in the future. \"\"Should my brother give me money as a down payment, and I finance the remainder with the bank?\"\" If the bank is not aware that this is what is happening, this is fraud. Calling something a 'gift' when really it's a payment for part ownership of 'your' house is fraud. There does not seem to be any debate here (though I am not a lawyer). If the bank is aware that this is what is happening, then you might be able to do this. However, it is unlikely that the bank will allow you to take out a mortgage on a house which you will not fully own. By given your brother a share in the future value in the house, the bank might not be able to foreclose on the whole house without fighting the brother on it. Therefore they would want him on the mortgage. The fact that he can't get another mortgage means (a) The banks may be unwilling to allow him to be involved at all, and (b) it becomes even more critical to not commit fraud! You are effectively tricking the bank into thinking that you have the money for a down payment, and also that your brother is not involved! Now, to the actual question at hand - which I answer only for use on other transactions that do not meet the pitfalls listed above: This is an incredibly difficult question - What happens to your relationship with your brother when the value of the house goes down, and he wants to sell, but you want to stay living there? What about when the market changes and one of you feels that you're getting a raw deal? You don't know where the housing market will go. As an investment that's maybe acceptable (because risk forms some of the basis of returns). But with you getting to live there and with him taking only the risk, that risk is maybe unfairly on him. He may not think so today while he's optimistic, but what about tomorrow if the market crashes? Whatever the terms of the agreement are, get them in writing, and preferably get them looked at by a lawyer. Consider all scenarios, like what if one of you wants to sell, does the other have the right to delay, or buy you out. Or what if one if you wants to buy the other out? etc etc etc. There are too many clauses to enumerate here, which is why you need to get a lawyer.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "34e6df966186974f602a13e3ae0d3721",
"text": "A share of stock is an asset not much different than any other asset. If the share is being held in a joint account, it's being jointly owned. If the share is being held by a company with multiple owners then the share is owned by the various owners. If you're married and in a community property state, then it's technically owned by both parties.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "56118b160c84e11733b13d8d909fbd1d",
"text": "I think the cleanest way to do this is to rent the house from your father for 2 years, possibly adding an option to buy at a set price to the lease agreement. That takes care of any gift issues, and avoids complications like you living in a house that you couldn't afford to own otherwise. If/when you are able to afford a mortgage, get a mortgage on the house and buy it from your father. Will a bank be willing to take out a mortgage on a house that I technically own for the full amount? I would not take out a mortgage for anything more than 80% of the house's market value. Anything more than that, and you need to pay mortgage insurance, which will increase your monthly payment for no benefit to you. My biggest concern is that you won't be able to afford an 80% mortgage after 2 years. If your father really wants to keep the house in the family then he should either keep the house and rent it to you, or give you the down payment as a gift (keeping under the maximum gift to avoid taxes). If neither you or your father cannot afford the house you may have no choice but to sell it. I would not advise you make a bad financial decision purely for sentimental reasons.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b4726bb0f4ed88e4b2dd8b8e604bcb76",
"text": "It depends on the selling price, but if we can assume the property will be sold at a profit, they are getting a pretty sweet deal at your expense. They are both getting about 5.2% interest on their money, plus the lion's share of any property appreciation. I would say that fair would be either of:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f95199bb23a6a4f41cb7bd60ecc340f8",
"text": "It is possible for him to get a loan against the house as long as the deeding all takes place at the same time as the loan is closing. Basically you and your brother will both have paperwork to sign, and the title company will not send out checks until the loan funds from the mortgage company. For that deeding to take place, the estate will generally have to be fully settled. That can take time, but you might wish to retain a lawyer to be certain your interests are completely protected. Many people feel like getting legal representation will strain family relationships, but I find the opposite to be true. They often grease the wheels and get the process finished quickly and fairly which ultimately reduces such strain. I would view it as a good sign if he is paying off large debts, because that means he will be in a better position to take a mortgage to pay you your share, but that assumes he is acting in good faith.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c9c27918dd9dd2fcb07939a7735f3be",
"text": "There are a few different ways to organize this, but mostly I think you need to talk to a lawyer. The 50/50 split thing should be in writing along with a bunch of other issues. You could have one of you doing a sole proprietorship where the other person is a contractor that receives half of all revenues/profits. The person that owns the sole proprietorship may be entitled to deduct certain costs of running the entity. The other person would then be 1099'd his share of revenues. You could set up a partnership, again legal paperwork is necessary. You could also setup an S-Corp, where each of you is a 50% owner. You could also setup an LLC that is organized as any of the above. I would only do this if you can self fund some additional tax preparation costs. Figure about $600/year at a minimum. There are a lot of options with a sole proprietorship being the easiest. Your first step on the new venture would be to apply for an EIN (free), and then opening a business bank account. Good luck.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "18ce58c8902a64eca070d530a060fd2a",
"text": "From my understanding, only A and B are shareholders, and M is a managing entity that takes commission on the profit. Assuming that's true. At the start of the project, A contributes $500,000. At this point, A is the sole shareholder, owning 100% of the project that's valued at $500,000. The real question is, did the value of the project change when B contributed 3 month later. If the value didn't change, then A owns 33.33%, and B owns 66.66%. Assuming both A and B wants to pay themselves with the $800,000 profit, then A gets a third of that, and B gets the rest. However, if at the time of B's contribution, both parties agreed that the pre-money of the project has changed to $1 million, then B owns half the project valued at 2 million post-money. Then the profit would be split half way.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "19324198ffbc31221bbf6bdb2c801595",
"text": "If you have a copy of the deed, or the original deed itself, take it to a lawyer and have them look it over with you and your other sister. Mention all the details you mentioned here - exactly what you want to do with the property, any correspondence you've had with your sister, and where the property is located. We can't give you any advice without being able to see the deed, and we're not qualified to give any advice outside of 'get a lawyer', because we're not lawyers. Get one, and arm him with as much information about the situation as possible.",
"title": ""
},
{
"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": "89d9ea459669caeb89bd33fb1fbaf6fc",
"text": "It seems likely that the mortgage is not in your boyfriend's name because he never would have qualified if he can't even afford utilities after paying the mortgage. It also seems unfair that his sister continues to have a 50% share of the equity if your boyfriend has been making the entire payment on the mortgage every month. What would happen if your boyfriend stopped making the payments? His sister would have no choice if the property went into foreclosure. Your boyfriend has all the leverage he needs by simply refusing to continue making the payments. Why he won't push his sister to make a deal is the real question you need to ask him. In the meantime, if he wants out, all he has to do is decide not to keep paying whether his sister feels attached or not.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c1c4dca07594fa3b2c1b7bc039462dd7",
"text": "\"My teacher always says the property interest the beneficiary \"\"holds\"\" or \"\"possesses\"\" is an equitable interest. I might just seem out of place here because it's a legal term and probably not commonplace outside that sphere. But the beneficiaries equitable interest is possessed or held in that regard. From this equitable interest is the income stream. If that just seems like a bunch of gibberish to you than don't mind me, just trying to learn the ins and outs of trusts not the world of finance generally.\"",
"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": "98b07a3bada1706a14716f012eaff827",
"text": "\"Accounting for this properly is not a trivial matter, and you would be wise to pay a little extra to talk with a lawyer and/or CPA to ensure the precise wording. How best to structure such an arrangement will depend upon your particular jurisdiction, as this is not a federal matter - you need someone licensed to advise in your particular state at least. The law of real estate co-ownership (as defined on a deed) is not sufficient for the task you are asking of it - you need something more sophisticated. Family Partnership (we'll call it FP) is created (LLC, LLP, whatever). We'll say April + A-Husband gets 50%, and Sister gets 50% equity (how you should handle ownership with your husband is outside the scope of this answer, but you should probably talk it over with a lawyer and this will depend on your state!). A loan is taken out to buy the property, in this case with all partners personally guaranteeing the loan equally, but the loan is really being taken out by FP. The mortgage should probably show 100% ownership by FP, not by any of you individually - you will only be guaranteeing the loan, and your ownership is purely through the partnership. You and your husband put $20,000 into the partnership. The FP now lists a $20,000 liability to you, and a $20,000 asset in cash. FP buys the $320,000 house (increase assets) with a $300,000 mortgage (liability) and $20,000 cash (decrease assets). Equity in the partnership is $0 right now. The ownership at present is clear. You own 50% of $0, and your sister owns 50% of $0. Where'd your money go?! Simple - it's a liability of the partnership, so you and your husband are together owed $20,000 by the partnership before any equity exists. Everything balances nicely at this point. Note that you should account for paying closing costs the same as you considered the down payment - that money should be paid back to you before any is doled out as investment profit! Now, how do you handle mortgage payments? This actually isn't as hard as it sounds, thanks to the nature of a partnership and proper business accounting. With a good foundation the rest of the building proceeds quite cleanly. On month 1 your sister pays $1400 into the partnership, while you pay $645 into the partnership. FP will record an increase in assets (cash) of $1800, an increase in liability to your sister of $1400, and an increase in liability to you of $645. FP will then record a decrease in cash assets of $1800 to pay the mortgage, with a matching increase in cost account for the mortgage. No net change in equity, but your individual contributions are still preserved. Let's say that now after only 1 month you decide to sell the property - someone makes an offer you just can't refuse of $350,000 dollars (we'll pretend all the closing costs disappeared in buying and selling, but it should be clear how to account for those as I mention earlier). Now what happens? FP gets an increase in cash assets of $350,000, decreases the house asset ($320,000 - original purchase price), and pays off the mortgage - for simplicity let's pretend it's still $300,000 somehow. Now there's $50,000 in cash left in the partnership - who's money is it? By accounting for the house this way, the answer is easily determined. First all investments are paid back - so you get back $20,000 for the down payment, $645 for your mortgage payments so far, and your sister gets back $1400 for her mortgage payment. There is now $27,995 left, and by being equal partners you get to split it - 13,977 to you and your husband and the same amount to your sister (I'm keeping the extra dollar for my advice to talk to a lawyer/CPA). What About Getting To Live There? The fact is that your sister is getting a little something extra out of the deal - she get's the live there! How do you account for that? Well, you might just be calling it a gift. The problem is you aren't in any way, shape, or form putting that in writing, assigning it a value, nothing. Also, what do you do if you want to sell/cash out or at least get rid of the mortgage, as it will be showing up as a debt on your credit report and will effect your ability to secure financing of your own in the future if you decide to buy a house for your husband and yourself? Now this is the kind of stuff where families get in trouble. You are mixing personal lives and business arrangements, and some things are not written down (like the right to occupy the property) and this can really get messy. Would evicting your sister to sell the house before you all go bankrupt on a bad deal make future family gatherings tense? I'm betting it might. There should be a carefully worded lease probably from the partnership to your sister. That would help protect you from extra court costs in trying to determine who has the rights to occupy the property, especially if it's also written up as part of the partnership agreement...but now you are building the potential for eviction proceedings against your sister right into an investment deal? Ugh, what a potential nightmare! And done right, there should probably be some dollar value assigned to the right to live there and use the property. Unless you just want to really gift that to your sister, but this can be a kind of invisible and poorly quantified gift - and those don't usually work very well psychologically. And it also means she's going to be getting an awfully larger benefit from this \"\"investment\"\" than you and your husband - do you think that might cause animosity over dozens and dozens of writing out the check to pay for the property while not realizing any direct benefit while you pay to keep up your own living circumstances too? In short, you need a legal structure that can properly account for the fact that you are starting out in-equal contributors to your scheme, and ongoing contributions will be different over time too. What if she falls on hard times and you make a few of the mortgage payments? What if she wants to redo the bathroom and insists on paying for the whole thing herself or with her own loan, etc? With a properly documented partnership - or equivalent such business entity - these questions are easily resolved. They can be equitably handled by a court in event of family squabble, divorce, death, bankruptcy, emergency liquidation, early sale, refinance - you name it. No percentage of simple co-ownership recorded on a deed can do any of this for you. No math can provide you the proper protection that a properly organized business entity can. I would thus strongly advise you, your husband, and your sister to spend the comparatively tiny amount of extra money to get advice from a real estate/investment lawyer/CPA to get you set up right. Keep all receipts and you can pay a book keeper or the accountant to do end of the year taxes, and answer questions that will come up like how to properly account for things like depreciation on taxes. Your intuition that you should make sure things are formally written up in times when everyone is on good terms is extremely wise, so please follow it up with in-person paid consultation from an expert. And no matter what, this deal as presently structured has a really large built-in potential for heartache as you have three partners AND one of the partners is also renting the property partially from themselves while putting no money down? This has a great potential to be a train wreck, so please do look into what would happen if these went wrong into some more detail and write up in advance - in a legally binding way - what all parties rights and responsibilities are.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a9ebe78161a536d7558dd48aea39b3d0",
"text": "\"If you and your parents both put up money to buy a house or anything else, what share each of you owns would be a subject for negotiation and agreement between you. To the best of my knowledge, there is no law that says \"\"if person X pays the down payment and person Y pays the monthly payments, than X owns 40% and Y owns 60%\"\" or any other specific numbers. Parents often give their children money to help with a down payment on a house or a car with the understanding that this is a gift and the child still owns 100% of the item. Other times they are unwilling or unable to just give the money and want some stake in exchange. In the case of a house or a car, there's a title that identifies the owner, and legally the owner is the person or people named on the title. I'd suggest that if you want to have split ownership, like if your parents are saying that they'll help with the down payment but they want to get that money back when you sell or some such, that you come up with a written agreement saying who owns what percentage and you both sign it. If there was a dispute -- if you never had an agreement about what share each owned and now you're selling the house and you're arguing over how much of the money each of you should get, or your parents want you to sell the house so they can get their money back but you don't want to sell, or whatever -- ultimately a court would decide. Presumably the judge would consider how much you had each paid in, but he might also consider who's been paying property taxes, how much work each has done to maintain the place, etc. It's better to have a written and signed agreement, something that everyone involved is satisfied with and where you all know exactly what you're agreeing to, rather than having a nasty surprise when a judge says no, you're not getting what you were assuming you were getting.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b2b74b5cd2be5c6afc1c3fe45820c19c",
"text": "\"The current mortgaged owner would typically not have the right to sell any portion of the house without approval from the bank. The bank doesn't \"\"own\"\" the house through the mortgage, but they do have a series of rights that, in some cases, look similar to ownership. Remember that a mortgage is just a loan that uses a house as collateral, to reduce the risk to the lender in the event of default. If it was just a personal loan, without collateral, then there would be a much higher risk of default (and therefore the interest rate would be closer to 20% than 2%). But because the loan was taken with collateral, that collateral can't be sold without the bank's permission. If the bank allowed this to happen, then one risk would be exactly as you say - that the mortgagee stops paying the bank, and the bank no longer is able to recover the full value of the loan on selling the remaining 50% of the house owed as collateral.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
3c119cb91ca56324c95e5695a38c2b39
|
Why does Bank of America sometimes refer to itself as Banc of America on some documents?
|
[
{
"docid": "8df64277d91696b72fff884acb9e2c21",
"text": "\"From https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Banc: Banq (also Banc, banc-corp, bancorp, or bancorporation) is an intentionally erroneous spelling of the word bank, but pronounced the same way. It has been adopted by companies which are not banks but wish to appear as such, and satisfy legal restrictions on the usage of the word bank. ... For instance, if the original company is known as Bank of America, then the new investment banking entity may be known as Banc of America Securities LLC. If the original company is known as Bank of Manhattan, then its insurance business might be known as \"\"Banc of Manhattan Insurance\"\" and its holding company might be called \"\"Manhattan Bancorp\"\". This practice originates from legal necessity: Under the laws of most states, a corporation may only use the word \"\"bank\"\" in its name if it has obtained a banking charter under state or federal banking laws. So, \"\"Banc of America\"\" is the subsidiary of BoA that doesn't have appropriate licenses to be called \"\"bank\"\". Wonders of complex regulation :)\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "57f6b5ec59b5578a770538f446981ea6",
"text": "\"The address under a bank's name on a check, if there is one, is generally going to be the contact address of the bank. That will be true no matter where on the check the bank's name appears. The address of the person or business the account belongs to, if present, will appear under their name. This information block is typically near the top left corner the check, so it will be visible as the return address if the check is mailed in a \"\"window envelope\"\" designed for this purpose. The address the check is being mailed to, if it appears on the check, will generally appear low on the check and to the right, so it will be visible as the destination address when the check is mailed using a \"\"window envelope\"\" designed for this purpose. If that isn't the answer you were looking for, please clarify your question.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb65af7be3ce30209c971bb477b6a2ba",
"text": "The fact that a lawsuit has been filed is not ipso facto evidence of wrongdoing. BoA has a lot of ugliness yet un-accounted-for, but escrowing insurance and taxes is 100% standard practice, to the point where you cannot get a conventional mortgage that *doesn't* escrow that stuff. **NO** bank will give or carry a conventional home-loan *without* escrowing taxes and insurance. If you have a conventional mortgage, your insurance and tax payments are made by the mortgager whether or not you pay, because the bank doesn't want the house (their collateral) repo'd or destroyed due to lack of a $100 insurance/tax payment. To the point, no bank in 2011 wants *more* foreclosed homes on their books. Banks *lose* money in foreclosure. The thesis that BoA conspired to get a bigger portfolio of underwater homes defies sanity. Just because BoA robbed a liquor store doesn't mean that they also molested children and killed JFK. There might be a colossal paperwork snafu here that BoA has to make right, but that can be unwound. But the narrative that BoA was gaming the paperwork to get a higher ratio of foreclosures on their books doesn't make sense.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7077d59b515eba495c5ceab28cfb7d7b",
"text": "I believe it’s because the old ticker machines only had 32 symbols making each symbol (1/32) a tick. (Back in the London Stock / Debt exchange in the 18th century) . The first ever government bond was issued by the Bank of England in 1693 to raise money to fund a war against France",
"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": "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": "03930b7b11dd077c077ccfc6adeae95e",
"text": "A big issue for historical data in banking is that they don't/can't reside within a single system. Archives of typical bank will include dozen(s) of different archives made by different companies on different, incompatible systems. For example, see http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/big-bank-theory-chart-large.jpg as an illustration of bank mergers and acquisitions, and AFAIK that doesn't include many smaller deals. For any given account, it's 10-year history might be on some different system. Often, when integrating such systems, a compromise is made - if bank A acquires bank B that has earlier acquired bank C, then if the acquisition of C was a few years ago, then you can skip integrating the archives of C in your online systems, keep them separate, and use them only when/if needed (and minimize that need by hefty fees). Since the price list and services are supposed to be equal for everyone, then no matter how your accounts originated, if 10% of archives are an expensive enough problem to integrate, then it makes financial sense to restrict access to 100% of archives older than some arbitrary threshold.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5fd0846b4f3cec3aa406476b8c76bb6b",
"text": "\"As an addendum to PeterK's answer, once upon a time, there were many Savings and Loan Associations (S&Ls) that acted as small banks, accepting savings deposits from people and lending money for home mortgages to local residents. Some of these S&Ls were chartered Federally with deposits insured by the FSLIC (similar to the FDIC which still insures deposits in banks) while others had State charters and used the State equivalent of FSLIC as the insurer. To induce people to save with S&Ls instead of banks, S&Ls paid higher rates of interest on their savings accounts than banks were permitted to do on bank savings accounts. Until 1980, S&Ls were not permitted to make consumer or commercial loans, have checking accounts, issue credit cards, etc., but once the US Congress in its wisdom permitted this practice, this part of the business boomed. (Note for @RonJohn: Prior to 1980, S&Ls offered NOW accounts on which \"\"checks\"\" (technically, Negotiated Orders of Withdrawal) could be written but they were not checks in the legal sense, and many S&Ls did not return these paid \"\"checks\"\" with the monthly statement as all banks did; writing a \"\"check\"\" while pressing hard created a carbon copy that could be used as proof of payment). In just a few years' time, many S&Ls crashed because they were not geared to handle the complexities of the new things that they were permitted to do, and so ran into trouble with bad loans as well as outright fraud by S&L management and boards of directors etc. After the disappearance of most S&Ls, many small banks (often with State charters only) sprang up, and that's why there are so many banks in the US. Mortgage lending is a lucrative business (if done right), and everyone wants to get into the business. Note that 4 branches of Bank of America in a Florida town is not a sign of many banks; the many different banks that the OP noticed in Maine is.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4fd0d70975a9e25e6f4df9b653ffceee",
"text": "\"I cannot answer the original question, but since there is a good deal of discussion about whether it's credible at all, here's an answer that I got from Bank of America. Note the fine difference between \"\"your account\"\" and \"\"our account\"\", which does not seem to be a typo: The payment method is determined automatically by our system. One of the main factors is the method by which pay to recipients prefer to receive payments. If a payment can be issued electronically, we attempt to do so because it is the most efficient method. Payment methods include: *Electronic: Payment is sent electronically prior to the \"\"Deliver By\"\" date. The funds for the payment are deducted from your account on the \"\"Deliver By\"\" date. *Corporate Check: This is a check drawn on our account and is mailed to the pay to recipient a few days before the \"\"Deliver By\"\" date. The funds to cover the payment are deducted from your account on the \"\"Deliver By\"\" date. *Laser Draft Check: This is a check drawn on your account and mailed to the pay to recipient a few days before the \"\"Deliver By\"\" date. The funds for the payment are deducted from your account when the pay to recipient cashes the check, just as if you wrote the check yourself. To determine how your payment was sent, click the \"\"Payments\"\" button in your Bill Pay service. Select the \"\"view payment\"\" link next to the payment. Payment information is then displayed. \"\"Transmitted electronically\"\" means the payment was sent electronically. \"\"Payment transaction number\"\" means the payment was sent via a check drawn from our account. \"\"Check number\"\" means the payment was sent as a laser draft check. Each payment request is evaluated individually and may change each time a payment processes. A payment may switch from one payment method to another for a number of reasons. The merchant may have temporarily switched the payment method to paper, while they update processing information. Recent changes or re-issuance of your payee account number could alter the payment method. In my case, the web site reads a little different: Payment check # 12345678 (8 digits) was sent to Company on 10/27/2015 and delivered on 10/30/2015. Funds were withdrawn from your (named) account on 10/30/2015. for one due on 10/30/2015; this must be the \"\"corporate check\"\". And for another, earlier one, due on 10/01/2015, this must be the laser draft check: Check # 1234 (4 digits) from your (named) account was mailed to Company on 09/28/2015. Funds for this payment are withdrawn from your account when the Pay To account cashes the check. Both payments were made based on the same recurring bill pay payment that I set up manually (knowing little more of the company than its address).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4b27fe4787eb6e07ed71131bc7357766",
"text": "\"There are other good answers to the general point that the essence of what you're describing exists already, but I'd like to point out a separate flaw in your logic: Why add more complications so that \"\"should I call this principal or interest\"\" actually makes a difference? Why's the point (incentive) for this? The incentive is that using excess payments to credit payments due in the future rather than applying it to outstanding principal is more lucrative for the lender. Since it's more lucrative and there's no law against it most (all) lenders use it as the default setting.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "88f929d4ba467b6a84f2f43272191d01",
"text": "I didn't realize that! Thanks for the correction. A bit of google-fu provided this: >[Stolen funds may be covered by what's called a banker's blanket bond, which is a multi-purpose insurance policy a bank purchases to protect itself from fire, flood, earthquake, robbery, defalcation, embezzlement and other causes of disappearing funds. In any event, an occurrence such as a fire or bank robbery may result in a loss to the bank but should not result in a loss to the bank's customers.](http://www.fdic.gov/consumers/consumer/information/fdiciorn.html)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "60eb3f7edf10ab3c6a23d1f313aef630",
"text": "The best answer is, I think, also the simplest: A bank is an entity which performs maturity transformation. (Conversely, any entity that performs maturity transformation is acting as a bank, regardless of whether it is called one or is regulated as one. And an entity which does not perform maturity transformation isn't really a bank.) Maturity transformation is the process by which a bank accepts short-term deposits, and makes long-term loans. The benefit to society is fairly obvious; we (collectively) like being able to take out mortgages, but we also like having our money in a checking account and available on demand. Banks allow this to happen, although property bubbles and similar make it clear that this isn't without cost. (Note: Central banks are a completely different kettle of fish.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b5d49eeba6439306dafda1540ce9d30c",
"text": "Exactly. Or if you prefer, they were not acting *as* banks when doing so. (Well, at least by the definition I gave, obviously. If you prefer a different definition, you get a different answer. Although I'm not sure there really is a useful definition of banking that would cover the behaviour you described.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0aaccc3d7127a4d5f3378f7beac87464",
"text": "##Glass–Steagall legislation The Glass–Steagall legislation describes four provisions of the U.S. Banking Act of 1933 separating commercial and investment banking. The article 1933 Banking Act describes the entire law, including the legislative history of the provisions covered here. (The common name comes from the names of the Congressional sponsors, Senator Carter Glass and Representative Henry B. Steagall. A separate 1932 law described in the article Glass–Steagall Act of 1932, had the same sponsors, and is also referred to as the Glass–Steagall Act.) The separation of commercial and investment banking prevented securities firms and investment banks from taking deposits, and commercial Federal Reserve member banks from: dealing in non-governmental securities for customers investing in non-investment grade securities for themselves underwriting or distributing non-governmental securities affiliating (or sharing employees) with companies involved in such activities Starting in the early 1960s, federal banking regulators interpretations of the Act permitted commercial banks, and especially commercial bank affiliates, to engage in an expanding list and volume of securities activities. *** ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/business/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f4aa10b157076a2d41f8f8ec9de3d2c1",
"text": "\"The \"\"just accounting\"\" is how money market works these days. Lets look at this simplified example: The bank creates an asset - loan in the amount of X, secured by a house worth 1.25*X (assuming 20% downpayment). The bank also creates a liability in the amount of X to its depositors, because the money lent was the money first deposited into the bank by someone else (or borrowed by the bank from the Federal Reserve(*), which is, again, a liability). That liability is not secured. Now the person defaults on the loan in the amount of X, but at that time the prices dropped, and the house is now worth 0.8*X. The bank forecloses, sells the house, recovers 80% of the loan, and removes the asset of the loan, creating an asset of cash in the value of 0.8*X. But the liability in the amount of X didn't go anywhere. Bank still has to repay the X amount of money back to its depositors/Feds. The difference? 20% of X in our scenario - that's the bank's loss. (*) Federal Reserve is the US equivalent of a central bank.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b2c42bddf3080ea7ae21817338063ec0",
"text": "The bank won't let you because: Differences in required account features — Business accounts have different features (many of them legal features) that are required by businesses. For instances: Do you want to be able to deposit cheques that are written out to your business name? You need a business account for that. Your business could be sold. Then it wouldn't be your business, so it wouldn't make sense to put the business account under your personal name. The bank account and the cash it holds is a business asset and should be owned by the business, so when the business is sold the account goes with it. This is especially the case for a corporation that has shareholders, and not a sole proprietorship. For a business, you could also, in theory, assign other people as signing authorities on the business account (e.g. your corporate treasurer), and the individuals performing that role could change over time. Business accounts allow for this kind of use. Market segmentation — The bank has consciously undertaken to segment their product offerings in order to maximize their profit. Market segmentation helps the bottom line. Even if there were zero legal reasons to have separate personal vs. business accounts, banks would still make it their policy to sell different account types according to use because they can make more money that way. Consider an example in another industry: The plain-old telephone company also practices segmentation w.r.t. personal/business. Do you want a telephone line for a business and listed as such in the phone book? You need a business line. Do you want a phone line hooked up at a non-residential address? You need a business line. Here it's clear it is less of a legal issue than with the bank account, and it doesn't matter that the technical features of the phone line may be identical for the basic product offerings within each segment. The phone company has chosen to segment and price their product offerings this way. Q. Why do companies choose to charge some kinds of customers more than others for essentially the same underlying service? A. Because they can.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
979f1b4300ffafa5dd184bcfaa8b57e5
|
What is the cost of “free” trades?
|
[
{
"docid": "4c3d9cb853ffbe6903b6a500e7c40e6c",
"text": "\"In the case of Wells Fargo, I believe that free trading is linked to your overall banking relationship with the firm. So if you have a checking account with a balance of $X, or a total relationship with the bank (\"\"relationship\"\" is usually defined as loan balances + deposit balances) over a certain amount, they give you a plum like free stock trades. The theory behind this approach is that banks want to be a one-stop shop for you. The idea is that they can market the banks products to you over a period of years (lowering customer acquisition cost) and offer you a level of convenience that allows them to charge a premium for services. For example, many people will pay a rate or fee premium on a mortgage or car loan so that they can do all of their business in one place. In other cases, free trading is linked to marketing campaigns by funds. Charles Schwab started this with the \"\"no transaction fee\"\" mutual fund store many years ago -- transaction fees are actually paid for by the mutual funds who pay for placement in the program. \"\"Free ETF trade\"\" programs are similar.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "45d28abf9736032beeb3d5f980b3998c",
"text": "Free Wire Transfers You get better deals on wire transfer fees from brokerage firms and mutual fund companies. Vanguard doesn’t charge a wire transfer fee if the amount of the wire is over $5,000; the fee is only $5 if the amount is between $1,000 and $5,000. Fidelity doesn’t charge a wire transfer fee if your total household balance at Fidelity is above a certain amount ($15 otherwise). Schwab gives you three free domestic wire transfers per quarter if your total household balance at Schwab is above a certain amount ($25 otherwise). Incoming wires are free at Vanguard, Fidelity, and Schwab. Business checking accounts sometimes get free wire transfers. For example you get 10 free wire transfers every month (5 incoming, 5 outgoing) with HSBC’s free no-minimum-balance Business Direct checking account. Some premium level personal checking accounts also give free wire transfers. For example if you have Premier Checking at Northwest Federal Credit Union ($50,000 minimum balance or $10 monthly fee), you get free outgoing domestic wire transfers. The Vanguard information in that article appears to be dated: they seem to allow free outgoing wire transfers without caveat even from the minimal, fee-free account. I am aware of PNC's Performance Select checking account, which allows unlimited free domestic wire transfers. The fee for this account is $25 per month, which would be around $5 per weekly transfer. Alternatively, the fee is waived if you maintain a $5000 minimum balance or $5000 direct deposit.",
"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": "3d99e0afe3526d2911c7bc203042da44",
"text": "I wouldn't only consider the entry/exit cost per trade. That's a good comparison page by the way. I would also consider the following. This depends if you are planning on using your online broker to provide all the information for you to trade. I have lower expectations of my online broker, not meant to be harsh on the online brokers, but I expect brokers to assist me in buying/selling, not in selecting. Edit: to add to the answer following a comment. Here are three pieces of software to assist in stock selection",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "35b8026c69f4757eea3e2ab494b55195",
"text": "If you are trading CFDs, which are usually traded on margin, you will usually be charged an overnight financing fee for long positions held overnight and you will receive an overnight financing credit for short positions held overnight. Most CFD brokers will have their overnight financing rates set at + or - 2.5% or 3% from the country's official interest rates. So if your country's official interest rate is 5% and your broker uses + or - 2.5%, you will get a 2.5% credit for any short positions held overnight and pay 7.5% fee for any long positions held overnight. In Australia the official interest rate is 2.5%, so I get 0% for short positions and pay 5% for long positions held overnight. If you are looking to hold positions open long term (especially long positions) you might think twice before using CFDs to trade as you may end up paying quite a bit in interest over a long period of time. These financing fees are charged because you are borrowing the funds to open your positions, If you buy shares directly you would not be charged such overnight financing fees.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a15ac15ca148e17f5a75a459168f7c48",
"text": "a) Contracts are for future delivery of said underlying. So if you are trading CL (crude oil) futures and don't sell before delivery date, you will be contacted about where you want the oil to be delivered (a warehouse presumably). 1 contract is the equivalent of 1000 barrels. b) 600 contracts depends entirely on what you are trading and how you are trading. If you are trading ES (S&P 500 e-Mini), you can do the 600 contracts in less than a second. c) No fees does not make particular sense. It's entirely possible that you are not trading anything, it's just a fake platform so they can judge your performance. d) The catch typically is that when it's time to pay you, they will avoid you or worst case, disappear. e) Trading is a full-time job, especially for the first 4-5 years when you're only learning the basics. Remember, in futures trading you are trading against all the other professionals who do only this 24/7 for decades. If you are only risking your time with the reward being learning and possibly money, it seems like a good deal. There's typically a catch with these things - like you would have to pay for your data which is very expensive or withdrawing funds is possible only months later.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "72346b1707630408d4b3eef428f45fa7",
"text": "A tax of 0.01 cents on a transaction though would mean you'd wait until the spread was at least 0.02 cents before making the trade. But I particularly think the offender is not even day traders, it's the completely ridiculous fact that a person will offer to buy stock at a certain price, or lower, another person will offer to sell the stock at a lower price, and before the transaction is completed another broker buys the stock and resells it, because his computer is located closer to the data center than either of the other two persons. That guy is making money and wasting electricity and real estate to get it, and the ultimate purchaser is getting a worse deal. We still have that problem, but the margins have been squeezed on the HTF guy a bit, so maybe it isn't an issue.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a41f56849edf45afe4f4f4a6e0b94733",
"text": "Honestly, 10 wash trades is next to nothing. I run a small automated trading firm and I get maybe 20-30 wash trades per quarter. You get fined for them but it's not a big deal, preventing wash trades can be pretty hard and sometimes it's entirely out of your control. Canada has much stricter rules about wash trading, the U.S. has more lenient rules on them, and in Europe you can wash trade all you want because honestly it doesn't make much of a difference. Anyhow, just trying to give some perspective that 10 instances of wash trading is not unusual/uncommon, won't have any market impact one way or another, and often happens by accident. If anything wash trades are just a pain in the ass, you end up paying transaction costs for nothing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7bbfa7d7bbe88354359e0a432ac667b2",
"text": "Trading is NOT zero-sum game, it is negative sum actually. In fact all people's money is getting swept by commissions and fees. If you don't have The Plan (which includes minimizing commission losses), you win some (not a lot), then you get big positions, then market crashes, then all your money is gone. You will start noticing that commissions are real, only when you get market crash. Prey that you get heavy losses (-10% of portfolio) before some (giant) market crash. Getting good lesson by small price is better then high price (-30..50%). Piece of advice. There is small exchanges that do NOT charge you for operations, taking only market spread ($0.01) as commission. They do so because they do not have big population and they trade mostly by using automatic market-makers (which means there is no way to buy 10% of Apple there).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "94630e795ff7fd42e6357f0e6e1df8ad",
"text": "It's 5% free money, if you believe the company's stock is fairly valued and likely to grow and/or return reasonable dividends until you're ready to sell it. There's usually a minimum holding period of a few months to a year before these discounted shares can be sold; take that into account",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b842ef5bae3b4edbd9ca18149dc746d7",
"text": "The GuruFocus Link is just reporting the high and low price of the quarter. Price Range (Average) – The estimated trade prices. The average price is calculated from the time weighted average during the period. If no price range is shown, the trade prices are estimated trade prices, which are more accurate estimates. AAPL: $420.05 - $549.03 ($467.26) The numbers for the high and low match what I found for AAPL on Yahoo Finance. Keep in mind their definition uses estimate 3 times.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5133e8a0da48d7a0a7bccf8988781a6a",
"text": "Well, that is why I am asking questions, and seeing if there is any catch. I want to read up before I actually trade. Before I trades stocks I read for like 2 years, learning as much as I could. I am not about to jump in, but it is something I would like to trade eventually. I know I need to do my due diligence on it. The reason I came here was to get information on the topic before I decided on anything, including books and websites.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9d64699c18a0229bfc509a26b3a4c0d2",
"text": "\"As I stated in my comment, options are futures, but with the twist that you're allowed to say no to the agreed-on transaction; if the market offers you a better deal on whatever you had contracted to buy or sell, you have the option of simply letting it expire. Options therefore are the insurance policy of the free market. You negotiate a future price (actually you usually take what you can get if you're an individual investor; the institutional fund managers get to negotiate because they're moving billions around every day), then you pay the other guy up front for the right of refusal later. How much you pay depends on how likely the person giving you this option is to have to make good on it; if your position looks like a sure thing, an option's going to be very expensive (and if it's such a sure thing, you should just make your move on the spot market; it's thus useful to track futures prices to see where the various big players are predicting that your portfolio will move). A put option, which is an option for you to sell something at a future price, is a hedge against loss of value of your portfolio. You can take one out on any single item in your portfolio, or against a portion or even your entire portfolio. If the stock loses value such that the contract price is better than the market price as of the delivery date of the contract, you execute the option; otherwise, you let it expire. A call option, which is an option to buy something at a future price, is a hedge against rising costs. The rough analog is a \"\"pre-order\"\" in retail (but more like a \"\"holding fee\"\"). They're unusual in portfolio management but can be useful when moving money around in more complex ways. Basically, if you need to guarantee that you will not pay more than a certain per-share price to buy something in the future, you buy a call option. If the spot price as of the delivery date is less than the contract price, you buy from the market and ignore the contract, while if prices have soared, you exercise it and get the lower contract price. Stock options, offered as benefits in many companies, are a specific form of call option with very generous terms for whomever holds them. A swaption, basically a put and a call rolled into one, allows you to trade something for something else. Call it the free market's \"\"exchange policy\"\". For a price, if a security you currently hold loses value, you can exchange it for something else that you predicted would become more valuable at the same time. One example might be airline stocks and crude oil; when crude spikes, airline stocks generally suffer, and you can take advantage of this, if it happens, with a swaption to sell your airline stocks for crude oil certificates. There are many such closely-related inverse positions in the market, such as between various currencies, between stocks and commodities (gold is inversely related to pretty much everything else), and even straight-up cash-for-bad-debt arrangements (credit-default swaps, which we heard so much about in 2008).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f7058c5586ad44d8fd12dd70c1f65ccc",
"text": "Now a days, your stocks can be seen virtually through a brokerage account. Back in the days, a stock certificate was the only way to authenticate stock ownership. You can still request them though from the corporation you have shares in or your brokerage. It will have your name, corporation name and number of shares you have. You have to buy shares of a stock either through a brokerage or the corporation itself. Most stock brokerages are legit and are FDIC or SIPC insured. But your risks are your own loses. The $10 you are referring to is the trade commission fee the brokerage charges. When you place an order to buy or sell a stock the brokerage will charge you $10. So for example if you bought 1 share of a $20 stock. The total transaction cost will be $30. Depending on the state you live in, you can basically starting trading stocks at either 18 or 21. You can donate/gift your shares to virtually anyone. When you sell a stock and experience a profit, you will be charged a capital gains tax. If you buy a stock and sell it for a gain within 1 year, you will taxed up to 35% or your tax bracket but if you hold it for more than a year, you will taxed only 15% or your tax bracket.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d2aefd3bd698e6f120bf71b6f540768c",
"text": "From looking at HSBCs website, it looks like advanced customers are allowed free fund tranfers out of their checking/saving account. I would call the bank to guarantee that the transfers don't face a .5% fee for any outgoing transfer to another brokerage, as listed on this site. However, given that trades are as low as $6.88, I'm not sure she could save much by switching to another brokerage.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b350243d1a7fea34bb88edd7d11f0aa0",
"text": "All institutions, financial or otherwise, seek to maximize profits. In a free market, each bank would price its services to be competitive with the current state of the market. Since the currency conversion fee is generally a small part of the decision as to which bank to choose, banks can be non-competitive in this area. If this is an important consideration for you then you would need to find a bank with a lower conversion fee, but be prepared to have higher fees in other areas. TL;DR: The market bears it.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
856877840d90e13abda7b182518cc68d
|
How to shop for mortgage rates ?
|
[
{
"docid": "c77680824f5285dad88ec81c6946359a",
"text": "I asked my realtor, but she recommends to go with just one banker (her friend), and not to do any rate shopping. You need a new realtor. Anyone who would offer such advice is explicitly stating they are not advocating on your behalf. I'd do the rate shopping first. When you make an offer, once it's accepted, time becomes critical. The seller expects you to go to closing in so many days after signing the P&S. The realtor is specifically prohibited from pushing a particular lender on you. She should know better. In response to comment - Rate Shopping can be as simple as making a phone call, and having a detailed conversation. Jasper's list can be conveyed verbally. Prequalification is the next step, where a bank actually writes a letter indicating they have a high confidence you will qualify for the loan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ec15d96bb63c191e397c5ed59f14b495",
"text": "\"You can shop for a mortgage rate without actually submitting a mortgage application. Unfortunately, the U.S. Government has made it illegal for the banks to give you a \"\"good faith estimate\"\" of the mortgage cost and terms without submitting a mortgage application. On the other hand, government regulations make the \"\"good faith estimates\"\" somewhat misleading. (For one thing, they rarely are good for estimating how much money you will need to \"\"bring to the closing table\"\".) My understanding is that in the United States, multiple credit checks within a two-week period while shopping for a mortgage are combined to ding your credit rating only once. You need the following information to shop for a mortgage: A realistic \"\"appraisal value\"\". Unless your market is going up quickly, a fair purchase price is usually close enough. Your expected loan amount (which you or a banker can estimate based on your down payment and likely closing costs). Your middle credit score, for purposes of mortgage applications. (If you have a co-borrower, such as a spouse, many banks use the lower of the two persons' middle credit score). The annual property tax cost for the property, taking into account the new purchase price. The annual cost of homeowners' insurance. The annual cost of homeowners' association dues. Your minimum monthly payments on all debt. Banks tend to round up the minimum payments. Also, banks care whether any of that debt is secured by real estate. Your monthly income. Banks usually include just the amount for which you can show that you are currently in the job, with regular paychecks and tax withholding, and that you have been in similar jobs (or training for such jobs) for the last two full years. Banks usually subtract out any business losses that show up on tax returns. There are special rules for alimony and child support payments. The loan terms you want, such as a 15-year fixed rate or 30-year fixed rate. The amount of points you are willing to pay. Many banks are willing to lower your \"\"note rate\"\" by 0.125% if you pay 0.5% up-front. The pros and cons of paying points is a good topic for another question. Whether you want a so-called \"\"no-fee\"\" or \"\"no-closing cost\"\" loan. These loans cost less up-front, but have a higher \"\"note rate\"\". Unless you ask for a \"\"no-fee\"\" or \"\"no-closing cost\"\" loan, most banks have similar charges for things like: So the big differences are usually in: As discussed above, you can come up with a simple number for (roughly) comparing fixed-rate mortgage loan offers. Take the loan origination (and similar) fees, and divide them by the loan amount. Divide that percentage by 4. Add that percentage to the \"\"note rate\"\" for a loan with \"\"no points\"\". Use that last adjusted note rate to compare offers. (This method works because you have the choice of using up-front savings to pay \"\"points\"\" to lower the \"\"note rate\"\".) Notice that once you have your middle credit score, you can ask other lenders to estimate the information above without actually submitting another loan application. Because the mortgage market fluctuates, you should compare rates on the same morning of the same day. You might want to check with three lenders, to see if your real estate agent's friend is competitive:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "44ed3942be87890d5e4010c63b93a91d",
"text": "Pre-qualification is only a step above what you can do with a rate/payment calculator. They don't check your credit history and credit score; they don't ask for verification of your income; or verify that you have reported your debts correctly. They also don't guarantee the interest rate. But if you answer truthfully, and completely, and nothing else changes you have an idea of how much you can afford factoring in the down payment, and estimates of other fees, taxes and insurance. You can get pre-quaified by multiple lenders; then base your decision on rates and fees. You want to get pre-approved. They do everything to approve you. You can even lock in a rate. You want to finalize on one lender at that point because you will incur some fees getting to that point. Then knowing the maximum amount you can borrow including all the payments, taxes, insurance and fees; you can make an offer on a house. Once the contract is accepted you have a few days to get the appraisal and the final approval documents from the lender. They will only loan you the minimum of what you are pre-approved for and the appraisal minus down-payment. Also don't go with the lender recommended by the real estate agent or builder; they are probably getting a kick-back based on the amount of business they funnel to that company.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7ad87a90c0c9695b48710dafc42e7a3b",
"text": "I recognize you are probably somewhere in the middle of various steps here... but I'd start and go through one-by-one in a disciplined way. That helps to cut through the overwhelming torrent of information that's out there. Here is my start at a general checklist: others can feel free to edit it or add their input. How 'much' house would you like to buy in terms of $$$ and bedrooms/sq ft. You can start pretty general here, but the idea is to figure out if you can actually afford a brand new 4bd/3ba 2,500 sq ft house (upwards of $500K in your neck of the woods according to trulia.com). Or maybe with your current resources you'll be looking at something like a townhome that is more entry-level but still yours. Some might recommend that this is a good time to talk to any significant others/whomevers and understand/manage expectations. My wife usually cares a lot about schools at this stage, but I think it's too early. Just ballpark whether you're looking at a $500K house, a $300K house, or a $200K townhome. How much house can you afford in terms of monthly payments only... (not considering other costs like utilities yet). Looking around at calculators like this one from bankrate.com can help you figure this out. Set the interest rate @ 5%, 30-year loan, and change the 'mortgage amount' until you have something that is about 80%-90% of what you currently pay in rent each month. I'll get to 'why' to undershoot your rent payment later. Crap... can't afford my dream house... If you don't have the down payment to make the numbers work (remember that this doesn't even include closing costs yet), there are other loan options like FHA loans that can go as low as about 5% down payment. The math would be the same but you replace 0.8 with 0.95. Then, look at your personal budget. Come up with general estimates of what you currently bring in and spend each month overall. Just ballpark it... Next, figure what you currently spend towards housing in particular. Whether you are paying for it or your landlord is paying for it, someone pays for a lot of different things for housing. For now, my list would include (1) Rent, (2) Mortgage Payment, (3) Electricity, (4) Gas, (5) Sewer, (6) Water, (7) Trash, (8) Other utilities... TV/Internet/Phone, (9) Property Insurance, (10) Renter's Insurance, and (11) Property Taxes. I would put it into a table in Excel somewhere that has 3 columns... The first has the labels, the second will have what you spend now, and the third will have what you might spend on each one as a homeowner. If you pay it now, put it in the second column. If your landlord pays it right now, leave it out as that's included in your rent payment. Obviously each cell won't be filled in. Fill in the rest of the third column. You won't pay rent anymore, but you will have a mortgage payment. You probably have a good estimate of any electricity bills, etc that you currently pay, but those may be slightly higher in a house vs. a condo or an apartment. As for things like sewer, water, trash or other 'community' utilities, my bet would be that your landlord pays for those. If you need a good estimate ask around with some co-workers or friends that own their own places. They would also be a good resource for property insurance estimates... shooting from the hip I would say about $100/month based on this website. (I'm not affiliated). The real 'ouch' is going to be property tax rates. Based on the data from this website, your county is about 9% of property value. So add that into the third column as well. Can you really afford a house? round 2 Now... add up the third column and see how that monthly expense amount on housing compares against your current monthly budget. If it's over, you don't have to give up, but you should just understand how much your decision to purchase a house will strain your budget. Also, you should use this information to look again at 'how much house can you afford.' Now, do some more research. If you need to get a revised loan amount based on the FHA loan decision, then use the bankrate calculator to find out what the monthly payment is for a 95% loan against your target price. But remember that an FHA loan will also carry PMI that is extra on top of your monthly payment. Or, if you need to revise your mortgage payment downwards (or upwards) change the loan amount accordingly. Once you've got the numbers set, look for properties that fit. This way you can have a meaningful discussion with yourself or other stakeholders about what you can afford. As far as arranging financing... a realtor will be able and willing to point you in the right direction for obtaining funding, etc. And at that point you can just check anything you're offered by shopping interest rates, etc against what the internet has to say. Feel free to ask us, too... it's hard to give much better direction without more specifics.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a4ec519d4fc1faaff8e2bf8dc3c99b5",
"text": "If the base rate is USD LIBOR, you can compute this data directly on my website, which uses futures contracts and historical data to create interest rates scenarios for the calculations: http://www.mortgagecalculator3.com/ If your rate index is different, you can still create your own scenarios and check what would happen to your payments.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ccbe018298bd47be90b814ddd26e3e0a",
"text": "With rates expected to increase later this month, why is there a decreasing trend in mortgage interest rates? I am thinking lenders might be lowering prices to grab more share in the run up, but don't have much data to back that up.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a8ab10fa53729a333b3bbac5f5281fc0",
"text": "As of now in 2016, is is safe to assume that mortgage rates would/should not get back to 10%? What would the rates be in future is speculation. It depends on quite a few things, overall economy, demand / supply, liquidity in market etc ... Chances are less that rates would show a dramatic rise in near future. Does this mean that one should always buy a house ONLy when mortgage rates are low? Is it worth the wait IF the rates are high right now? Nope. House purchase decision are not solely based on interest rates. There are quite a few other aspects to consider, the housing industry, your need, etc. Although interest rate do form one of the aspect to consider specially affordability of the EMI. Is refinancing an option on the table, if I made a deal at a bad time when rates are high? This depends on the terms of current mortgage. Most would allow refinance, there may be penal charges breaking the current mortgage. Note refinance does not always mean that you would get a better rate. Many mortgages these days are on variable interest rates, this means that they can go down or go up. How can people afford 10% mortgage? Well if you buy a small cheaper [Less expensive] house you can afford a higher interest rate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "66e95cc2d4756ef1261006aef5665ad3",
"text": "Social Lending may help you qualify for a loan, but doesn't necessarily provide better rates. You have to shop around to get the best rates, this is a market as any other, so don't expect one place to be consistently below the market - either the market will move, or the place will move eventually, everyone wants to earn the most for the buck.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2ab53e43975b4fa2a9b46afa695c6079",
"text": "Make sure you shop around and ask a lot of places for a good faith estimate. Last I knew, the good faith document is the same everywhere and long form that makes it easy enough to compare the hard numbers from place to place. I have gotten several estimates for various scenarios and I have had them hand written and printed. (I discounted the hand written ones because that broker seemed pretty disorganized in general) Learn the terms online, and start comparing. Use the good faiths as a negotiation tool to get lower rates or lower costs from other brokers. See how accurate the person is at listening to you and filling out the paperwork. See how responsive they are to you when you call with questions and want some changes. Check with at least four places. The more places you shop, the better idea you will have of what fees are high and what interest rates are low. I might pay a higher fee to get a lower interest rate, so there are lots of trade offs to consider.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d2aa4cebbc3a1d5e04fa16b1b566baa",
"text": "\"tl;dr: I agree with Pete B.'s assertion that you should continue shopping. That's not the whole story though; there are other factors that can raise your rate, and affect your closing costs. The published rate is typically the best rate you can get. Here are some other factors that can raise your rate: You should have received a loan estimate which will itemize the fees you will pay. On that document you will see if you are paying a price to \"\"buy down\"\" the rate, and all the other fees. How are you calculating the 2.5%? Note that some fees are fixed. An appraisal on a $40K home may cost the same as an appraisal for a $400K home. If you add up the total closing costs and view it as a percentage of the loan, the smaller loan may have a higher percentage than the larger loan, even though the total cost of the smaller loan is less.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f225d65a2aee4618d33e468bb0ff6024",
"text": "The key to understanding a mortgage is to look at an amortization schedule. Put in 100k, 4.5% interest, 30 years, 360 monthly payments and look at the results. You should get roughly 507 monthly P&I payment. Amortization is only the loan portion, escrow for taxes and insurance and additional payments for PMI are extra. You'll get a list of all the payments to match the numbers you enter. These won't exactly match what you really get in a mortgage, but they're close enough to demonstrate the way amortization works, and to plan a budget. For those terms, with equal monthly payments, you'll start paying 74% interest from the first payment. Each payment thereafter, that percentage drops. The way this is all calculated is through the time value of money equations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_value_of_money. Read slowly, understand how the equations work, then look at the formula for Repeating Payment and Present Value. That is used to find the monthly payment. You can validate that the formula works by using their answer and making a spreadsheet that has these columns: Previous balance, payment, interest, new balance. Each line represents a month. Calculate interest as previous balance * APR/12. Calculate new balance as previous balance minus payment plus interest. Work through all this for a 1 year loan and you will understand a lot better.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dae929d5d91dec429b8b506947c43c09",
"text": "Applying for a mortgage is a bit of paperwork, but not too bad of an experience. Rates are pretty tight, if one lender were more that 1/4% lower than another, they'd be inundated with applications. Above a certain credit score, you get the 'best' rate, a search will show you the rates offered in your area. If you are a first time buyer, there are mortgages that might benefit you. If you are a vet (for non-native English readers, a veteran who served in the US armed forces, not a veterinarian, who is an animal doctor) there are mortgages that offer low-to-no down payment with attractive rates. Yes, avoid PMI, it's a crazy penalty on your overall expense of home purchase. If banks qualify you for different amounts, it shouldn't be a huge difference, a few percent variation. But, the standard ratios are pretty liberal even today, and getting the most you'd qualify for is probably too much. Using the standard 28/36% ratios, a bank will qualify you for 4X your income as a loan. e.g you make $50K, they'll lend you $200K. This is a bit too much in my opinion. If you come up short, you are really looking to borrow too much, and should probably wait. If you owe a bit on loans, it should squeeze in between those two ratios, 28/36. But I wouldn't borrow on a credit line to add to the purchase, that's asking for trouble.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6f1053ceda7ea5537d3cd9d4d5efc044",
"text": "First of all, think of anyone you know in your circle locally who may have gotten a mortgage recently. Ask him, her, or them for a recommendation on what brokers they found helpful and most of all priced competitively. Second of all, you may consider asking a real estate agent. Note that this is generally discouraged because agents sometimes (and sometimes justifiably) get a bad reputation for doing anything to get themselves the highest commission possible, and so folks want to keep the lender from knowing the agent. Yet if you have a reputable, trustworthy agent, he or she can point you to a reputable, trustworthy broker who has been quoting your agent's other clients great rates. Third of all, make sure to check out the rates at places you might not expect - for example, any credit unions you or your spouse might have access to. Credit unions often offer very competitive rates and fees. After you have 2-3 brokers lined up, visit them all within a short amount of time (edit courtesy of the below comments, which show that 2 weeks has been quoted but that it may be less). The reason to visit them close together is that in the pre-approval process you will be getting your credit hard pulled, which means that your score will be dinged a bit. Visiting them all close together tells the bureaus to count all the hits as one new potential credit line instead of a couple or several, and so your score gets dinged less. Ask about rates, fees (they are required by law to give you what is called a Good Faith Estimate of their final fees), if pre-payment of the loan is allowed (required to re-finance or for paying off early), alternative schedules (such as bi-weekly or what a 20 year mortgage rate might be), the amortization schedule for your preferred loan, and ask for references from past clients. Pick a broker not only who has the best rates but also who appears able to be responsive if you need something quickly in order to close on a great deal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e5cd4b3c794252efe76f96afc3b38b5",
"text": "In my opinion, the simplest way to run these numbers is to first assume you are borrowing the full amount, including the points, if any. They run a spreadsheet, and while using the new rate, apply your full current payment each month. Then compare balances at month 48. You'll find it easy to calculate the breakeven. In the case of the negative points, it's immediate. For higher points, the B/E is later but then you are further ahead each month.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b9300c42e6ddab9c79fd61d14d4cb061",
"text": "You should also be aware that there are banks that do business in the US that do not deal with Fannie Mae, and thus are not subject to the rules about conforming loans. Here is an example of a well-known bank that lists two sets of rates, with the second being for loans of $750,000 or more (meaning the first covers everything up to that) https://home.ingdirect.com/orange-mortgage/rates",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "63d4ae49051ee9037c47e3161cb81f3a",
"text": "I am sorry for your troubles, but impressed with your problem solving skills. Keep going, things will get better. Your best hope is to find a place that does manual underwriting. If they do computer generated stuff, then you will be kicked for sure. If you can show 20% down, and have some savings, and have some history of paying bills, then you might be approved. Here in Florida, RP Funding still does manual underwriting. Another one that is mentioned is Church Hill mortgage. Also you might check with local credit unions. Of course your best bet to be approved is to be open and state upfront the challenges. You have to find someone that has the ability to think, has the ability to see passed the challenges, and has the authority to do so.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "85b29fb9f21e2f7238927cc9b7d31b6e",
"text": "If you have good credit, you already know the rate -- the bank has it posted in the window. If you don't have good credit, tell the loan officer your score. Don't have them run your credit until you know that you're interested in that bank. Running an application or prequal kicks off the sales process, which gets very annoying very quickly if you are dealing with multiple banks. A few pointers: You're looking for a plain vanilla 30 year loan, so avoid mortgage brokers -- they are just another middleman who is tacking on a cost. Brokers are great when you need more exotic loans. Always, always stay away from mortgage brokers (or inspectors or especially lawyers) recommended by realtors.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9870fc6c5cb390e8cbeca543fbef2f65",
"text": "Mortgage rates generally consist of two factors: The risk premium is relatively constant for a particular individual / house combination, so most of the changes in your mortgage rate will be associated with changes in the price of money in the world economy at large. Interest rates in the overall economy are usually tied to an interest rate called the Federal Funds rate. The Federal Reserve manipulates the federal funds rate by buying and/or selling bonds until the rate is something they like. So you can usually expect your interest rate to rise or fall depending on the policies of the Federal Reserve. You can predict this in a couple of ways: The way they have described their plans recently indicates that will keep interest rates low for an extended period of time - probably through 2014 or so - and they hope to keep inflation around 2%. Unless inflation is significantly more than 2% between now and then, they are extremely unlikely to change that plan. As such, you should probably not expect mortgage interest rates in general to change more than infinitesimally small amounts until 2014ish. Worry more about your credit score.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
8ed69326033342048f4ff5475443c516
|
Do you have to be mega-rich to invest in companies pre-IPO?
|
[
{
"docid": "93860154dd97e77e09750e016a2bb41c",
"text": "\"Short answer: No. Being connected is very helpful and there is no consequence by securities regulators against the investor by figuring out how to acquire pre-IPO stock. Long answer: Yes, you generally have to be an \"\"Accredited Investor\"\" which basically means you EARN over $200,000/yr yourself (or $300,000 joint) and have been doing so for several years and expect to continue doing so OR have at least 1 million dollars of net worth ( this is joint worth with you and spouse). The Securities Exchange Commission and FINRA have put a lot of effort into keeping most classes of people away from a long list of investments.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d78280a06f17c17e2f6b70609018051",
"text": "\"No you don't have to be super-rich. But... the companies do not have to sell you shares, and as others mention the government actively restricts and regulates the advertising and sales of shares, so how do you invest? The easiest way to obtain a stake is to work at a pre-IPO company, preferably at a high level (e.g. Director/VP of under water basket weaving, or whatever). You might be offered shares or options as part of a compensation package. There are exemptions to the accredited investor rule for employees and a general exemption for a small number of unsolicited investors. Also, the accredited investor rule is enforced against companies, not investors, and the trend is for investors to self-certify. The \"\"crime\"\" being defined is not investing in things the government thinks are too risky for you. Instead, the \"\"crime\"\" being defined is offering shares to the public in a small business that is probably going to fail and might even be a scam from the beginning. To invest your money in pre-IPO shares is on average a losing adventure, and it is easy to become irrationally optimistic. The problem with these shares is that you can't sell them, and may not be able to sell them immediately when the company does have an IPO on NASDAQ or another market. Even the executive options can have lock up clauses and it may be that only the founders and a few early investors make money.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b721bf929645a32770ca5320a4f2b5b7",
"text": "There are a couple of ways to buy into a private company. First, the company can use equity crowd funding (approved under the JOBS act, you don't need to be an accredited investor for this). The offering can be within one state (i.e. Intrastate offerings) which don't have the same SEC regulations but will be governed by state law. Small companies (small assets, under $1 million) can be made under Regulation D, Rule 504. For assets under $5 million, there is Rule 505, which allows a limited number of non-accredited investors. Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of 504 and 505 issues. Rule 506 issues are common, and it does allow a few non-accredited investors (I think 35), but non-accredited investors have to be given lots of disclosure, so often companies use a Rule 506 issue but only for accredited investors.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "9a39855dd76f6d71894d271408f6887b",
"text": "Yes. There are exceptions under the pre-JOBS laws to allow unaccredited investors (off the top of my head I don't remember the limit, but 35 sounds right). However, it increases the amount of information the company has to give to those investors. Post-JOBS you're allowed to have up to 500 unaccredited investors and as far as I know, it doesn't really change the information the company has to give.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3ff8f21e99d612524de391740ba0928c",
"text": "Two methods: 1: Become really close friend with Marky. Probably have to take a bullet for him or something. 2: Become a major client of the investment bank that will launch the IPO (most likely Goldman), and the bank will offer you some shares before the IPO. In order to become a major client you probably have to spend several millions per year in transaction fee.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96387f55bb095db0193bdbe95e7499a8",
"text": "\"The \"\"coin flip\"\" argument made in the article is absurd. My old boss had a saying, \"\"the harder I work, the luckier I get.\"\" He came from nothing, worked maniacally to become an Olympian, and later in life became a multi-millionaire. This is a common story among self-made people. I DO think that the rich have significant advantages: education, contact networks, access to startup capital, etc. These are very helpful, but don't assure success. Their lack is not insurmountable by the ambitious. I also think those advantages have expanded in recent years. Monetary policy has resulted in a large pool of investable funds being made available to to the financial sector, who earn high incomes with rent-seeking tactics.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "899c9572b9f6b04a758c21d1e283dab3",
"text": "\"Just skimming through the Wikipedia article on airberlin, I notice there is more to the story than simply \"\"airberlin's IPO failed, so they postponed it and did it anyways.\"\" 3 points to keep in mind about IPOs: 1) An IPO is the mechanism for taking a private company and setting it up for shares to be owned by \"\"the public\"\". 2) The process of selling shares to the public often allows original owners and/or early investors to \"\"cash out\"\". Most countries (including member nations of the EU) limit some transactions like pre-IPO companies to \"\"accredited investors\"\". 3) Selling shares to the public also can allow the company to access more funds for growth. This is particularly important in a capital-intensive business like an airline; new B737-MAX costs >$110M. New A320neo costs >$105M USD. Ultimately, the question of a successful IPO depends on how you define success. Initially, there was a lot of concern that the IPO was set up with too much focus on goal #2... allowing the management & owners to cash out. It looks like the first approach was not meeting good opinions in the market during 2006. A major concern was that the initial approach focused on management only cashing out its shares and no money actually going to the company to support its future. The investment bankers restructured the IPO, including the issuance of more new shares so that more $ could end up in the company's accounts, not just in the accounts of the management. If anything, it's still a pretty successful IPO given that the shares were successfully listed, the company collected the money it needed to invest and grow, and the management still cashed out.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7967202b7921329aed481174711eebb7",
"text": "Turukawa's answer is quite good, and for your own specific situation, you might begin by being sceptical about what you are getting for investing a few thousand dollars. With the exception of Paul Graham's Y-Combinator, there are very few opportunities to invest at that type of level, and Y-Combinator provides a lot of other assistance besides their modest initial investment. I can tell from your post that you think like an investor. It is highly unlikely that the entrepreneurial programmers that you will be backing will be wired that way. From the modest amount that you are investing, you are unlikely to be the lead investor in this opportunity. If you are interested in proceeding, simply stick along for the ride, examining the terms and documents that more significant investors will be demanding. Remain positive and supportive, but simply wait to sign on the dotted line until others have done the heavy lifting. For more insights into startups themselves, see Paul Graham's essays at www.paulgraham.com. He's the real deal, and his recent essays will provide you with current insights about software startups. Good luck.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c2f5def027a81c2bd2a43665ac808a3c",
"text": "It depends a large part on your broker's relationship with the issuing bank how early you can participate in the IPO round. But the nature of the stock market means the hotter the stock and the closer to the market (away from the issuing bank) you have to buy the higher the price you'll pay. The stock market is a secondary market, meaning the only things for sale are shares already owned by someone. As a result, for a hot stock the individual investor will have to wait for another investor (not the issuing bank) to trade (sell) the stock.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ad8c31cf38ded9ae11e02d78b881164",
"text": "\"Thank you for the in-depth, detailed explanation; it's refreshing to see a concise, non verbose explanation on reddit. I have a couple of questions, if that's alright. Firstly, concerning mezzanine investors. Based on my understanding from Google, these people invest after a venture has been partially financed (can I use venture like that in a financial context, or does it refer specifically to venture capital?) so they would receive a smaller return, yes? Is mezzanine investing particularly profitable? It sounds like you'd need a wide portfolio. Secondly, why is dilution so important further down the road? Is it to do with valuation? Finally, at what point would a company aim to meet an IPO? Is it case specific, or is there a general understanding of the \"\"best time\"\"? Thank you so much for answering my questions.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c40f7111b9718afc316b8ae5b88bb84c",
"text": "\"Previous answers have done a great job with the \"\"Should I invest?\"\" question. One thing you may be overlooking is the question \"\"Am I allowed to invest?\"\" For most offerings of stock in a startup, investors are required to be accredited by the SEC's definition. See this helpful quora post for more information on requirements to invest in startups. To be honest, if a startup is looking for investors to put in \"\"a few thousand dollars\"\" each, this would raise my alarm bells. The cost and hassle of the paperwork to (legitimately) issue shares in that small of number would lead me just to use a credit card to keep me going until I was able to raise a larger amount of capital.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba932ab7edd82cd583be7d0ce813cdbc",
"text": "The most significant capability that an investor must have is the knowledge on the way to look for the high dividend stocks. Through accumulating good information relating to towards the stocks that you are finding is the better way of getting the perfect and profitable investments. It is really important to learn what makes a particular stock better and superior compared to other. Traders are essential to start a complete analysis and investigation before getting their money on any business projects. Obviously, investors certainly want to have an investment that could guarantee an effective expense for a very reasonable cost the moment of getting it. The chances of crucial to invest in a market that you might be aware and qualified about. So, creating a comparison and compare in one business to a different is totally essential so as to find the high dividend stock.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c0e031045feb0f059b8f4d20233b164",
"text": "\"We just got in an argument in another thread, and I don't necessarily want to continue it, but was browsing your comments and saw this. I can say from personal experience (I have several high net worth clients) that this isn't true. The rich do the opposite of leave their money laying around. They invest it to make more money. They buy office buildings, fund new companies, buy up stocks, and drive investment in general. Someone has to do these things. Office buildings can't just be owned by \"\"the people\"\". Someone with a ton of money has to come along and fund them. For example, one of my friends knows Elon Musk (founder of Pay-Pal, Tesla Motors, Solar City, and Space X). He is *worth* $2 billion, but was living on other people's couches (including my friend's) after he sold Pay-Pal because he had just poured all of his cash into starting Tesla Motors. He was a billionaire without a penny to his name (well I'm sure he had a little cash lying around, but was essentially asset rich, cash broke). THAT is what most ultra rich people are like. They invest their money, they don't just horde it away in a savings account. The things people like Musk do create jobs and sometimes entire industries (or three entire industries in his case). I'm by no means arguing that this is right or wrong, but to say rich people just have money lying around is absurd. You don't get rich by saving money in the bank, you get rich by spending it. I'm in my early 20's, but already own multiple apartment buildings. I'm not rich yet and am in the same boat as Musk was. I have tons of assets, but almost no cash I can spend. However, you bet my efforts are creating jobs. I'm employing people to renovate and people to repair and maintain these buildings. I'm helping stop the bleeding in the real estate market, but, according to the narrative, I'm evil because my \"\"income\"\" is six figures.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f130cbf649f1927e057d58350102db01",
"text": "You can apply for a position with any company you like, whether or not you are a shareholder. However, owning shares in a company, even lots of shares in a company, does not entitle you to having them even look at your resume for any job, let alone the CEO position. You generally cannot buy your way into a job. The hiring team, if they are doing their job correctly, will only hire you if you are qualified for the job, not based on what your investments are. Stockholders get a vote at the shareholders' meeting and a portion of the profits (dividend), and that's about it. They usually don't even get a discount on products, let alone a job. Of course, if you own a significant percentage of the stock, you can influence the selections to the board of directors. With enough friends on the board, you could theoretically get yourself in the CEO position that way.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3fbbb410b7ff1fb7eba4f60c84daad3f",
"text": "There are several problems with your reasoning: if I buy one share of GOOGLE now for $830, I could have $860 within the end of tonight -- totally possible and maybe even likely. You can do the same thing with 1,000,000 shares of google, and it's just as likely to go down as go up. if I were to invest $1,000.00 in gold to have $1,000.00 worth of gold, it's no different than keeping $1,000.00 in cash It's VERY different. Gold can be just as volatile as stocks, so it certainly is different as just keeping it in cash. Benefits of a larger portfolio:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "b31565f39a22a3c38bad6baeab2848a1",
"text": "You can say it's a bad proxy but practically all the richest people have their money tied up in equities, and it would be foolish for them not to. You have to include that somehow. Net worth is not just liquid assets",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "88ab9f9eb83e88b5b691d94aa1f7100e",
"text": "Many CEOs I have heard of earn a lot more than 200k. In fact a lot earn more than 1M and then get bonuses as well. Many wealthy people increase there wealth by investing in property, the stock market, businesses and other assets that will produce them good capital growth. Oh yeh, and luck usually has very little to do with their success.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
baa3df9cf3768d08a9e1c59e145cf099
|
Would it ever be a bad idea to convert a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA with the following assumptions?
|
[
{
"docid": "ae84dbd0c02ad1dcfe27cacc2d54e658",
"text": "Taking all your assumptions: With Roth, you take $6112 from work, (let's call you tax rate 10%) pay $612 in taxes, and contribute $5500 (the max if you are younger than 50). This $5500 will grow to $21,283 in 20 years at 7% annual growth ($5500*(1.07^20)), and you will pay no additional taxes on it. With the traditional IRA, you take $6112 from work, pay $612 in taxes, and contribute $5500. You will receive a tax deduction at tax time of $612 for the contribution. This money will also grow to $21,283. This will be taxed at your ordinary income rate (which we're calling 10%), costing you $2123 at the time of withdrawal. You will have $19,155 left over. EDIT: If you invest your tax savings from every contribution to the Traditional IRA, then the numbers wash out. Perhaps a pivotal question is whether you believe you will have greater taxable earnings from your investments in retirement than you have in taxable earnings today -- affecting the rate at which you are taxed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ce8e5baa46995ce8e061123be585dfbb",
"text": "Even if you're paying a lot of taxes now, you're talking marginal dollars when you look at current contribution, and average tax rate when making withdrawals. IE, if you currently pay 28% on your last dollar (and assuming your contribution is entirely in your marginal rate), then you're paying 28% on all of the Roth contributions, but probably paying a lower average tax rate, due to the lower tax rates on the first many dollars. Look at the overall average tax rate of your expected retirement income - if you're expecting to pull out $100k a year, you're probably paying less than 20% in average taxes, because the first third or so is taxed at a very low rate (0 or 15%), assuming things don't change in our tax code. Comparing that to your 28% and you have a net gain of 8% by paying the taxes later - nothing to shake a stick at. At minimum, have enough in your traditional IRA to max out the zero tax bucket (at least $12k). Realistically you probably should have enough to max out the 15% bucket, as you presumably are well above that bucket now. Any Roth savings will be more than eliminated by this difference: 28% tax now, 15% tax later? Yes please. A diversified combination is usually best for those expecting to have a lot of retirement savings - enough in Traditional to get at least $35k or so a year out, say, and then enough in Roth to keep your comfortable lifestyle after that. The one caveat here is in the case when you max out your contribution levels, you may gain by using money that is not in your IRA to pay the taxes on the conversion. Talk to your tax professional or accountant to verify this will be helpful in your particular instance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e2b7face83c9f057e8fb4d0310c93a3",
"text": "\"To answer your question point by point - I'd focus on the last point. The back of my business card - Let's focus on Single. The standard deduction and exemption add to over $10K. I look at this as \"\"I can have $250K in my IRA, and my $10K (4%) annual withdrawal will be tax free. It takes another $36,900 to fill the 10 and 15% brackets. $922K saved pretax to have that withdrawn each year, or $1.17M total. That said, I think that depositing to Roth in any year that one is in the 15% bracket or lower can make sense. I also like the Roth Roulette concept, if only for the fact that I am Google's first search result for that phrase. Roth Roulette is systematically converting and recharacterizing each year the portion of the converted assets that have fallen or not risen as far in relative terms. A quick example. You own 3 volatile stocks, and convert them to 3 Roth accounts. A year later, they are (a) down 20%, (b) up 10%, (c) up 50%. You recharacterize the first two, but keep the 3rd in the Roth. You have a tax bill on say $10K, but have $15K in that Roth.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "70da3b9c6d2dd74825553539844be2e4",
"text": "Luke, I'd like to point out some additional benefits of the Roth IRA accounts 1) Going Roth, you can effectively increase the amount of your contribution to your IRA account. In your example, you are assuming that your contribution to Roth IRA is in fact $ 85 ($100 less $ 15 tax paid). In reality, albeit more costly, Roth IRA allows you to contribute full $ 100 ($117.65 less $ 17.65 tax incurred.) Using this method you can in fact grow your tax-free funds to $ 1.006.27 over 30 years. The larger you effective tax rate is, the larger will be the difference between your maximum effective Traditional vs Roth IRA contribution will be. 2) Should you need to access your IRA funds in case of emergency (unqualified event of not buying your first home, nor paying for your college education), Roth IRA account contributions can be withdrawn without incurring the 10% penalty charge, that would be imposed on your unqualified Traditional IRA distribution. 3) As other contributors noted it's hard to believe that lower US tax rates would prevail. Chances are you will be contributing to Traditional 401k later throughout your work life. Having a Roth IRA account would afford you a tax diversification needed to hedge against possible tax rate hikes coming in the future. Considering the gloomy future of the Social Security funding, and ever-growing US national debt, can we really expect for there to not be any tax rate increases in the next 20-40 years?! By the way, as others pointed out your effective tax rate will always be lower than your marginal tax bracket.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2f863f9b00fc3ab68fa29c09bed2ffde",
"text": "\"To keep it simple, I will keep the focus between a Trad IRA and a normal Taxable account (Roth's and 401(k) add more complications that make another problem). I will also assume, based on the question, that you aren't able to deduct the IRA contributions. Also, a Roth is better in every way than a non-deductible Trad IRA so the \"\"backdoor Roth\"\" mentioned in other answers is probably the way to go and this is more of an academic exercise. Ok, so why bother with the IRA if you're taxed anyway? Because you aren't taxed as you go! With a normal non-tax-advantaged account you have to pay taxes every year on any realized capital gains and dividends (including fund distributions). Because of the compounding nature of savings, delaying paying taxes is in your best interest. Simple example: Taxable Account: IRA Account: Now, this is a very simplified example. If you're more tax-conscious (i.e. more buy-and-holding), you can delay paying some of the long-term cap gains in the taxable account, but any short-term cap gains (including distributions from the underlying funds) will be at your marginal income tax rate. A few other observations: EDIT: I set up a spreadsheet where each year I deposited $1000 for 35 years. Each year, the balance in the IRA account grows by 5%, but the taxable only by 5%*(1-0.15) = 4.25% due to the effect of taxes. At the end of 35 years, my simulation assumes you pay 15% on all the gains in the IRA, which would likely not be the case, but easier than forecasting through retirement and demonstrates what I'm trying to show. Here's plot showing the balance in the various accounts, the blue is the IRA account, orange the taxable account, and grey is the effective balance of the IRA, after paying taxes on the gains: And here's a plot of the advantage of the IRA (after paying taxes on the gains), vs the taxable account: Whether that's worth it to you or anyone depends on some the assumptions in the simulation, especially effective tax rates, and growth rates, as well as any personal issues. Some people may be less likely to raid an IRA account, for example, than a normal account. Conversely, if you have a project coming up, you may need something a bit more liquid than an IRA.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "83fdc1fa29163c6c4849e93eddfc17a2",
"text": "Does the 5 year rule apply on the After-tax 401k -> Roth 401k -> Roth IRA conversion of the 20000 (including 10000 earnings that was originally pre-tax)? No. The after-tax amounts are not subject to the 5 years rule. The earnings are. How does this affect Roth IRA withdrawal ordering rules with respect to the taxable portion of a single conversion being withdrawn before the non-taxable portion? Taxable portion first until exhausted. To better understand how it works, you need to understand the rationale behind the 5-year rule. Consider you have $100K in your IRA (traditional) and you want to take it out. Just withdrawing it would trigger a 10K statutory penalty, on top of the taxes due. But, you can use the backdoor Roth IRA, right? So convert the 100K, and then it becomes after-tax contribution to Roth IRA, and can be withdrawn with no penalty. One form filled ad 10K saved. To block this loophole, here comes the 5 years rule: you cannot withdraw after-tax amounts for at least 5 years without penalty, if the source was taxable conversion. Thus, in order to avoid the 10K penalty in the above situation, you have a 5-year cooling period, which makes the loophole useless for most cases. However amounts that are after tax can be withdrawn without penalty already, even from the traditional IRA, so there's no need in the 5 years cooling period. The withdrawal attribution is in this order: Roth IRA rollovers are sourced to the origin. E.g.: if you converted $100 to the Roth IRA at firm X and then a year later rolled it over to firm Y - it doesn't affect anything and the clock is ticking from the original date of the conversion at firm X. 5-year period applies to each conversion/rollover from a qualified retirement plan (see here). Distributions are applied to the conversions in FIFO order, so in one distribution, depending on the amounts, you may hit several different incoming conversions. The 5 years should be check on each of them, and the penalty applied on the amounts attributable to those that don't have enough time. 5-year period for contributions applies starting from the beginning of the first year of the first contribution that established your Roth IRA plan. The penalty applies to the amounts that were included in your gross income when conversion occurred, i.e.: doesn't apply on the amounts converted from after-tax sources. Note the difference from the traditional IRA - distributions from pre-tax sources are prorated between the non-deductible (basis) amounts and the deductible/earnings amounts (taxable). That is why the taxable amounts are first in the ordering of the distributions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b094f1270094c90abc105c28a7c6899d",
"text": "I know in the instance that if my MAGI exceeds a certain point, I can not contribute the maximum to the Roth IRA; a traditional IRA and subsequent backdoor is the way to go. My understanding is that if you ever want to do a backdoor Roth, you don't want deductible funds in a Traditional account, because you can't choose to convert only the taxable funds. From the bogleheads wiki: If you have any other (non-Roth) IRAs, the taxable portion of any conversion you make is prorated over all your IRAs; you cannot convert just the non-deductible amount. In order to benefit from the backdoor, you must either convert your other IRAs as well (which may not be a good idea, as you are usually in a high tax bracket if you need to use the backdoor), or else transfer your deductible IRA contributions to an employer plan such as a 401(k) (which may cost you if the 401(k) has poor investment options).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fff73a674758f0ff127dcfb637b8dc0a",
"text": "Right you **don't** ever want to use that account for your traditional 401k rollovers. Realistically, you could *probably* still have it reclassified as a traditional IRA and roll your traditional 401ks into it, which was basically your original idea except none of the funds would be Roth; but if you see yourself ever potentially contributing to a Roth IRA going forward (which makes all the more sense if you have only traditional 401k funds in your retirement portfolio so far), there's nothing *wrong* with having both types of IRA at the same time. But no, don't cross the streams! :)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96fc7d00dd03fe158dc327a806d9f5dd",
"text": "ok if you haven't rolled in the 401k assets yet, you're fine and should put them into a traditional. if your earnings + roth conversions will put you at or below your anticipated tax bracket during retirement, then the roth conversion might make sense. in some cases, employers will give you a roth 401k option, but you are right that it's not the default.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "52bd90a10e901489c5d83fb26c6672e0",
"text": "Another, completely different way to look at your huge mistake: It's not a huge mistake. You're getting your money out of a restricted account. You're paying taxes now (plus an extra tax of 10%) to regain some of your privacy of where you're putting your money. You're paying up now as a trade-off to paying much later, when the rules can be completely different and the tax rates much higher. You're deciding not to put the money into another restricted account, which has yearly reporting requirements to the IRS above and beyond those required with taxable earnings. It's a cost-benefit analysis whether you roll your money over to an IRA account or not. You hear about the benefits a lot more often than you hear about the costs, which it what I'm introducing you to with my answer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "24968d889f8165acac29fd0adf07240e",
"text": "\"The extent that you would have problems would depend on if the annuity is considered Qualified or Non-Qualified. If the annuity is qualified that means that the money that was put into it has never been taxed and a rollover to an IRA is simple. The possible issues here are tax issues and a CPA is likely the best person to answer this question. Two other things to consider in such an event is the loss of any 'living benefit' or 'death benefit'. Variable annuities have been through quite the evolution in the last 15 years. Death benefits have been around longer than living benefits but both are usually based on some derrivitive of a 'high water' mark of the variable sub accounts. You might want to ask Hartford the question \"\"...how will my living or death benefits be affected if I roll this over\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b7fecba0e505b64150038abf84fbea44",
"text": "\"Like JoeTaxpayer said, I don't know of any difference between the backdoor and a regular Roth IRA contribution besides the issue with existing pre-tax IRA money. So if it is your practice to contribute at the beginning of the year (good for you, most people wait until the last minute), then doing a backdoor seems like the safe choice. Some people have speculated that, hypothetically, the IRS could use the \"\"step transaction doctrine\"\" to treat it as a single direct contribution to a Roth IRA (which then would be disallowed and cause you a penalty until you take it out), but I have never heard of this happening to anyone. As for the paperwork, you just need to fill out one extra form at tax time, Form 8606 (you need to complete two parts of it, one for the non-deductible contribution, and one for the conversion). It is pretty straightforward. (Although I've found that it is a pain to do it in tax software.) Another option would be for you to contribute to a Roth IRA now, but when you discover that you're over the limit at the end of the year, re-characterize it as a Traditional contribution and then convert it back to Roth. But this way is not good because then there is a long time between the Traditional contribution and the Roth conversion, and earnings during this time will be taxed at conversion.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd060d2aef53348ff65826ae2d2d0cb1",
"text": "You can withdraw the principal of your Roth IRA account (i.e.: the amounts after tax deposited there) without a tax. However, in case of conversion - you have to wait for five years before you can do that. Otherwise, 10% penalty will apply. It is actually mentioned in the article you linked to. Taxable portion in that context is the portion you paid tax on when converting. In the case you described (converting your 401k) that would be the whole amount of the conversion.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a12c39907194a362fb72f871d27876e8",
"text": "For reporting purposes, most IRA firms prefer that you roll the 401(k) funds into a Rollover or Traditional IRA and then convert to the ROTH from there. The mid-air conversions (401(k) directly into a ROTH) can get tricky when you go to do your taxes the following year if the 1099 form from the releasing custodian and the 5498 form from the accepting custodian have different numbers due to the conversion amount and taxes withheld if any.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "98b3bf36c73b4fee0761fa97487a871d",
"text": "Assuming that the conversion was completely non-taxable (i.e. your Traditional IRA was 100% basis), then the converted money can be taken out at any time whatsoever (no 5 year or age stuff), without tax or penalty, similar to directly contributed money. For withdrawing conversions and rollovers within 5 years of the conversion or rollover, the penalty only applies to the part of the conversion or rollover that was taxable. Since in this case the conversion was completely non-taxable, there is no penalty on the withdrawal. However, note that the ordering of the conversion money is not the same as for contribution money, and this may be significant in some cases. When you take money out of Roth IRA, it goes 1) contributions, 2) rollovers and conversions, and 3) earnings. However, money within (2) is then further divided by year, with rollovers and contributions for earlier years ordered before rollovers and contributions for later years, and then within each year, the taxable rollover and conversion money are ordered first, before the non-taxable money. So what does that mean? Well, suppose you made a Roth IRA conversion that was taxable one year, and then the next year you make a contribution. If you withdraw a little bit, it comes from the contribution which is ordered first, which means no penalty. Now suppose in that second year you had a backdoor Roth IRA contribution instead of a regular contribution. If you withdraw, the first year's conversion is ordered first, and since it's within 5 years, there's a penalty. It's still true that withdrawing the backdoor Roth IRA has no penalty; but, you don't get to that money until you finish the other one. If you've never made a taxable conversion before, then this issue doesn't exist.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4dc6b0d6ff9796ce80e4e2c7386eb896",
"text": "\"No. A deposit to an IRA must be in cash. A conversion from traditional IRA to Roth can be \"\"in kind\"\" i.e. As a stock transfer. Last, any withdrawals can also be in stock or funds. IRS Publication 590, so important, it's now in 2 sections Part A and Part B, addresses IRA issues such as this as well as most others. By the way - now on page 7 - \"\"Contributions, except for rollover contributions, must be in cash.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "662cf9762302f5d28d74c7b26449af10",
"text": "tl;dr: Please please please do the conversion first. JoeTaxpayer's answer is correct, but I am of the opposite opinion. First, there's just about no reason to have post-tax dollars in a Traditional IRA. You'll eventually have to pay tax on the earnings those dollars generate, so it's essentially the same as having that money in a regular taxable account. Meanwhile, if you roll those dollars into a Roth IRA, you get to earn tax-free money on them for the rest of your life (and even after your death)! Second, even if you did have some reason for keeping those post-tax dollars where they are, the last thing you ever want to do is mix them with pre-tax dollars (from, say, your 401k). As soon as you mix them, all the dollars become subject to pro-rata taxation (as Joe mentioned), so any future decision you were planning to make about what to do with just your post-tax dollars is moot -- you have given away your right to think separately about your pre- and post-tax dollars. As an example, let's say the accounts you want to combine look like this: In the future you decide you want to move $2,000 from the above account into a Roth. Because you mixed the money, the IRS insists that your rollover consists of: So now you owe tax (and it's regular income tax, I believe, not even capital gains tax) on $1,500. That was money that you socked away specifically to avoid taxes, and now you've gone and paid taxes on it! Now, there are valid arguments for intentionally moving pre-tax dollars from a Traditional to a Roth like this, but the point is that you shouldn't even have to be having that argument -- you have post-tax dollars in your Traditional IRA that almost certainly belong in a Roth. By mixing your 401k into your Traditional IRA, you can no longer do anything with just the post-tax dollars. The IRS will forever insist that you do these pro-rated calculations. Say in the future you suddenly realize that a Roth is much better for your financial situation than a Traditional IRA. (Or you might still prefer a Traditional IRA, but as explained in the next sentence it's not available to you.) Unfortunately, because you're covered by a (new) 401k -- or maybe because you earn too much money to contribute pre-tax dollars to either a Traditional or Roth IRA -- you're out of luck. You're simply not allowed to contribute to a Roth. Most people in this situation can make use of what's called a back-door Roth. They contribute up to the maximum amount per year ($5,500 or whatever it is now) post-tax to a Traditional IRA and then immediately roll it over to their Roth. You can still try this, but guess what? Yep, because you're mixing these new post-tax dollars with pre-tax money in your Traditional IRA, every year your rollover will be tainted with that pre-tax money, diluting the whole point of the back-door Roth. You'll be paying taxes on money you never wanted to pay taxes on, and you'll be leaving post-tax money behind in your traditional IRA. (If it sounds like I'm annoyed about this situation from personal experience, it's because I am. :) By doing the conversion first, you never mix pre- and post-tax money, and your money goes where you want it. Of course, assuming you eventually do roll over your 401(k) into a Traditional IRA, the Really Annoying Consequence above will still plague you, but at least you'll have cleanly converted that first post-tax amount.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d40213362b4d3fa3765462c22d5866b9",
"text": "I can only answer about the U.S. For question 2, I believe the answer is no. If you are a non-resident alien for tax purposes, then only income connected to the U.S. is reported as income on the tax return. Unless there were any non-deductible contributions to your pre-tax IRAs, when you convert to Roth IRA, the entire amount of the conversion is added to your income. So the tax consequence is the same as if you had that much additional U.S. income. If you are a non-resident alien with no other income in the U.S., then the income you have to report on your U.S. tax return will basically consist of the conversion. Non-resident aliens do not have a standard deduction. However, all people have a personal exemption. If we take 2013 as an example, the exemption is $3900 per person. We will assume that you will file as single or married filing separately (non-resident aliens cannot file as married filing jointly). The first $3900 of income is covered by the exemption, and is not counted in taxable income. For single and MFS, the next $8925 of income is taxed at 10%, then next $27325 of income is taxed at 15%, and so on. So if you convert less than the personal exemption amount every year ($3900 in 2013), then in theory you do not pay any taxes. If you convert a little bit more, then some of the conversion will be taxed at 10%, etc.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
4d9710f0469b5fb40e57dbb86606ddc9
|
Investing in low cost index fund — does the timing matter?
|
[
{
"docid": "7c1e38777f47d8af6a0319a751443f2a",
"text": "If you're worried about investing all at once, you can deploy your starting chunk of cash gradually by investing a bit of it each month, quarter, etc. (dollar-cost averaging). The financial merits and demerits of this have been debated, but it is unlikely to lose you a lot of money, and if it has the psychological benefit of inducing you to invest, it can be worth it even if it results in slightly less-than-optimal gains. More generally, you are right with what you say at the end of your question: in the long run, when you start won't matter, as long as you continue to invest regularly. The Boglehead-style index-fund-based theory is basically that, yes, you might save money by investing at certain times, but in practice it's almost impossible to know when those times are, so the better choice is to just keep investing no matter what. If you do this, you will eventually invest at high and low points, so the ups and downs will be moderated. Also, note that from this perspective, your example of investing in 2007 is incorrect. It's true that a person who put money in 2007, and then sat back and did nothing, would have barely broken even by now. But a person who started to invest in 2007, and continued to invest throughout the economic downturn, would in fact reap substantial rewards due to continued investing throughout the post-2007 lows. (Happily, I speak from experience on this point!)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cce4d8af23bd44fdbf5219beb2a22e5b",
"text": "Yes timing does matter. Using a simple Rate of Change indicator over the past 100 days and smoothed out with a 50 day Moving Average, I have plotted the S&P 500 since the start of 2007. The idea is to buy when the ROC indicator crosses above the zero line and sell when the ROC indicator crosses below the zero line. I have compared the results below of timing the markets from the start of 2007 to dollar cost averaging starting from the start of 2007 and investing every 6 months. $80k is invested in both cases. For the timing the market option $80k was invested at the start of 2007, then the total figure was sold out when a sell signal was given, then the total amount reinvested when a new buy signal was given. For the DCA option $5000 was invested every 6 months starting from the start of 2007 until the last investment at the start of July 2014. The results are below: Timing the markets results in more than double the returns (not including dividends and brokerage). Edit It has been brought up that I haven't considered tax in my Timing the Market option. So I have updated my timing the market spread-sheet to take into account both long-term and short-term CGT in the USA for someone on the highest tax bracket. The results are below: The result is still almost a 2x higher returns for the timing the markets option. Also note that even with the DCA option you will have to sell one day and pay CGT on any profits there. However, the real danger with the DCA option is if you need to sell during a market downturn and not make any profits at all.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "381ec6f947d378c9d3e409794f266954",
"text": "When you start investing makes a very large difference to the outcome, but that is on the time scale of what generation you were born into, not what week you choose to open your 401(k). As you note in your last sentence, there is nothing that you can do about this, so there is no point in worrying about it. If you could successfully market time successfully, then that would make a difference even at smaller time scales. But you probably can't, so there is no point in worrying about that either. As BrenBarn points out, your statement about not regaining their net worth until 2013 applies to someone who invested a lump sum at the 2007 peak, not to someone who invested continuously throughout. By my calculation, if you started continuously investing in a broad market index at the peak (around Jun 4, 2007), you would have recovered your net worth (relative to investing in a safe instrument that merely kept up with inflation, a hard thing to find these days) around April 12, 2010. I've done the computation on each business day because that is easier, so it might be slightly worse if do the periodic investment on each payday which is much more realist for a 401(k). (And of course if you need to preserve/recover you net worth in 3 years, you shouldn't be in stocks in the first place)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c2875e76becfe37726ffc8acfec2224e",
"text": "A much less verbose answer is. Don't worry about buying low. You have a whole lifetime to dollar cost average your retirement dollars.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "871395ecfbafbbcb330ce375e66550b0",
"text": "\"Kind of matters because your definition of \"\"cost\"\" is solely based on a hindsight view of market movement. Lack of gain is not cost except from an inflationary perspective, versus actual value loss of entering near a top. On a long time scale, yes, the market will probably go up and value will return - but telling someone that now is the perfect time to enter is entirely debatable. Momentum is not fundamental and could reverse tomorrow for all you know.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d233b4aaff599f1666c92147468e89e",
"text": "The mutual fund will price at day's end, while the ETF trades during the day, like a stock. If you decide at 10am, that some event will occur during the day that will send the market up, the ETF is preferable. Aside from that, the expenses are identical, a low .14%. No real difference especially in a Roth.",
"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": ""
},
{
"docid": "80df8f80a32972fa0445cd1e0d529ac9",
"text": "This is the chart going back to the first full year of this fund. To answer your question - yes, a low cost ETF or Mutual fund is fine. Why not go right to an S&P index? VOO has a .05% expense. Why attracted you to a choice that lagged the S&P by $18,000 over this 21 year period? (And yes, past performance, yada, yada, but that warning is appropriate for the opposite example. When you show a fund that beat the S&P short term, say 5 years, its run may be over. But this fund lagged the S&P by a significant margin over 2 decades, what makes you think this will change?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "418c1aba4dd73fbeabded92cc00ddb0c",
"text": "The question is valid, you just need to work backwards. After how much money-time will the lower expense offset the one time fee? Lower expenses will win given the right sum of money and right duration for the investment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "51ba00c23f92bc5cdada42a26cbd229f",
"text": "What you choose to invest in depends largely on your own goals and time horizon. You state that your time horizon is a few decades. Most studies have shown that the equity market as a whole has outperformed most other asset types (except perhaps property in some cases) over the long term. The reason that time horizon is important is that equities are quite volatile. Who knows whether your value will halve in the next year? But we hope that over the longer term, things come out in the wash, and tomorrow's market crash will recover, etc. However, you must realize that if your goals change, and you suddenly need your money after 2 years, it might be worth less in two years than you expect.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f5297c019677d5e757c6de33dcde6e5",
"text": "When you are putting your money in an index fund, you are not betting your performance against other asset classes but rather against competing investments withing the SAME asset class. The index fund always wins due to two factors: diversity, and lower cost. The lower cost attribute is essentially where you get your performance edge over the longer run. That is why if you look at the universe of mutual funds (where you get your diversification), very few will have beaten the index, assuming they have survived. -Ralph Winters",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cc493cfe1797cefdcc73b62863b7e062",
"text": "The Vanguard Emerging Market Bond Index has a SEC yield of 4.62%, an expense ratio of 0.34%, a purchase fee of 0.75%, and an average duration of 6.7 years. The Vanguard Emerging Market Bond Index only invests in US Dollar denominated securities, so it is not exposed to currency risk. The US Intermediate Term Bond Index Fund has a SEC yield of 2.59%, an expense ratio of 0.1% and an average duration of 6.5 years. So after expenses, the emerging market bond fund gives you 1.04% of extra yield (more in subsequent years as the purchase fee is only paid once). Here are the results of a study by Vanguard: Based on our findings, we believe that most investors should consider adding [currency risked] hedged foreign bonds to their existing diversified portfolios. I think a globally diversified bond portfolio results in a portfolio that's more diversified.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e1dfb162d65f623da2b72fdde166cbe5",
"text": "This is largely dependent on your overall investment goals. GIC's provide protection of the invested capital and a guaranteed return at the end of the term. However, in real terms, 1.4% over 18 months results in a loss of capital in real terms. This is because inflation in Canada is just about at or higher than 1.4% per year. In other words, at best, you are equalling inflation and gaining nothing in those 18 months. If their typical rate is 1.2% over 12 months, you are only gaining an additional 0.2% for the additional 6 months. You know as well as I do, 0.2% for 6 months is abysmal. If you have no use for the money in the medium to long term, you should look in to an index fund that is balanced, and diversified and more likely to get you a higher real return over the time period of a few years. Look in to: If you want to preserve the capital over the short term because you might need it after the 18 months period, the GIC is the safer and recommended option.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fabea6350f01303b2b65be7350ad13c9",
"text": "Also, when they mean SP500 fund - it means that fund which invests in the top 500 companies in the SP Index, is my understanding correct? Yes that is right. In reality they may not be able to invest in all 500 companies in same proportion, but is reflective of the composition. I wanted to know whether India also has a company similar to Vanguard which offers low cost index funds. Almost all mutual fund companies offer a NIFTY index fund, both as mutual fund as well as ETF. You can search for index fund and see the total assets to find out which is bigger compared to others.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f4ac385f7644ab2dc73f205d9ff41c2",
"text": "Timing the market and by extension the efficient market hypothesis is one of the most hotly debated subjects in finance academia. If you are to believe the majority of finance professors and PHD's out there chances of timing a market like the NYSE, NASDAQ or LSE is not possible. If you are to take into account the huge amount of hedge funds and money managers who make it their job to prove the efficient market hypothesis wrong then you may have a chance. My opinion is that the EMH is true and that timing a highly efficient market like the NYSE is very difficult or impossible even for those who spend their whole lives trying to beat it. For someone whose primary job isn’t in investments I would put the idea of timing the markets out of your head.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a45d1335104ace690d1de07daca77cc3",
"text": "\"I'd question whether a guaranteed savings instrument underperforming the stock market really is a risk, or not? Rather, you reap what you sow. There's a trade-off, and one makes a choice. If one chooses to invest in a highly conservative, low-risk asset class, then one should expect lower returns from it. That doesn't necessarily mean the return will be lower — stock markets could tank and a CD could look brilliant in hindsight — but one should expect lower returns. This is what we learn from the risk-return spectrum and Modern Portfolio Theory. You've mentioned and discounted inflation risk already, and that would've been one I'd mention with respect to guaranteed savings. Yet, one still accepts inflation risk in choosing the 3% CD, because inflation isn't known in advance. If inflation happened to be 2% after the fact, that just means the risk didn't materialize. But, inflation could have been, say, 4%. Nevertheless, I'll try and describe the phenomenon of significantly underperforming a portfolio with more higher-risk assets. I'd suggest one of: Perhaps we can sum those up as: the risk of \"\"investing illiteracy\"\"? Alternatively, if one were actually fully aware of the risk-reward spectrum and MPT and still chose an excessive amount of low-risk investments (such that one wouldn't be able to attain reasonable investing goals), then I'd probably file the risk under psychological risk, e.g. overly cautious / excessive risk aversion. Yet, the term \"\"psychological risk\"\", with respect to investing, encompasses other situations as well (e.g. chasing high returns.) FWIW, the risk of underperformance also came to mind, but I think that's mostly used to describe the risk of choosing, say, an actively-managed fund (or individual stocks) over a passive benchmark index investment more likely to match market returns.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f4787628c60d6a60b91a5d4684dfa6b6",
"text": "What are the risks pertaining to timing on long term index investments? The risks are countless for any investment strategy. If you invest in US stocks, and prices revert to the long term cyclically adjusted average, you will lose a lot of money. If you invest in cash, inflation may outpace interest rates and you will lose money. If you invest in gold, the price might go down and you will lose money. It's best to study history and make a reasonable decision (i.e. invest in stocks). Here are long term returns by asset class, computed by Jeremy Siegel: $1 invested in equities in 1801 equals $15.22 today if was not invested and $8.8 million if it was invested in stocks. This is the 'magic of compound interest' and cash / bonds have not been nearly as magical as stocks historically. 2) How large are these risks? The following chart shows the largest drawdowns (decreases in the value of an asset) since 1970 (source): Asset prices decrease in value frequently. Financial assets are volatile, but historically, they have increased over time, enabling investors to earn compounded returns (exponential growth of money is how to get rich). I personally view drawdowns as an excellent time to buy - it's like going on a shopping spree when everything in the store is discounted. 3) In case I feel not prepared to take these risks, how can I avoid them? The optimal asset allocation depends on the ability to take risk and your tolerance for risk. You are young and have a long investment horizon, so if stocks go down, you will have plenty of time to wait for them to go back up (if you're smart, you'll buy more stocks when they go down because they're cheap), so your ability to bear risk is high. From your description, it seems like you have a low risk tolerance (despite a high ability to be exposed to risk). Here's the return of various asset classes and how the average investor has fared over the last 20 years (source): Get educated (read Common Sense on Mutual Funds, A Random Walk Down Wall Street, etc.) and don't be average! Closing words: Investing in a globally diversified portfolio with a dollar cost averaging strategy is the best strategy for most investors. For investors that are unable to stay rational when markets are volatile (i.e. the investor uncontrollably sells their stocks when stocks decrease 20%), a more conservative asset allocation is recommended. Due to the nature of compounded interest, a conservative portfolio is likely to have a much lower future value.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f808b8d1725ffbfba52d761ec9baee52",
"text": "I would say that the three most important skills are: Note that some costs are hidden. So, for example, a mutual fund investing in other countries than where you live in may mean the investment target country charges a certain percentage of dividends going to the mutual fund. The mutual fund company doesn't usually want to tell you this. There may be clever financial instruments (derivatives) that can be used to avoid this, but they are not without their problems. If you diversify into equities at low cost, you will have a very wealthy future. I would recommend you to compare two options: ...and pick from these options the cheaper one. If your time has a high value, and you wish to take this value into account, I would say it is almost always far better option to choose an index fund. Whatever you do, don't pay for active management! It is a mathematical truth that before costs, actively managed investments will yield the same return than indexed investments. However, the costs are higher in active management, so you will have less total return. Don't believe that good historical return would imply good future return. However, if for some reason you see an index fund that continuously loses to the index more than by the amount of stated costs, beware!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c1402c618145c984650ff00198caab0f",
"text": "Remember that unless you participate in the actual fund that these individuals offer to the public, you will not get the same returns they will. If you instead do something like, look at what Warren Buffet's fund bought/sold yesterday (or even 60 minutes ago), and buy/sell it yourself, you will face 2 obstacles to achieving their returns: 1) The timing difference will mean that the value of the stock purchased by Warren Buffet will be different for your purchase and for his purchase. Because these investors often buy large swathes of stock at once, this may create large variances for 2 reasons: (a) simply buying a large volume of a stock will naturally increase the price, as the lowest sell orders are taken up, and fewer willing sellers remain; and (b) many people (including institutional investors) may be watching what someone like Warren Buffet does, and will want to follow suit, chasing the same pricing problem. 2) You cannot buy multiple stocks as efficiently as a fund can. If Warren Buffet's fund holds, say, 50 stocks, and he trades 1 stock per day [I have absolutely no idea about what diversification exists within his fund], his per-share transaction costs will be quite low, due to share volume. Whereas for you to follow him, you would need 50 transactions upfront, + 1 per day. This may appear to be a small cost, but it could be substantial. Imagine if you wanted to invest 50k using this method - that's $1k for each of 50 companies. A $5 transaction fee would equal 1% of the value of each company invested [$5 to buy, and $5 to sell]. How does that 1% compare to the management fee charged by the actual fund available to you? In short, if you feel that a particular investor has a sound strategy, I suggest that you consider investing with them directly, instead of attempting to recreate their portfolio.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ddc054bee5834f4da198ac37f9d38a4d
|
Primerica: All it claims to be?
|
[
{
"docid": "4c804978526144c0bc58523286d033a7",
"text": "\"Primerica's primary value proposition is that switching from whole or universal life to term life, and investing the difference is a good idea for most people. However, there are a number of other important factors to consider when purchasing life insurance, and I would also be wary of anyone claiming that one product will be the \"\"best\"\" for you under all circumstances. Best Insurance? Without getting into a much larger discussion on how to pick insurance companies or products, here are a few things that concern me about Primerica: They have a \"\"captive\"\" sales force, meaning their agents sell only Primerica products. This means that they are not shopping around for the best deal for you. Given how much prices on term life have changed in recent years, I would highly recommend taking the time to get alternate quotes online or from an independent broker who will shop around for you. Their staff are primarily part-time employees. I am not saying they are incompetent or don't care, just that you are more likely to be working with someone for whom insurance is not their primary line of work. If you have substantial reason to believe that you may someday need whole life, their products may not suit you well. Primerica does not offer whole life as far as I am aware, which also means that you cannot convert your term life policy through them to whole life should you need to do so. For example, if you experience an accident, are disabled, or have a significant change in your health status in the future and do not have access to a group life policy, you may be unable to renew your individual policy. Above Average Returns? I am also highly skeptical about this claim. The only possible context in which I could find this valid would be if they mean that your returns on average will be better if you invest in the stock market directly as compared to the returns you would get from the \"\"cash value\"\" portion of a life insurance product such as universal life, as those types of products generally have very high fees. Can you clarify if this is the claim that was made, or if they are promising returns above those of the general stock market? If it is the latter, run! Only a handful of superstar investors (think Warren Buffet, Peter Lynch, and Bill Gross) have ever consistently outperformed the stock market as a whole, and typically only for a limited period of time. In either case, I would have the same concerns here as stated in reasons #1 and #2 above. Even more so than with insurance, if you need investment advice, I'd recommend working with someone who is fully dedicated to that type of work, such as a fee-only financial planner (http://www.napfa.org/ is a good place to find one). Once you know how you want to invest, I would again recommend shopping around for a reputable but inexpensive broker and compare their fees with Primerica's. Kudos on having a healthy level of skepticism and listening to your gut. Also, remember that if you are not interested in their offer, you don't have to prove them wrong - you can simply say \"\"no thank you.\"\" Best of luck!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2cfb8d79463385c8ed145db074ecd84b",
"text": "\"Probably not, though there are a few things to be said for understanding what you are doing here. Primerica acts as an independent financial services firm and thus has various partners that specialize in various financial instruments and thus there may exist other firms that Primerica doesn't use that could offer better products. Now, how much do you want to value your time as it could take more than a few months to go through every possible insurance firm and broker to see what rate you could get for the specific insurance you want. There is also the question of what constitutes best here. Is it paying the minimal premiums before getting a payout? That would be my interpretation though this requires some amazing guesswork to know when to start paying a policy to pay out so quickly that the insurance company takes a major loss on the policy. Similarly, there are thousands of mutual funds out there and it is incredibly difficult to determine which ones would be best for your situation. How much risk do you want to take? How often do you plan to add to it? What kind of accounts are you using for these investments, e.g. IRAs or just regular taxable accounts? Do tax implications of the investments matter? Thus, I'd likely want to suggest you consider this question: How much trust do you have that this company will work well for you in handling the duty of managing your investments and insurance needs? If you trust them, then buy what they suggest. If you don't, then buy somewhere else but be careful about what kind of price are you prepared to pay to find the mythical \"\"best\"\" as those usually only become clear in hindsight. When it comes to trusting a company in case, there are more than a few factors I'd likely use: Questions - How well do they answer your questions or concerns from your perspective? Do you feel that these are being treated with respect or do you get the feeling they want to say, \"\"What the heck are you thinking for asking that?\"\" in a kind of conceited perspective. Structure of meeting - Do you like to have an agenda and things all planned out or are you more of the spontaneous, \"\"We'll figure it out\"\" kind of person? This is about how well do they know you and set things up to suit you well. Tone of talk - Do you feel valued in having these conversations and working through various exercises with the representative? This is kind of like 1 though it would include requests they have for you. Employee turnover - How long has this person been with Primerica? Do they generally lose people frequently? Are you OK with your file being passed around like a hot potato? Not that it necessarily will but just consider the possibility here. Reputation can be a factor though I'd not really use it much as some people can find those bad apples that aren't there anymore and so it isn't an issue now. In some ways you are interviewing them as much as they are interviewing you. There are more than a few companies that want to get a piece of what you'll invest, buy, and use when it comes to financial products so it may be a good idea to shop around a little.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "975c75548b7fa0be94d43acffa121145",
"text": "\"I was a Primerica representative, left to be on my own, and then returned. Insurance is one matter that depends on the individual. Some do not need it. For example, when I was an independent agent with an independent marketing organization (IMO) (oh yes! multi-level is everywhere, dont kid yourself) I had an upline as well. We were pushed to sell final expense [burial insurance]. As an ethical agent, I believe this is a bad business practice. Primerica does not sell unneeded insurance to old people. How can you justify selling the elderly, insurance to cover them for $10,000, at almost 100 to 150 a month? I told my elderly potential clients, after seeing they live on a tight budget, that they were better off purchasing a cremation policy or funeral package than burial insurances as it would save them money in the long run. Primerica is right in saying they are the only ones out there catering to the Working Class and Middle-America. Where else can you start an Individual Retirement Account (IRA) with $25 a month? Nowhere! All the other insurance producers want more money. They don't want to spend their time with what they call \"\"losers\"\". I love showing Poor people how the Rich get richer. Poor people should know the truth.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "b2d27d9aa0824213fa71520c93956ae6",
"text": "I'm not familiar enough with finance in any capacity to know what the difference is between financial services or a finance department (beyond what you said); my familiarity of the industry extends to trading, rating, and financial law enforcement. But at a glance on mobile, that looks like pretty much exactly what I was looking for. I have no connect to the industry, but habe been on a Wall St media binge lately, and like to understand powerful/influencial sectors of society anyways. Thanks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b2ada2333b9bb048c83e8b2fc8db2e65",
"text": "\"just for shits, i'll give you the excerpts from Liar's Poker: \"\"I was living in London in the winter of 1984, finishing a master's degree in economics at the London School of Economics, when I received an invitation to dine with the Queen Mother. It came through a distant cousin of mine who, years before, and somewhat improbably, had married a German baron... What had been advertised as a close encounter with British royalty proved to be a fundraiser with seven or eight hundred insurance salesmen...Somewhere in the Great Hall, as luck would have it, were two managing directors from Salomon Brothers. I knew this only because, as luck would further have it, I was seated between their wives. The wife of the more senior Salomon Brothers managing director, an American, took our table firmly in hand, once we'd finished craning our necks to snatch a glimpse of British royalty. When she learned that I was preparing to enter the job market and was considering investment banking, she turned the evening into an interview... Having examined what good had come from my twenty-four years on earth, the asked why I didn't come and work on the Salomon Brothers' trading floor.\"\" It's a great book, I highly recommend it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f6152e313ed35cd4b86d308245cba80b",
"text": "All the major American and British banks, with a couple of exceptions. The British government, despite its conservative ideology, is imposing stronger regulatory limits and even discussing 'say on pay' provisions for executive compensation. The US remains wedded to its allegedly free market leanings despite revelations that JP Morgan, among others, receives $14 BILLION a year in government subsidies. And the markets have made it clear that they dont just welcome, but demand government intervention, despite the libertarian rhetorical flourishes of the business lobbies. We may not see the confluence of economic and political policy until after the US presidential election but the widening gap between ideology and reality may hasten the end of that peculiar conceit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e8f67d9c662da5f7b053f4f3406ee69",
"text": "It tells you more about some of the convoluted rules put in place by FDA and ither regulatory agencies. It's next to impossible to introduce a true generic competitor. Really not a issue with the insurer as they must cover stuff only approved via the Fed agencies.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc38f582bbce89c2bcee70a6e6bdc08c",
"text": "My opinion of Seeking Alpha is that they try to manipulate stock prices for personal gain. However, Microsoft is to big to be manipulated by Seeking Alpha, so I'll go with your interpretation. Edit: I'm no fan of Microsoft, but I think Ballmer is being unfairly blamed for the companies problems.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "40f4a7e8f99e698206c773969beac93b",
"text": "I've tried to argue this to some close friends who bought homes, pre/post-crisis, if the crisis ever ended, they thought it was ridiculous. There is a clear fulcrum where renting makes more sense than buying, when appropriate inputs of data are entered into the model. I think Khan Academy did a good 10-minute run down on the subject and used a relatively good model, as well. Further than that, I read the first few paragraphs and stopped reading, it was a commercial. I was shocked. The entire thing up till' 2 paragraphs in is literally a commercial. The supposed 'antagonist', explicitly implied by the title isn't actually an antagonist, it's a click-bait commercial -article posing as a real article, (imitation), that actually might have some real science below the commercial, as you've indicated, but that part also sounds like junk finance; to sell the idea to consumers that they should in fact buy homes (instead of rent), and get loans from banks (preferably this one), and do anything to achieve that, if need be, even move in with their parents. This financial institution appears to have a sophisticated public relations marketing team doing their commercials-posing-as-news campaign(s). Very interesting to see the marketing beast morph itself into something so sophisticated, as to contain such clear imitation, junk science, and click-bait. I wonder what kind of penetration they are getting with this model, and what percentage of those see it for what it is. I suppose that would be a big-data question, answerable through analytics.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f3c332fbce2b61f308b02c595062977e",
"text": "Ok so this is the best information I could get! It is a guarantee from a financial institution that payment will be made for items or services once certain requirements are met. Let me know if this helps! I'll try to get more info in the meantime.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "caedaceb019af0723b7f062ea089b6c2",
"text": "None of what you said is correct. Wells Fargo makes over half of it's net income from community banking. Investment Banking is tucked inside of the Wholesale division and represents a relatively small piece of that. Wells' auto portfolio is at $58 billion; by no means as large as say the mortgage exposure, but certainly nothing to sneeze at.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "adaba88e23cded5660899924bfd1f056",
"text": "If anyone is interested in looking into it, the company Pinnacle has actually been using theory from quantitative finance for a long time. I went to one of their talks during useR!2017 in Brussels, really interesting betting company.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d88e8d5b94a65ccc651bbc38a95a147",
"text": "Except this problem wasn't caused by Fanny or Fredie. That's just a conservative spin on the issue. It was caused by CDOs and CDSs, which would have happened no matter what. Fanny and Freddie exacerbated the issue, perhaps, but didn't cause the entirety of the problem.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5f9f3e4354dabf864196cecc71e910a2",
"text": "So extenuating circumstances might make it OK for someone to lie to you. In this specific case, BofA withheld material information from its shareholders and asked them to approve the merger on the basis of known false information. This is, by definition, fraud.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a659be690a572c8754b83c6a6b07ea4",
"text": "Well, that's great. Still doesn't change the fact that it's a joke. By design it's capped at around 21 million units, that's not a currency - someone is making money off of it, and not by the value going up, but by trading it. Likely algorithms - if it's not you, you're the fool. It's a joke, no one takes it seriously. Truck drivers are buying the shit telling people it's the best thing in the world. Sound familiar? 1929? 2007?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c0685f077813db54c8c71b87e92a77d0",
"text": "I agree, but if that's *all* a person wants to discuss out of that story thats missing the forest for the trees. Also for the record, the $800 billion in 2007-2008 vs the larger muni bond market isn't actually a lie. You simply had a problem that it referred to more than just the 2007-2008 time frame. That's all. And either way it isn't material to the larger story here which was the fraud. Nobody got 'caught lying'.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "06d150aad9f9f649f0604748a87bc4d5",
"text": "Prepaid Legal is a publicly traded company worth over $600M. They've been around for years. So it's not a fly-by-night operation. I don't know enough to comment on whether their kind of MLM is legal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "25fb644b3694591af01eaecad4e52b25",
"text": "Publix is another employee owned massive chain, grocery store but also in Florida. Have known someone work their way up to GM and be sitting on quite a load of stocks. Some insurance companies in Florida are also privately held and give employees stock options.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b9664baaf4ac7810ec5d9e6119bddaf5
|
Do retailers ever stock goods just to make other goods sell better?
|
[
{
"docid": "b20d02dcab564c4a982b62fa79932712",
"text": "\"There's a concept in retail called a \"\"loss leader\"\", and essentially it means that a store will sell an item intentionally at a loss as a way of bringing in business in the hope that while consumers are in the store taking advantage of the discounted item, they'll make other purchases to make up for the loss and generate an overall profit. Many times it only makes sense to carry items that enhance the value of something else the store sells. Stores pay big money to study consumer behaviors and preferences in order to understand what items are natural fits for each other and the best ways to market them. A good example of what you're talking about is the fact that many grocery stores carry private label products that sell for higher margins, and they'll stock them alongside the name brands that cost much more. As a consequence (and since consumers often don't see a qualitative difference between store brands and name brands much of the time to rationalize spending more), the store's own brands sell better. I hope this helps. Good luck!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d4a6faeab3d0f592026d01218100e85",
"text": "They may stock items that frame the various price points. Of course they risk having the items go stale before they are sold. You also have situations where the store will advertise an item, but end up taking a loss on that sale because it will bring people in, and they will make other purchases. Determining what to stock, how to display it, and how to advertise it involves both math and psychology.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e040d4fa7d15885677dbedd01fb1c4f2",
"text": "\"That happens all the time. The best situation for this to happen is when you have several products, each a bit better and a bit more expensive than the other, and you add a new product which is the cheapest. That gets people into the store to look at the cheapest product, and then you show the the next more expensive which is so much better for only a little more money, and the next more expensive which is again so much better... You might not sell any of the cheapest product but it helps you sell the others. Also happens the other way round: You add a really expensive item, unaffordable for most customers, that is really, really nice. Then customers look at it and you show them that for half the price they can have something that is almost as nice. The expensive product increases the amount that customers think is \"\"the right price\"\" for that kind of product. A customer might think that $2,000 for a diamond ring is an awful lot of money, but if you show them another ring for $5,000 then suddenly the $2,000 doesn't look that expensive anymore. And if it is almost as nice as the $5,000 ring, you sell a lot of rings for $2,000 because you had the more expensive ring in the store.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b0d4b844cd44072e06f36fe020a4c3b",
"text": "Use of this is demonstrated in this video: https://youtu.be/Ip5jG3djdyk Stocking products that you have no intention of selling can be used to make other products look more appealing by comparison. It's more psychological than anything but it isn't an uncommon practice.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "f3cdb856877006ce8e902213aa1551b6",
"text": "The more the stock is worth, the more it needs to rise to make a profit. You can buy some stock from Google or amazon, but that's about all the stock you'd have... Start small with companies you know and trust that have an upward trend.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7d6127635902b6b8898bd3c380982844",
"text": "Hardly anyone retail shops on eBay, this is visible just on the [Google trends compared to the two other competitors](https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=amazon,ebay,walmart) mentioned here. Notice, compared to those two, eBay has basically no holiday season bump? It's peak was in December 2007 and since then Amazon's been eating it's lunch and even Walmart gained a little ground. As eBay transitioned from fleamarket to Chinese junk retailer, to compete with Amazon, one major thing it lost out on was reviews. Every item from every merchant is it's own listing with no history (beyond merchant reputation). Add onto that, the fact you're not dealing with a single entity (like Amazon) and it's a bust. That's why, even if I'm not intending on buying it from Amazon, I browse it to see the reputation of the product. Oftentimes, I buy a competitor's product from there. Even Walmart has it. Ebay has little to none of that - essentially buying blind. Price-matching a tiny subset of product won't fix shit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f5541e4cd88d0abca3d687a5388e3db",
"text": "\"Yes, this is common and in some cases may be required. They may use it for marketing at some level, but they also use it for risk management in deciding, for example, how much margin to offer and whether to approve access to \"\"riskier\"\" products like stock options.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8172047cbc0a97e12cece3caa9402a5f",
"text": "I'm not specifically referring to forced acceptance of returns. You can produce a product that's excellent with minimal quality issues, but it doesn't mean that Costco won't squeeze you out on other things. In the end it's a numbers game, and the vendor will always lose when the performance of their product begins to drop, regardless of quality issues. That's when the large retailers start squeezing you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af8936f2118d658d9f57e27f1caf14bd",
"text": "\"No. Some grocery stores may discount specific products based on inventory to drive sales using \"\"loss leaders\"\" where the product is intentionally priced as a loss for the business. While commodity futures may impact some prices, I'm not sure one can easily extract the changes solely due to futures shifts.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f4d2c18724cec934b766c5916f605db",
"text": "No, but the damage to the quality/reputation of the brand can be very real. Amazon absolutely has an inventory problem where they are turning a blind eye to counterfeit goods. This problem is exacerbated by their commingling of inventory, where they can get the same item from multiple suppliers - where some of the goods are genuine and some are counterfeits and they are mixed together. If the good being bought is listed on Amazon as genuine, but the consumer is shipped a low-quality fake, then it is reasonable for the customer to assume the quality of the good is low as they assume Amazon would not ship a counterfeit. In Birkenstock's case, they are alleging that very thing happened. Amazon was allegedly selling counterfeits that they got from other sources than directly from Birkenstock [via the authorized seller option], and then were shipping those to customers - causing damage to the Birkenstock brand. Though, if that were true, I would expect Birkenstock to sue Amazon and not simply badmouth them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a1aa637b5b63740f6cd7b5aaee978664",
"text": "\"Your statement - \"\"not practical\"\" - presumes that the primary goal of having the store is to allow the store to thrive. But if you subscribe to the idea that stores and other companies are just organizations of people, that presumption is false we humans form social structures that benefit people who live within the social structures - towns, cities, teams, companies, political parties. the success of \"\"the store\"\" or the company or the team, or the \"\"city\"\", is not the primary goal. The success of the people ought to be the primary goal. Example: hospitals weren't originally conceived to make money and grow. They were conceived to aid people who were sick. These days hospitals make a LOT OF MONEY , despite being classified as nonprofit institutions in the USA. As a result we have bad medical practice - over prescription of opioids, over use of surgeries, over-use of diagnostic tests, etc., - all of which benefits the hospital but not the patients. It's not always a clear line - look at the real jobs vs environment issues in mining or fracking. But the balance we have struck now, gives great profits to the companies (profits are at record highs) while income inequality is also at record highs. How is that sensible or sustainable. Or moral? My key point here is that your statement that \"\"it's not practical for the store\"\" is misguided. The store's well being cannot be the primary goal of commerce. We need to place a higher priority on benefiting people. (Broadly framed - not just owners of the store)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b6bf1a41c65a279d78640dbbd860e6d1",
"text": "While this may be true for certain stores, it isn't true across the board. An ex worked at a high-end clothing store and they did in fact pack up everything that didn't sell during that season and ship it to the outlets. This was also the case for many of the other high-end stores.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "61656ef65c60b5d20fc3816ca81bd52d",
"text": "I have heard through the grapevine that in your contract with Costco, the manufacturer has to GUARANTEE that all their products will sell. So everything on the shelves is literally sold already, even if nobody buys it. Allegedly it put many businesses out.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8bd6dba8603aef66808526c01453503b",
"text": "How can you correlate a company stock's performance with overall market performance. No you can't. There is no simple magic formulae that will result in profits. There are quite a few statistical algorithms that specialists have built, that work most of the times. But they are incorrect most of the times as well.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ad0597371c8ffbb613e4cbaa68b67e86",
"text": "You have no clue what you are talking about! It's all natural progress of Retail. When Sears sent its first catalogs, it killed most rural stores. When Mr. Goldman invented the shopping cart, and Supermarkets were possible, it killed most grocery stores. When department stores started, they killed most specialty stores. When Amazon started, and on-line shopping, it killed all book stores and many other stores. When 3D printers get fast and more versatile, the made-to-order will kill Amazon. Etc, etc, etc...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d4dbeca797759a3013a30662a303baae",
"text": "\"I agree, and would add that the Sears website is the worst \"\"major retailer\"\" I've shopped online. They can't track stock based on what is sold. Many of their products are sold by shady 3rd parties, and the search results are almost useless.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e11be6d386ddb060699e6a8cf39036c",
"text": "retail has been in a slump for quite a few years now. these companies are short on cash, cut costs, take on debt to pay manufacturers and fund operating costs, products do not sell, short on cash, cut costs, take on debt again etc go through this cycle enough times everyone starts to look for exits - banks want to get paid on the loans and retailers want to lower the debt service. this usually ends up at the door step of a PE shop these retailers are usually over levered by the time PE ships are involved. PE adds its own tranches of debt and off to the races the retailers go many retailers are figuring out consumers just are not interested in buying from them, no cash, cut costs, cannot service debt, Ch 11, likely end up on the doorsteps of another PE shop",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f5e9d8c836e622e966667ee335b6d668",
"text": "I don't think retail cares so much about being taken for a few bps here and there, but more so about the insane volatility that is the new normal in markets. This vol., which in many cases can be tracked back to HFT, has had a negative feedback loop that resulted in lower volumes across the board. I don't think retail cares about a few bps here and there, but if the entire system is based on trust in market efficiency, and computers make them less efficient by purposefully manipulating the system, retail might just not chose to play any more. Think of it like baseball vs. football. Football has salary caps, and, as such, all teams have a fair shot at winning every year, baseball doesn't, and a few teams with the biggest budgets consistently win year over year. Yeah, it's great if you're a Yankees, Red Sox, Giants or Phillies fan, but many other cities in the country don't care about baseball much anymore and favor football. Look at viewership stats by market over time. HFT is the same way, it's great if you have the money to compete in that system, but by destroying the integrity of the system itself, many participants just stop caring as much and go elsewhere...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e62b9944102afc036fd4a96772aab1c",
"text": "I don't think there's a conclusive answer to your question, but I have a real world example for you. I was in a similar situation for almost 6 years (I was the friend, but also the one with the highest pay). I rented a house, my name on everything. I made a separate contract with both my friend and his GF and they both rented a room from me. I looked up the total m2 of the house and divided the rent by that number. Multiplied by room sizes I knew what everyone had to pay for their personal space, I simply divided the rest by 3 to find the remainder of everyone's rent. I don't know the numbers anymore, but here's an example: house = 150 m2 room 1 = 10 m2 room 2 = 15 m2 room 3 = 25 m2 shared space = 100 m2 rent = 800,- This gives 5.33 per m2 The shared space is worth 533.33 Divided by 3 is 177.77, So the total rent for each room is: room 1 = 10*5.33 + 177.77 ≈ 231 room 2 = 15*5.33 + 177.77 ≈ 258 room 3 = 25*5.33 + 177.77 ≈ 311 We divided the rest of the costs (gas, power, water, etc...) evenly. This was fair in our case, because the rent was directly tied to the size of the rooms. The only thing we had left to do was give the poorest person the smallest room.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
6119d7a3b60b4ffa546305858729e909
|
Which dividend bearing stock should be chosen by price?
|
[
{
"docid": "22ea84df5765d24026478526849a4fb6",
"text": "Don't ever quantify a stock's preference/performance just based on the dividend it is paying out Volatility defined by movements in the the stock's price, affected by factors embedded in the stock e.g. the corporation, the business it is in, the economy, the management etc etc. Apple wasn't paying dividends but people were still buying into it. Same with Amazon, Berkshire, Google. These companies create value by investing their earnings back into their company and this is reflected in their share prices. Their earnings create more value in this way for the stockholders. The holding structures of these companies also help them in their motives. Supposedly $100 invested in either stocks. For keeping things easy, you invested at the same time in both, single annual dividend and prices more or less remain constant. Company A: $5/share at 20% annual dividend yield. Dividend = $20 Company B: $10/share at 20% annual dividend yield Dividend = $20 You receive the same dividend in both cases. Volatility willn't affect you unless you are trading, or the stock market tanks, or some very bad news comes out of either company or on the economy. Volatility in the long term averages out, except in specific outlier cases e.g. Lehman bankruptcy and the financial crash which are rare but do happen. In general case the %price movements in both stocks would more or less follow the markets (not exactly though) except when relevant news for either corporations come out.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6080f06d854becc8d455196ebab574c5",
"text": "Price doesn't mean anything. Price is simply total value (market capitalization) divided by number of shares. Make sure you consider historical dividends when hunting for big yields. It's very possible that the data you're pulling is only the annualized yield on the most recent dividend payment. Typically dividends are declared in dollar terms. The total amount of the dividend to be issued is then divided by the number of shares and paid out. Companies rarely (probably never but rarely to avoid the peanut gallery comments about the one company that does this) decide dividend payments based on some proportion of the stock price. Between company A and company B paying approximately the same historical yield, I'd look at both companies to make sure neither is circling the tank. If both look strong, I'd probably buy a bit of both. If one looks terrible buy the other one. Don't pick based on the price.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "63992ab475c060121e8878774c7589c3",
"text": "A 20% dividend yield in most companies would make me very suspicious. Most dividend yields are in the 2-3% range right now and a 20% yield would make me worry that the company was in trouble, the stock price had crashed and the dividend was going to be cut, the company was going to go out of business or both.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "db351fb142066f802e9dfed69b44acb6",
"text": "In the scenario you describe, the first thing I would look at would be liquidity. In other words, how easy is it to buy and sell shares. If the average daily volume of one share is low compared to the average daily volume of the other, then the more actively traded share would be the more attractive. Low volume shares will have larger bid-offer spreads than high volume shares, so if you need to get out of position quickly you will be at risk of being forced to take a lowball offer. Having said that, it is important to understand that high yielding shares have high yields for a reason. Namely, the market does not think much of the company's prospects and that it is likely that a cut in the dividend is coming in the near future. In general, the nominal price of a share is not important. If two companies have equal prospect, then the percentage movement in their share price will be about the same, so the net profit or loss you realise will be about the same.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "0fd5110b577f8fb73db726ebc20f4885",
"text": "In the equity world, if a stock trades at 110 and is going to pay a dividend of 10 in a few days, an option expiring after the ex date would take the dividend into account and would trade as if the stock were trading at 100. (Negative) interest rates may also lead to a similar effect. In the commodity world the cost of carry needs to be taken into account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3877c57cc08994391fb855b9a0d73018",
"text": "Lets pretend that TELSA decided to split its stock 10 shares for 1. Now the stock is $35 dollars- would that make you happy? You dont have any idea how companies are valued. Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Class A NYSE: BRK.A - Oct 31, 12:58 PM EDT 280,210.00 USD",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "85f152040d50f0973d1afa6b3af5da2d",
"text": "Price, whether related to a stock or ETF, has little to do with anything. The fund or company has a total value and the value is distributed among the number of units or shares. Vanguard's S&P ETF has a unit price of $196 and Schwab's S&P mutual fund has a unit price of $35, it's essentially just a matter of the fund's total assets divided by number of units outstanding. Vanguard's VOO has assets of about $250 billion and Schwab's SWPPX has assets of about $25 billion. Additionally, Apple has a share price of $100, Google has a share price of $800, that doesn't mean Google is more valuable than Apple. Apple's market capitalization is about $630 billion while Google's is about $560 billion. Or on the extreme a single share of Berkshire's Class A stock is $216,000, and Berkshire's market cap is just $360 billion. It's all just a matter of value divided by shares/units.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1b69eea97ab6432c7cde802d6fd58942",
"text": "Dividend yield is not the only criteria for stock selection. Companies past performance, management, past deals, future expansion plans, and debt equity ratio should be considered. I would also like to suggest you that one should avoid making any investment in the companies that are directly affected by frequent changes in regulations released by government. All the above mentioned criteria are important for your decision as they make an impact on your investment and can highly affect the profits.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0619eb0ed1ee60b67556347fb051ff16",
"text": "There are many reasons for buying stock for dividends. You are right in the sense that in theory a stock's price will go down in value by the amount of the dividend. As the amount of dividend was adding to the value of the company, but now has been paid out to shareholder, so now the company is worth less by the value of the dividend. However, in real life this may or may not happen. Sometimes the price will drop by less than the value of the dividend. Sometimes the price will drop by more than the dividend. And other times the price will go up even though the stock has gone ex-dividend. We can say that if the price has dropped by exactly the amount of the dividend then there has been no change in the stockholders value, if the price has dropped by more than the value of the dividend then there has been a drop to the stockholder's value, and if the price has gone up or dropped by less than the value of the dividend then there has been a increase to the stockholder's value. Benefits of Buying Stocks with Good Dividends: What you shouldn't do however, is buy stocks solely due to the dividend. Be aware that if a company starts reducing its dividends, it could be an early warning sign that the company may be heading into financial troubles. That is why holding a stock that is dropping in price purely for its dividend can be a very dangerous practice.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe940f93051087ade962c2d903cb6d8e",
"text": "In my opinion, the ability to set a sell or buy price is the least of my concerns. Your question of whether to choose individual stocks vs funds prompts a different issue for me to bring to light. Choosing stocks that beat the market is not simple. In fact, a case can be made for the fact that the average fund lags the market by more and more over time. In the end, conceding that fact and going with the lowest cost funds or ETFs will beat 90% of investors over time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac30adec3d15af6b41f91c748898e8bb",
"text": "\"The strategy is right. As pointed out by you, will the \"\" volatility cause the premium on the price of the options to be too high to make this worthwhile\"\" ... this is subjective and depends on how the markets feels about the volatility and the trend ... ie if the market believes that the stock will go up, the option at 45 would cost quite a bit less. However if the market believes the stock would go down, the option at 45 would be quite high [and may not even be available]. There is no generic right or wrong, the strategy is right [with out without putting dividend into equation] it depends what options are available at what prices.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "948d14eeab77d845ae1466625081fe48",
"text": "By coincidence, I entered this position today. Ignore the stock itself, I am not recommending a particular stock, just looking at a strategy. The covered call. For this stock trading at $7.47, I am able, by selling an in-the-money call to be out of pocket $5.87/sh, and am obliged to let it go for $7.00 a year from now. A 19% return as long as the stock doesn't drop more than 6% over that time. The chart below shows maximum profit, and my loss starts if the stock trades 21% below current price. The risk is shifted a bit, but in return, I give up potential higher gains. The guy that paid $1.60 could triple his money if the stocks goes to $12, for example. In a flat market, this strategy can provide relatively high returns compared to holding only stocks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1dc5ad53dbebd7ef9cc8e2a028298b67",
"text": "\"You are probably going to hate my answer, but... If there was an easy way to ID stocks like FB that were going to do what FB did, then those stocks wouldn't exist and do that because they would be priced higher at the IPO. The fact is there is always some doubt, no one knows the future, and sometimes value only becomes clear with time. Everyone wants to buy a stock before it rises right? It will only be worth a rise if it makes more profit though, and once it is established as making more profit the price will be already up, because why wouldn't it be? That means to buy a real winner you have to buy before it is completely obvious to everyone that it is going to make more profit in the future, and that means stock prices trade at speculative prices, based on expected future performance, not current or past performance. Now I'm not saying past and future performance has nothing in common, but there is a reason that a thousand financially oriented websites quote a disclaimer like \"\"past performance is not necessarily a guide to future performance\"\". Now maybe this is sort of obvious, but looking at your image, excluding things like market capital that you've not restricted, the PE ratio is based on CURRENT price and PAST earnings, the dividend yield is based on PAST publications of what the dividend will be and CURRENT price, the price to book is based on PAST publication of the company balance sheet and CURRENT price, the EPS is based on PAST earnings and the published number of shares, and the ROI and net profit margin in based on published PAST profits and earnings and costs and number of shares. So it must be understood that every criteria chosen is PAST data that analysts have been looking at for a lot longer than you have with a lot more additional information and experience with it. The only information that is even CURRENT is the price. Thus, my ultimate conclusive point is, you can't based your stock picks on criteria like this because it's based on past information and current stock price, and the current stock price is based on the markets opinion of relative future performance. The only way to make a good stock pick is understand the business, understand its market, and possibly understand world economics as it pertains to that market and business. You can use various criteria as an initial filter to find companies and investigate them, but which criteria you use is entirely your preference. You might invest only in profitable companies (ones that make money and probably pay regular dividends), thus excluding something like an oil exploration company, which will just lose money, and lose it, and lose some more, forever... unless it hits the jackpot, in which case you might suddenly find yourself sitting on a huge profit. It's a question of risk and preference. Regarding your concern for false data. Google defines the Return on investment (TTM) (%) as: Trailing twelve month Income after taxes divided by the average (Total Long-Term Debt + Long-Term Liabilities + Shareholders Equity), expressed as a percentage. If you really think they have it wrong you could contact them, but it's probably correct for whatever past data or last annual financial results it's based on.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3579b4d63ec37eb5c5d6bd69bc16753a",
"text": "This is called the gordon growth model (or dividend discount model). This is one way to value a stock, but in practice no one uses it because the assumptions are that companies will return value to investors solely via regular dividends, and that the growth rate and the required rate of return from investors are constants; among other issues.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e144e276962b576070defb6e72a120e",
"text": "If you don't have a good knowledge of finance, maybe you should not put too much money in individual stocks. But if you really want to invest, you can just compare the rate of return of the most known stocks available to you (like the one from the S&P for the US). The rate of return is very simple to compute, it's 100*dividend/share price. For example a company with a current share price of 50.12 USD that delivered a dividend of 1.26 USD last year would have a rate of return of 100 * 1.26/50.12= 2.51% Now if you only invest in the most known stocks, since they are already covered by nearly all financial institutions and analysts: If you are looking for lower risk dividend companies, take a sample of companies and invest those with the lowest rates of return (but avoid extreme values). Of course since the stock prices are changing all the time, you have to compare them with a price taken at the same time (like the closing price of a specific day) and for the dividend, they can be on several basis (yearly, quartely, etc..) so you have to be sure to take the same basis. You can also find the P/E ratio which is the opposite indicator (= share price/dividend) so an higher P/E ratio means a lower risk. Most of the time you can find the P/E ratio or the rate of return already computed on specialized website or brokers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "46e2974415620edf4d4b363de3ffa5a4",
"text": "Unless your brokerage will sell you fractional shares, the most obvious difference (without us knowing the actual identify of the companies) is that with the $260 one, you will have 3 shares plus you will have $220 minus commission left over that you wanted to invest but weren't able to simply because of the mechanics of long division. You could put that $220 into one of the cheaper stocks, but now the multiple commissions will start to eat your returns. My personal opinion is you should go for a low cost index mutual fund or ETF, and wait to pick individual stocks until you have more than $1000 to work with (and even then, probably still go with the low cost index fund)",
"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": "cbbe1fd1341e1ff9781db641f39c960f",
"text": "My main criterion for choosing a broker is the fee schedule. I care about investing in index funds and paying as little as possible in fees. In the US that brings everyone to Vanguard or Fidelity, and currently Vanguard edges Fidelity out on costs for the particular funds I am invested in.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd5245ce5576b9ef54a0c5b4ea5a1aa0",
"text": "I would say any of the top weighted stocks in the XLK etf. I wouldn't use a leader like IBM Goog or aapl. If anything, try and find one that is not extremely recognizable and present it like you discovered this particular stock in this sector you follow closely.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
8925282bee8887af0e0fce13917c8775
|
I want to invest in Gold. Where do I go and buy it?
|
[
{
"docid": "bad177efac3dfd6b41b35d802005ab10",
"text": "Without getting into whether you should invest in Gold or Not ... 1.Where do I go and make this purchase. I would like to get the best possible price. If you are talking about Physical Gold then Banks, Leading Jewelry store in your city. Other options are buying Gold Mutual Fund or ETF from leading fund houses. 2.How do I assure myself of quality. Is there some certificate of quality/purity? This is mostly on trust. Generally Banks and leading Jewelry stores will not sell of inferior purity. There are certain branded stores that give you certificate of authenticity 3.When I do choose to sell this commodity, when and where will I get the best cost? If you are talking about selling physical gold, Jewelry store is the only place. Banks do not buy back the gold they sold you. Jewelry stores will buy back any gold, however note there is a buy price and sell price. So if you buy 10 g and sell it back immediately you will not get the same price. If you have purchased Mutual Funds / ETF you can sell in the market.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5b81e74bb215f0e6fac9214327575e07",
"text": "\"I do not know anything about retail investing in India, since I am in the US. However, there are a couple of general things to keep in mind about gold that should be largely independent of country. First, gold is not an investment. Aside from a few industrial uses, it has no productive value. It is, at best, a hedge against inflation, since many people feel more comfortable with what they consider \"\"real\"\" money that is not subject to what seems to be arbitrary creation by central banks. Second, buying tiny amounts of gold as coin or bullion from a retail dealer will always involve a fairly significant spread from the commodity spot price. The spot price only applies to large transactions. Retail dealers have costs of doing business that necessitate these fees in order for them to make a profit. You must also consider the costs of storing your gold in a way that mitigates the risk of theft. (The comment by NL7 is on this point. It appeared while I was typing this answer.) You might find this Planet Money piece instructive on the process, costs, and risks of buying gold bullion (in the US). If you feel that you must own gold as an inflation hedge, and it is possible for residents of India, you would be best off with some kind of gold fund that tracks the price of bullion.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8356bc721c1581f1b340b68f809cfef6",
"text": "You can buy from any of the well known jewelry shops. Or you can even buy it from banks. For a 24carat gold purchase, you would normally also get a certificate attesting the quality of the gold item. Also while selling your gold, you can sell to above mentioned jewellers or any decent jeweller as a matter of fact.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "dd8e5ca4888ff871a3b76ce481bb3bd5",
"text": "\"First of all, bear in mind that there's no such thing as a risk-free investment. If you keep your money in the bank, you'll struggle to get a return that keeps up with inflation. The same is true for other \"\"safe\"\" investments like government bonds. Gold and silver are essentially completely speculative investments; over the years their price tends to vary quite wildly, so unless you really understand how those markets work you should steer well clear. They're certainly not low risk. Repeatedly buying a property to sell in a couple of years time is almost certainly a bad idea; you'll end up paying substantial transaction fees each time that would wipe out a lot of the possible profit, and of course there's always the risk that prices would go down not up. Buying a property to keep - and preferably live in - might be a decent option once you have a good deposit saved up. It's very hard to say where prices will go in future, on the one hand London prices are very high by historical standards, but on the other hand supply is likely to remain severely constrained for years to come. I tend to think of a house as something that I need one of for the rest of my life, and so in one sense not owning a house to live in is a gamble that house prices and rents won't go up substantially. If you own a house, you're insulated from changes in rent etc and even if prices crash at least you still have somewhere to live. However that argument only works really well if you expect to keep living in the same area under most circumstances - house prices might crash in your area but not elsewhere.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b104c80932c4755082359a38997c64f1",
"text": "You will need a lot of cash because all the gold that you will buy will be capitalized later. You must invest but you must use your head when you do it. It is one of the most profitable businesses but when you start it you should be prepared to pay the price.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ea028386d7b77f54bba0eb3c5e18b8c",
"text": "With gold at US$1300 or so, a gram is about $40. For your purposes, you have the choice between the GLD ETF, which represents a bit less than 1/10oz gold equivalent per share, or the physical metal itself. Either choice has a cost: the commission on the buy plus, eventually, the sale of the gold. There may be ongoing fees as well (fund fees, storage, etc.) GLD trades like a stock and you can enter limit orders or any other type of order the broker accepts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "ab6cc8d9826ecf75e8add750017c25d1",
"text": "\"Don't put all your eggs in one basket and don't assume that you know more than the market does. The probability of gold prices rising again in the near future is already \"\"priced in\"\" as it were. Unless you are privy to some reliable information that no one else knows (given that you are asking here, I'm guessing not), stay away. Invest in a globally diversified low cost portfolio of primarily stocks and bonds and don't try to predict the future. Also I would kill for a 4.5% interest rate on my savings. In the USA, 1% is on the high side of what you can get right now. What is inflation like over there?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "85297a8d9bd54e5aa6f686aafb566160",
"text": "\"You can find gold historical prices on the kitco site. See the \"\"View Data\"\" button.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "58aaa60f7b423dfdbf5740a3a3153ced",
"text": "As far as trading is concerned, these forward curves are the price at which you can speculate on the future value of the commodity. Basically, if you want to speculate on gold, you can either buy the physical and store it somewhere (which may have significant costs) or you can buy futures (ETFs typically hold futures or hold physical and store it for you). If you buy futures, you will have to roll your position every month, meaning you sell the current month's futures and buy the next month's. However, these may not be trading at the same price, so each time you roll your position, you face a risk. If you know you want to hold gold for exactly 1 year, then you can buy a 1-year future, which in this case according to your graph will cost you about $10 more than buying the front month. The forward curve (or sometimes called the futures term structure) represents the prices at which gold can be bought or sold at various points in the future.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22b4698b41a63d0eb71f71fefe874e94",
"text": "Gold is not legal tender. I can't walk into Walmart and buy groceries with 1/20 ounce of gold. I can't buy a TV or car with gold. And you can't *buy* money--that's not how it works. I can sell a barrel of oil or a whatever of copper in any currency, but that doesn't make either of them currencies in and of themselves.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2865984a64db25a71c7b3f2c57f1afc5",
"text": "\"Your plan already answers your own question in the best possible way: If you want to be able to make the most possible profit from a large downward move in a stock (in this case, a stock that tracks gold), with a limited, defined risk if there is an upward move, the optimal strategy is to buy a put option. There are a few Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) that track the price of gold. think of them as stocks that behave like gold, essentially. Two good examples that have options are GLD and IAU. (When you talk about gold, you'll hear a lot about futures. Forget them, for now. They do the same essential thing for your purposes, but introduce more complexity than you need.) The way to profit from a downward move without protection against an upward move is by shorting the stock. Shorting stock is like the opposite of buying it. You make the amount of money the stock goes down by, or lose the amount it goes up by. But, since stocks can go up by an infinite amount, your possible loss is unlimited. If you want to profit on a large downward move without an unlimited loss if you're wrong and it goes up, you need something that makes money as the stock drops, but can only lose so much if it goes up. (If you want to be guaranteed to lose nothing, your best investment option is buying US Treasuries, and you're technically still exposed to the risk that US defaults on its debt, although if you're a US resident, you'll likely have bigger problems than your portfolio in that situation.) Buying a put option has the exact asymmetrical exposure you want. You pay a limited premium to buy it, and at expiration you essentially make the full amount that the stock has declined below the strike price, less what you paid for the option. That last part is important - because you pay a premium for the option, if it's down just a little, you might still lose some or all of what you paid for it, which is what you give up in exchange for it limiting your maximum loss. But wait, you might say. When I buy an option, I can lose all of my money, cant I? Yes, you can. Here's the key to understanding the way options limit risk as compared to the corresponding way to get \"\"normal\"\" exposure through getting long, or in your case, short, the stock: If you use the number of options that represent the number of shares you would have bought, you will have much, much less total money at risk. If you spend the same \"\"bag 'o cash\"\" on options as you would have spent on stock, you will have exposure to way more shares, and have the same amount of money at risk as if you bought the stock, but will be much more likely to lose it. The first way limits the total money at risk for a similar level of exposure; the second way gets you exposure to a much larger amount of the stock for the same money, increasing your risk. So the best answer to your described need is already in the question: Buy a put. I'd probably look at GLD to buy it on, simply because it's generally a little more liquid than IAU. And if you're new to options, consider the following: \"\"Paper trade\"\" first. Either just keep track of fake buys and sells on a spreadsheet, or use one of the many online services where you can track investments - they don't know or care if they're real or not. Check out www.888options.com. They are an excellent learning resource that isn't trying to sell you anything - their only reason to exist is to promote options education. If you do put on a trade, don't forget that the most frustrating pitfall with buying options is this: You can be basically right, and still lose some or all of what you invest. This happens two ways, so think about them both before you trade: If the stock goes in the direction you think, but not enough to make back your premium, you can still lose. So you need to make sure you know how far down the stock has to be to make back your premium. At expiration, it's simple: You need it to be below the strike price by more than what you paid for the option. With options, timing is everything. If the stock goes down a ton, or even to zero - free gold! - but only after your option expires, you were essentially right, but lose all your money. So, while you don't want to buy an option that's longer than you need, since the premium is higher, if you're not sure if an expiration is long enough out, it isn't - you need the next one. EDIT to address update: (I'm not sure \"\"not long enough\"\" was the problem here, but...) If the question is just how to ensure there is a limited, defined amount you can lose (even if you want the possible loss to be much less than you can potentially make, the put strategy described already does that - if the stock you use is at $100, and you buy a put with a 100 strike for $5, you can make up to $95. (This occurs if the stock goes to zero, meaning you could buy it for nothing, and sell it for $100, netting $95 after the $5 you paid). But you can only lose $5. So the put strategy covers you. If the goal is to have no real risk of loss, there's no way to have any real gain above what's sometimes called the \"\"risk-free-rate\"\". For simplicity's sake, think of that as what you'd get from US treasuries, as mentioned above. If the goal is to make money whether the stock (or gold) goes either up or down, that's possible, but note that you still have (a fairly high) risk of loss, which occurs if it fails to move either up or down by enough. That strategy, in its most common form, is called a straddle, which basically means you buy a call and a put with the same strike price. Using the same $100 example, you could buy the 100-strike calls for $5, and the 100-strike puts for $5. Now you've spent $10 total, and you make money if the stock is up or down by more than $10 at expiration (over 110, or under 90). But if it's between 90 and 100, you lose money, as one of your options will be worthless, and the other is worth less than the $10 total you paid for them both.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6739f7b487afcbf39fc92d7f5b1b0c3d",
"text": "I agree that there is no reliable way to buy gold for less than spot, no more than there is for any other commodity. However, you can buy many things below market from motivated sellers. That is why you see so many stores buying gold now. It will be hard to find such sellers now with the saturation of buyers, but if you keep an eye on private sales and auctions you may be able to pick up something others miss.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "edf4fba292caeb83937280fef7ca1934",
"text": "\"The general argument put forward by gold lovers isn't that you get the same gold per dollar (or dollars per ounce of gold), but that you get the same consumable product per ounce of gold. In other words the claim is that the inflation-adjusted price of gold is more-or-less constant. See zerohedge.com link for a chart of gold in 2010 GBP all the way from 1265. (\"\"In 2010 GBP\"\" means its an inflation adjusted chart.) As you can see there is plenty of fluctuation in there, but it just so happens that gold is worth about the same now as it was in 1265. See caseyresearch.com link for a series of anecdotes of the buying power of gold and silver going back some 3000 years. What this means to you: If you think the stock market is volatile and want to de-risk your holdings for the next 2 years, gold is just as risky If you want to invest some wealth such that it will be worth more (in real terms) when you take it out in 40 years time than today, the stock market has historically given better returns than gold If you want to put money aside, and it to not lose value, for a few hundred years, then gold might be a sensible place to store your wealth (as per comment from @Michael Kjörling) It might be possible to use gold as a partial hedge against the stock market, as the two supposedly have very low correlation\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0b1b4d9b1b9d014f7d6ce32132da3509",
"text": "You are really tangling up two questions here: Q1: Given I fear a dissolution of the Euro, is buying physical gold a good response and if so, how much should I buy? I see you separately asked about real estate, and cash, and perhaps other things. Perhaps it would be better to just say: what is the right asset allocation, rather than asking about every thing individually, which will get you partial and perhaps contradictory answers. The short answer, knowing very little about your case, is that some moderate amount of gold (maybe 5-10%, at most 25%) could be a counterbalance to other assets. If you're concerned about government and market stability, you might like Harry Browne's Permanent Portfolio, which has equal parts stocks, bonds, cash, and gold. Q2: If I want to buy physical gold, what size should I get? One-ounce bullion (about 10 x 10 x 5mm, 30g) is a reasonably small physical size and a reasonable monetary granularity: about $1700 today. I think buying $50 pieces of gold is pointless: However much you want to have in physical gold, buy that many ounces.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a8f1abe5d6acad4a5681cbee71690432",
"text": "\"Invest in other currencies and assets that have \"\"real\"\" value. And personally I don't count gold as something of real value. Of course its used in the industry but besides that its a pretty useless metal and only worth something because everybody else thinks that everybody thinks its worth something. So I would buy land, houses, stocks, ...\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "257a8f93e0de0801f8797cea3e791f6e",
"text": "Buy gold, real coins not paper. And do not keep it in a bank.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "615805aad595c950ff380c27d30f25b0",
"text": "\"With all due respect to economics everywhere and the armchair economist. I think they overlook one very basic fact. The alternative to buying popcorn at the cinema is buying it cheaper at the store, or making your own and bringing it to the cinema. Cinemagoing is something you tend to do with a date (and sometimes your friends) and who wants to look cheap to their date (and perhaps their spouse/friends) bringing popcorn to the cinema? This \"\"cheapo-gentlemens\"\" effect together with convenience is probably the reason why popcorn can remain so expensive at cinemas.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
9f6190852b8de187e4277368b5f141ea
|
Why are credit cards preferred in the US?
|
[
{
"docid": "7832dedd1fee46484365b4dc17bf4aa4",
"text": "There are several reasons why credit cards are popular in the US: On the other hand, debit cards do not have any of these going for them. A debit card doesn't make much money for the bank unless you overdraw or something, so banks don't have incentive to push you to use them as much. As a result they don't offer rewards other benefits. Some people say the ability to spend more than you have is a downside of a credit card. But it's really an upside. The behavior of doing that when it isn't needed is bad, but that's not the card's fault, it's the users'. You can get a credit card with a very small limit if this is an issue for you. The question I find interesting is why debit cards are more popular in your home country. I can't think of any advantage they offer besides free cash back. But most people in the US don't use cash much either. I have to think in your home country the banks have a different revenue model or perhaps your country isn't as eager to offer tons of easy credit to everyone as the US is.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a9190beab9ebe5a6f2c8fb4667cf8972",
"text": "For me, it is mostly for the fraud protection. If I have a debit card and someone makes a fraudulent charge the money is removed from my bank account. From my understanding, I can then file a fraud complaint with the bank to recover my money. However, for some period of time, the money is missing from my bank account. I've heard conflicting stories of money being returned quickly while the complaint is undergoing investigation as well as money being tied up for several days/weeks. It may depend on the bank. With a credit card, it is the banks money that is tied up.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "790bd1aa9a78f54d3bd90c4c236277fd",
"text": "\"There are two things I can think of that might be different in other countries: Until 2013, American Express, Visa and MasterCard prevented businesses from charging extra for credit card usage, and credit card surcharges still illegal in several states. Since credit card companies add a surcharge to credit card purchases, and merchants can't pass that onto credit card users, they just make everyone pay extra instead. Since everyone gets charged the credit card surcharge, you might as well use a credit card and recoup some of that via \"\"rewards\"\" points. Almost all credit cards here have grace periods, where you won't be charged interest if you pay back your loans in full within some period of time (at least 21 days). This makes credit cards attractive to people who don't need a loan, but like the convenience that credit cards provide (not carrying cash, extra insurance, better fraud protection). Apparently grace periods aren't required by law here, so this might be common in other countries as well.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f2840a9a87b9e94321c55c5533ece66",
"text": "Your question is based on a false premise. Debit cards are more popular in the US than credit cards are. Indeed it seems to be the non-US part of the world that is big in credit cards. See here for example",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee7f43ee585e6ce72415a9fbc96d715f",
"text": "\"Personally, I use my credit cards for everything because I get reward points (or, cash back, depending on the card), and I build credit history. I've had credit cards since I was 18 (now 22), and my credit score is in the higher end 700s which I'm told is pretty good for my age. Additionally, since I put my rent and large purchases on my credit card, I have a lot of reward points. I use these to buy things I wouldn't normally buy to try them out and see if they bring any value into my life. If not, I didn't really lose anything, but I have found value in some of those things. I realize most of this is gamification and consumerism at play, but getting that extra little thing once in a while for \"\"free\"\" which is pretty nice.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e",
"text": "",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "593a607429bbea53a8c549008657a60f",
"text": "\"The real reason credit cards are so popular in the US is that Americans are lazy and broke, and the credit card companies know how to market to that. Have you ever heard of the $30k millionaires? These were individuals that purchased as if they were some of the wealthy elite, but had no real money to back it up. American society has pushed the idea of \"\"living on credit\"\" for quite some time now. An idea that is even furthered by watching the US government operate solely on credit. (Raise the debt ceiling much?) Live in America for more than six months and you will be bombarded with \"\"Pre-Approved Deals\"\" with low introductory rates that are designed to sucker the average consumer into opening multiple accounts that they don't need. Then, they try and get you to carry a balance by allowing low minimum payments that could take in the neighborhood of 20 years to pay off, depending on carried balance. This in turn pads the credit companies' pockets with all of the interest you now pay on the account. The few truly wealthy Americans do not purchase on credit.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f4f5ccd002c0ea3835d23221194ca816",
"text": "Credit card fraud protection (by law), credit card cash back programs (provided by most CC issuers), and debit card fees (commonly imposed by the merchant). The crux is that with CC transactions, a small percentage is remitted to the issuing bank. Since the banks are already making money hand over fist on CC's, they incentivize people to use them. CC security is also lax because the merchant is responsible for fraudulent charges instead of the bank. If the merchant fails to check a signature, they are held liable for all charges if the card holder reports a fraudulent transaction.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "74a87d751a1ab73ea40a716c13379be4",
"text": "People have credit cards for various reasons depending upon their personal situation and uses You don't need to have a Credit Card if you don't have a reason to. But most people do.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2786cbf4423fa30dc7a0d1cbed87a1a5",
"text": "If you are in the U.S., without credit cards, you probably don't have a credit history. Without a credit history, you won't be able to get a loan/mortgage, and even if you do, you'll get it on very unfavorable terms. Depending on where you live you might even have great difficulty renting an apartment. So, the most important reason to have credit cards is to have a good credit score. People have already listed other advantages of having credit cards, but another thing that wasn't mentioned is fraud protection. Credit cards are better protected against fraud than debit cards. You probably shouldn't use debit cards online unless you must. Also, without a credit card or credit history, some simple and important liberties like renting a car while you are travelling might be denied to you. So, in conclusion, it's bizarre, but in modern America you need credit cards, and you need them bad.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "50b54ee0f2d50fba4547d1c2c497b452",
"text": "A debit card takes the funds right from your account. There's no 'credit' issued along the way. The credit card facilitates a short term loan. If you are a pay-in-full customer, as I am, there's a cost to lend the money, but we're not paying it. It's part of the fee charged to the merchant. Thus the higher transaction cost.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "201215f5a28ef482514c43dc2665a62c",
"text": "Early on, one might not be able to get credit for their business. For convenience, and the card perks, it makes sense to use the personal card. But for sake of a clean paper trail, I'd choose 1 card and use it exclusively, 100% for the business. Not one card here, one card there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d2f8e0cbddaab8964e4cd5e7221ccf6",
"text": "You must understand that not everyone has or can get credit cards. Consider that those who are in the the lowest 20-30% of income tend to have fewer credit cards (or none), and lower credit debt, although some have quite high credit card debt relative to their income. So you really aren't comparing the same demographics (the population of all income earners, used to calculate average income, and the population of all credit card debt holders, are not the same groups of people). Once you remove those folks from consideration, then credit card usage may still average higher, but accept that it is unusual for people making less than $20K-30K/year to have much credit card debt. You must understand that wealth and income are two very different (although related) concepts. One must note that there are millions of people in the U.S. who have wealth; they have net assets of over $1M (excluding their homes). Many of those folks have assets greatly exceeding $1M. And although it might seem foolish to carry a large balance on their credit cards, they may have quite low interest rates, and simply find it simpler and more convenient to use credit cards in lieu of personal loans. Suppose you have $2M in net assets, and want to buy a classic car or a diamond necklace. Charging $30K and carrying the balance until a dividend check arrives may make sense. Understand also that not everyone makes the same choices, or good choices. Carrying a credit card balance may appear like a poor choice, especially when you are not wealthy, or have lower income. But suppose you have a high credit limit across several cards, and you need to handle a short-term financial challenge (car repair, layoff, medical bills, etc). You might use the credit card to pay for that purchase, essentially financing an extraordinary event over a longer period of time. And although having a balance of more than 5-10% of your monthly income may seem foolish to some, it may make sense to others. And some people choose to carry balances of 50% to 100% of their credit limit. Others realize that keeping their credit utilization below 30%, 20%, or 10% of the credit limit is a better plan (both interest rate and risk wise).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd1e20b22fa6c68b8901990ba6ef6ff1",
"text": "One thing that has not been pointed out as a disadvantage of using Credit Cards: people tend to spend more. You can see This Study, and this one, plus about 500 others. On average people tend to spend about 17% more with credit cards then with cash. This amount dwarphs any perks one gets by having a credit card. The safest way to use one is to only use them for purchases where you cannot make a decision to spend more. One example would be for utility bills (that don't charge a fee) or at the gas pump. Using them at Amazon might have you upgrade your purchase or add some extra items. Using them at restaurants might encourage you to order an extra drink or two. Using them at the coffee shop might have you super size your coffee or add a pastry. Of course this extra spending could lead you into a debt cycle exacerbating the financial hit many struggle with. Please tread carefully if you decide to use them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1c2e7a012cf98e72641115df9ad2d8bf",
"text": "A few reasons make sense: They have a defined process for rentals, risk assessment, and customer credit. Especially for a large corporation, making changes to that process is not trivial, adds risk/uncertainty, and will be costly. Such changes for a relatively small customer base might not makes sense. Many rental companies DO allow you to rent with a debit card. Why do some businesses take cash only? With a debit card, there is no third party guarantee. With a credit card, the cash is coming from a well-established third party who will pay (assuming no disputes) and has a well-established history of paying. Even if the merchant holds your account, it is still your cash under the control of you and your bank until the deposit clears the merchants bank. It is not surprising they view that as more risk and potentially not worth hassling with debit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b7deb81ad4a582eb5faa70ec1ea7087",
"text": "\"I don't know, but I can guess. You'll notice the Elite card has higher rewards. A card might want to convince merchants that they represent high end buyers, and use that to negotiate higher merchant discounts. Issuing bank: \"\"Our 10 million card holders are sophisticated and have lots of discretionary income. If you don't agree to this rate, we'll terminate the contract and they will take their business elsewhere.\"\" Merchant: \"\"But it's twice the rate of everyone else! I'm sure these customers have other means of payment, and besides, how many of those card holders are actually using it?\"\" Issuing bank: \"\"Our cardholders signal their interest in the benefits of cardholding by paying us an annual fee. If they didn't want one, they'd stop paying right? They clearly know they have one and our records indicate they use them regularly. We're pretty sure if you don't wise up they'll shop at your biggest competitor, another client of ours. pause Frankly, they already do.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2c2fadd0a3d14a203908b8eeb433eb2c",
"text": "My view is from the Netherlands, a EU country. Con: Credit cards are more risky. If someone finds your card, they can use it for online purchases without knowing any PIN, just by entering the card number, expiration date, and security code on the back. Worse, sometimes that information is stored in databases, and those get stolen by hackers! Also, you can have agreed to do periodic payments on some website and forgot about them, stopped using the service, and be surprised about the charge later. Debit cards usually need some kind of device that requires your PIN to do online payments (the ones I have in the Netherlands do, anyway), and automated periodic payments are authorized at your bank where you can get an overview of the currently active ones. Con: Banks get a percentage of each credit card payment. Unlike debit cards where companies usually pay a tiny fixed fee for each transaction (of, say, half a cent), credit card payments usually cost them a percentage and it comes to much more, a significant part of the profit margin. I feel this is just wrong. Con: automatic monthly payment can come at an unexpected moment With debit cards, the amount is withdrawn immediately and if the money isn't there, you get an error message allowing you to pay some other way (credit card after all, other bank account, cash, etc). When a recent monthly payment from my credit card was due to be charged from my bank account recently, someone else had been paid from it earlier that day and the money wasn't there. So I had to pay interest, on something I bought weeks ago... Pro: Credit cards apparently have some kind of insurance. I've never used this and don't know how it works, but apparently you can get your money back easily after fraudulent charges. Pro: Credit cards can be more easily used internationally for online purchases I don't know how it is with Visa or MC-issued debit cards, but many US sites accept only cards that have number/expiration date/security code and thus my normal bank account debit card isn't useable. Conclusion: definitely have one, but only use it when absolutely necessary.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4571505cd5e76a598b1090e109add091",
"text": "\"A lot of credit card companies these days uses what they call \"\"daily interest\"\" where they charge the interest rate for the number of days till you pay off what you spent. This allows them to make more money than the \"\"period billing\"\". The idea of credit, theoretically, is that there isn't really a day when you can borrow without paying interest - in theory\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1eb37df8d834d9a541269b26ec8971da",
"text": "\"Some features to be aware of are: How you prioritize these features will depend on your specific circumstances. For instance, if your credit score is poor, you may have to choose among cards you can get with that score, and not have much choice on other dimensions. If you frequently travel abroad, a low or zero foreign transaction fee may be important; if you never do, it probably doesn't matter. If you always pay the balance in full, interest rate is less important than it is if you carry a balance. If you frequently travel by air, an airline card may be useful to you; if you don't, you may prefer some other kind of rewards, or cash back. Cards differ along numerous dimensions, especially in the \"\"extra benefits\"\" area, which is often the most difficult area to assess, because in many cases you can't get a full description of these extra benefits until after you get the card. A lot of the choice depends on your personal preferences (e.g., whether you want airline miles, rewards points of some sort, or cash back). Lower fees and interest rates are always better, but it's up to you to decide if a higher fee of some sort outweighs the accompanying benefits (e.g., a better rewards rate). A useful site for finding good offers is NerdWallet.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e784704c3b25e8a50f9d966eca4af8fc",
"text": "The dollar is the reserve currency of choice because the full faith and credit of the US is big, liquid, and stable compared to any currently-available alternative. The Euro and Yuan are big enough to displace the dollar (and maybe the Yen), but any fears about the dollar being subject to fickle whims of politics and policy are significantly worse with those options.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1a6eca859a7f7153d84029bc32cdfaff",
"text": "There are numerous reasons that go beyond the immediate requirement for access to credit. Many people just plain don't like carrying cash. Before electronic debit cards became mainstream about the only way to pay for online services was with a credit card. This has now changed just about everywhere except a large number of airlines which still only sell online tickets via a credit card payment. And then there are all those countries where governments (and some banks) have decided to charge merchants more when customers use debit cards. If you don't like carrying cash then you may find that the only card you can use is a credit card. These concerns are gradually disappearing and at some stage someone is likely to offer a combined debit-credit card. At which point you'll probably get credit whether you like it or not.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d905851f6af654a18f454d523e3f11ce",
"text": "If we're including psychological considerations, then the question becomes much more complicated: will having a higher available credit increase the temptation to spend? Will eliminating 100% of a small debt provide more positive reinforcement than paying off 15% of a larger debt? Etc. If we're looking at the pure financial impact, the question is simpler. The only advantage I see to prioritizing the lower interest card is the float: when you buy something on a credit card, interest is often calculated for that purchase starting at the beginning of the next billing cycle, rather than immediately from the purchase date. I'm not clear on what policies credit card companies have on giving float for credit cards with a carried balance, so you should look into what your card's policy is. Other than than, paying off the higher interest rate card is better than paying off the lower interest rate. On top of that, you should look into whether you qualify for any of the following options (presented from best to worst):",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "777609ebf107f439f7d88abfd8f47406",
"text": "\"In the end, all these fees hurt the average consumer, since the merchant ultimately passes cost to consumer. Savvy consumers can stay at par or get ahead, if they put in the effort. It's a pain, but I rotate between 4 cards depending on time of year and type of purchase, to optimize cash back. My cards are: 1. 5% rewards card on certain categories, rotates each quarter 2. 2% travel/dining card (fee card, but I travel a bunch so it's worth it, no foreign transaction fees) 3. 1.5% rewards card for everything else 4. Debit card (swiped as a CC) for small purchases (i.e. lunches) at credit union for \"\"enhanced\"\" high interest checking account, requiring certain # swipes/month. This alone returns to me ~$800/yr.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b37f9dc5c1fed79c792009c54e8eb3a9
|
Confused about employee stock options: How do I afford these?
|
[
{
"docid": "90512f4200d2dbfe7388c6c55dcfd14a",
"text": "ISOs (incentive stock options) can be closed out in a cashless transaction. Say the first round vests, 25,000 shares. The stock is worth $7 but your option is to buy at $5 as you say. The broker executes and sells, you get $50,000, with no up front money. Edit based on comment below - you know they vest over 4 years, but how long before they expire? It stands to reason the longer you are able to hold them, the better a chance the company succeeds, and the price rises. The article Understanding employer-granted stock options (PDF) offers a nice discussion of different scenarios supporting my answer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fa4a0c6adca42d26c09ea9e94ba3ad8f",
"text": "I've been offered a package that includes 100k stock options at 5 dollars a share. They vest over 4 years at 25% a year. Does this mean that at the end of the first year, I'm supposed to pay for 25,000 shares? Wouldn't this cost me 125,000 dollars? I don't have this kind of money. At the end of the first year, you will generally have the option to pay for the shares. Yes, this means you have to use your own money. You generally dont have to buy ANY until the whole option vests, after 4 years in your case, at which point you either buy, or you are considered 'vested' (you have equity in the company without buying) or the option expires worthless, with you losing your window to buy into the company. This gives you plenty of opportunity to evaluate the company's growth prospects and viability over this time. Regarding options expiration the contract can have an arbitrarily long expiration date, like 17 years. You not having the money or not isn't a consideration in this matter. Negotiate a higher salary instead. I've told several companies that I don't want their equity despite my interest in their business model and product. YMMV. Also, options can come with tax consequences, or none at all. its not a raw deal but you need to be able to look at it objectively.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e",
"text": "",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d7b4e34b04275f2d36fcb863c7e5b369",
"text": "Stock options represent an option to buy a share at a given price. What you have been offered is the option to buy the company share at a given price ($5) starting a given date (your golden handcuffs aka vesting schedule). If the company's value doubles in 1 year and the shares are liquid (i.e. you can sell them) then you've just made $125k of profit. If the company's value has gone to zero in 1 year then you've lost nothing other than your hopes of getting rich. As others have mentioned, the mechanics of exercising the option and selling the shares can typically be accomplished without any cash involved. The broker will do both in a single transaction and use the proceeds of the sale to pay the cost of buying the shares. You should always at least cover the taxable portion of the transaction and typically the broker will withhold that tax anyways. Otherwise you could find yourself in a position where you have actually lost money due to tax being owed while the shares decline in value below that tax. You don't have to worry about that right now. Again as people have mentioned options will typically expire 10 years from vesting or 90 days from leaving your employment with the company. I'm sure there are some variations on the theme. Make sure you ask and all this should be part of some written contract. I'm sure you can ask to see it if you wish. Also typical is that stock option grants have to be approved by the board which is normally a technicality. Some general advice:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b0359df06ef90d420150cbeabc9b9573",
"text": "the short answer is: No. you do not HAVE to pay $125,000.00 at the end of your first year. that is only the amount IF you decide to exercise. *fine print: But if you leave or get let go (which happens quite frequently at top tier Silicon Valley firms), you lose anything that you don't exercise. you're basically chained by a pair of golden handcuffs. in other words, you're stuck with the company until a liquidation event such as IPO or secondary market selling (you can expect to spend a few years before getting anything out of your stocks) Now, it's hard to say whether or not to exercise at that time, especially given we don't know the details of the company. you only should exercise if you foresee your quitting, anticipate getting fired, AND you strongly feel that stock price will keep going up. if you're in SF bay, i believe you have 10 years until your options expire (at which point they are gone forever, but that's 10 years and usually companies IPO well within 7 years). i would recommend you get a very good tax advisor (someone that understands AMT and stock options tax loopholes/rules like the back of their hand). I'm going to take a long shot and assume that you got an amazing offer and that you got a massive amount of ISOs from them. so i'll give this as an advice - first, congrats on owning a lot on paper today if you're still there. you chose to be an early employee at a good tech company. However, you should be more worried about AMT (alternative min tax). you will get enslaved by the IRS if you exercise your shares and can't pay the AMT. suppose, in your fictional scenario, your stock options increase 2x, on paper. you now own $1 Mil in options. but you would be paying $280000 in taxes if you chose to exercise them right now. Now, unless you can sell that IMMEDIATELY on the secondary market, i would highly advise you not to exercise right now. only exercise your ISOs when you can turn around and sell them (either waiting for IPO, or if company offers secondary market approved trading).",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e9619275e16102219ffacde6ce2da256",
"text": "Par value SHOULD mean that they are offering you the options with a strike price (exercise price) that is equivalent to the current valuation of the company. Note I said SHOULD. As long as you can confirm with HR (or if you're small enough, just ask the CEO) that your grant price is the same as the current valuation of the company's shares, then things are straight. And while it's very unlikely that someone is doing Something Sneaky, it's always possible. As a reference, my recent grant letter said: [Company] (the “Company”) hereby grants you the following Option to purchase shares of its common stock (“Shares”). The terms and conditions of this Option are set forth in the Stock Option Agreement and the [Company] 2013 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), both of which are attached to and made a part of this document.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "76ba232784fe8f7278b91b3212d6596d",
"text": "You didn't give enough information. What is your goal? What is your financial situation? A discount to buy company stock can seem very tempting. I was tempted by it myself, gee, almost 20 years ago. I still own some of the stock. But I held mutual funds first. There are two disadvantages that have disuaded me from partaking in the ESPP of my subsequent employers (one of which was a spin-out company of the stock-issuing company, the other having bought the spin-out). First, putting a bunch of money in a single stock is rather risky. single stocks will drop dramatically due to market conditions. Generally market conditions don't act so dramatically on all stock. Second, is it wise to put not only your salary but also your saved wealth all in one basket? It worked out reasonably well for me. The stock doubled right before my division was spun out -- I sold half of my position. And the resulting stock has continued to provide opportunities to diversify. However, it could have just as easily dropped in half instead of doubled. What is your timeline for holding the stock -- for realizing any gain? Can you afford patience if the stock value should drop in half? I have co-workers who continue to invest through our new company's ESPP. At least one co-worker has the stated goal to sell after every purchase -- he holds the stock long enough to make a long-term gain instead of short term, but he sells after every purchase. And it seems to him that the stock always drops right when he wants to sell.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a67a6ab7b645e0b531b9bf3203845161",
"text": "\"You might consider working on getting your new employer to sponsor a 401k, there may be options where you can invest and they aren't required to add anything as a match (which gives you higher limits). If they don't match, they may just be liable for some administration fees. If you have any side business that you do, you might also be eligible for other \"\"self-employed\"\" options that have higher limits (SEP, Simple - I think they may go up to $15k) although, I'm not sure the nitty gritties of them.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "59124ea66bbedf0f81f3198152140671",
"text": "I don't know what restrictions are put on the average employee at your company. In my case, we were told we were not permitted to either short the stock, or to trade in it options. That said, I was successful shorting the exact number of shares I'd be buying at the 6 month close, the same day the purchase price would be set. I then requested transfer of the stock purchase to my broker where the long and short netted to zero. The return isn't 15%, it's 100/85 or 17.6% for an average 3 months they have your money. So do the math on APR. (Higher if the stock has risen over 6 months and you get the lower price from 6 months prior.) My method was riskless, as far as I am concerned. I did this a dozen times. The stock itself was +/- 4% by the time the shares hit, so in the end it was an effort, mostly to sleep better. I agree with posts suggesting the non-zero risk of a 20% 4 day drop.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "58fee466a1611be7e3a36f466ff3a5b7",
"text": "\"Equity could mean stock options. If that's the case if the company makes it big, you'll have the option to buy stocks cheap (which can then be sold at a huge profit) How are you going to buy those without income? 5% equity is laughable. I'd be looking for 30-40% if not better without salary. Or even better, a salary. To elaborate, 5% is fine, and even normal for an early employee taking a mild pay cut in exchange for a chance at return. That chance of any return on the equity is only about 1/20 (94% of startups fail) There is no reason for an employee to work for no pay. An argument could be made for a cofounder, with direct control and influence in the company to work for equity only, but it would be a /lot/ more (that 30-40%), or an advisory role (5% is reasonable) I also just noticed you mentioned \"\"investing\"\" in the startup with cash. As an angel investor, I'd still expect far more than 5%, and preferred shares at that. More like 16-20%. Read this for more info on how equity is usually split.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e03ee94d9b1ed2237199cb7764bd1908",
"text": "Does this technically mean that she has to pay AMT on $400,000? Yes. Well, not exactly 400,000. She paid $1 per share, so 390,000. And if so, is %28 the AMT for this sum? (0.28 * $400,000 = $112,000)? Or does she have to include her salary on top of that before calculating AMT? (Suppose in the fake example that her salary is $100,000 after 401k). All her income is included in calculating the AMT, minus the AMT exemption amount. The difference between the regular calculated tax and the calculated AMT is then added to the regular tax. Note that some deductions allowed for the regular calculation are not allowed for the AMT calculation. How does California state tax come into play for this? California has its own AMT rules, and in California any stock option exercise is subject to AMT, unless you sell the stock in the same year. Here's a nice and easy to understand write up on the issue from the FTB. When would she have to pay the taxes for this huge AMT? Tax is due when income is received (i.e.: when you exercise the options). However, most people don't actually pay the tax then, but rather discover the huge tax liability when they prepare to submit their tax return on April 15th. To avoid that, I'd suggest trying to estimate the tax and adjust your withholding using form W4 so that by the end of the year you have enough withheld. Suppose in the worst case, the company goes completely under. Does she get her massive amounts of tax back? Or if it's tax credit, where can I find more info on this? That would be capital loss, and only up to $3K a year of capital loss can be deducted from the general income. So it will continue offsetting other capital gains or being deducted $3K a year until it all clears out. Is there any way to avoid this tax? (Can she file an 83b election?) You asked and answered. Yes, filing 83(b) election is the way to go to avoid this situation. This should be done within 30 days of the grant, and submitted to the IRS, and a copy attached to the tax return of the grant year. However, if you're considering exercise - that ship has likely sailed a long time ago. Any advice for Little Susie on how she can even afford to pay that much tax on something she can't even sell anytime soon? Don't exercise the options? Should she take out a loan? (e.g. I've heard that in the extreme case, you can find angel investors who are willing to pay all your taxes/strike price, but want 50% of your equity? I've also heard that you can sell your illiquid shares on SecondMarket?) Is she likely to get audited by IRS for pulling something like this? You can take a loan secured by shares you own, there's nothing illegal in it. If you transfer your shares - the IRS only cares about the taxes being paid, however that may be illegal depending on the terms and the conditions of the grant. You'll need to talk to a lawyer about your situation. I suggest talking to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) about the specifics concerning your situation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "43f5f0ff7d12fa5c9f382dac08ecce0f",
"text": "The broker that is issuing the moneys after vesting is more than likely deducting a notional amount of tax and NI based on UK income tax laws. If you are not a UK resident, then you should pay income tax on those stock options based on your own tax residency. Best thing to do is speak directly with the broker to explain the situation, ask them to not deduct anything from your stock options - but keep in mind that you will need to declare these earnings yourself and pay the correct rate of tax. From my own personal experience, the UK employer more than likely receives the net value (after the notional tax and NI have been deducted) and in usual circumstances create a tax liability on your payslip (if you were working and had earnings). If of course this deduction is being made by the employer, then you can simply ask them to correct this (most UK payroll software will automatically deduct tax and NI for payments after leaving unless manually intervened, so they probably aren't aware if it is them doing so).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c356e65fae1f20d399d29664a93e6301",
"text": "Here's the best explanation I found relating to why your T4 box 39 might not have an amount filled in, even when box 38 has one: Department of Finance – Explanatory Notes Relating to the Income Tax Act [...]. It's a long document, but here's the part I believe relevant, with my emphasis: Employee Stock Options ITA 110(1) [...] Paragraph 110(1)(d) is amended to include a requirement that the employee [...] exercise the employee’s rights under the stock option agreement and acquire the securities underlying the agreement in order for the deduction in computing taxable income to be available [...] ensures that only one deduction is available in respect of an employment benefit. In other words, if employee stock option rights are surrendered to an employer for cash or an in-kind payment, then (subject to new subsections 110(1.1) and (1.2)) the employer may deduct the payment but the employee cannot claim the stock option deduction. Conversely, where an employer issues securities pursuant to an employee’s exercise of stock options, the employer can not deduct an amount in respect of the issuance, but the employee may be eligible to claim a deduction under paragraph 110(1)(d). Did you receive real shares based on your participation in the ESPP, or did you get a cash payment for the net value of shares you would have been issued under the plan? From what I can tell, if you opted for a cash payment (or if your plan only allows for such), then the part I emphasized comes into play. Essentially, if conditions were such that your employer could claim a deduction on their corporate income tax return for the compensation paid to you as part of the plan, then you are not also able to claim a similar deduction on your personal income tax return. The money received in that manner is effectively taxed in your hands the same as any bonus employment income would be; i.e. it isn't afforded tax treatment equivalent to capital gains income. Your employer and/or ESPP administrator are best able to confirm the conditions which led to no amount in your box 39, but at least based on above you can see there are legitimate cases where box 38 would have an amount while box 39 doesn't.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e5596aaa914b3cd07b025cc9086d4f7a",
"text": "\"An option is a financial instrument instrument that gives you the right, but not the obligation, to do some transaction in the future at a given price. An employee stock option is a kind of \"\"call option\"\" -- it gives you the right, but not the obligation, to buy the stock at a certain price (the \"\"exercise price\"\", usually set as the price of the stock when the option was granted). The idea is that you would \"\"exercise\"\" the option (buy the stock at the given price as provided by the option), if the value of the stock is higher than the exercise price, and not if it is lower. The option is gifted to you. But that does not mean you get any stock. If and when you choose to exercise the option, you would buy the stock with your own money. At what time you can exercise the option (and how many shares you can exercise at a given time) will be specified in the agreement. Usually, you can only exercise a particular share after it has \"\"vested\"\" (according to some vesting schedule), and you lose the ability to exercise after you no longer work for the company (plus perhaps a grace period), or after the option expires.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a9a386b0ff469670b9d2e0c2463f5e34",
"text": "You probably will not find to many places if any that give you live quotes on options because for the general public there is not that high of a demand. Most people do not even know what stock options are. You can get update on some sites like CNBC, but you will have refresh constantly to get the latest option prices. You can also try an online broker, most of whom will let you have access to their tools and quotes if you sign up for an account. Some require a deposit before you can access those tools and some don't. Personally, I use TD Ameritrade and I do not believe they require a deposit to use their tools, but don't quote me on that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a9d932f7e317e965f944a41ec48a41d",
"text": "I can make that election to pay taxes now (even though they aren't vested) based on the dollar value at the time they are granted? That is correct. You must file the election with the IRS within 30 days after the grant (and then attach a copy to that year's tax return). would I not pay any taxes on the gains because I already claimed them as income? No, you claim income based on the grant value, the gains after that are your taxable capital gains. The difference is that if you don't use 83(b) election - that would not be capital gains, but rather ordinary salary income. what happens if I quit / get terminated after paying taxes on un-vested shares? Do I lose those taxes, or do I get it back in a refund next year? Or would it be a deduction next year? You lose these taxes. That's the risk you're taking. Generally 83(b) election is not very useful for RSUs of established public companies. You take a large risk of forfeited taxes to save the difference between capital gains and ordinary gains, which is not all that much. It is very useful when you're in a startup with valuations growing rapidly but stocks not yet publicly trading, which means that if you pay tax on vest you'll pay much more and won't have stocks to sell to cover for that, while the amounts you put at risk are relatively small.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "727f9d5e9d8d2eeb662eb94345ef72a2",
"text": "It would depend on the health insurance that was being offered, and if it covers your family or just you. We pay around $500-600 for individual health insurance for our employees (families cost north of 1500 a month). It's extremely expensive. Provide more details on the stock purchase plan as well (it sounds to me like in that case you'd only be getting for free what it would cost to purchase the stock... but that's only $10-15, so negligible in this case.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d566ddfa53fc8dedee7b7add94e91ae5",
"text": "I'm guessing you're talking about options given to employees. The company can issue stock options at whatever strike price it wants. The difference between the strike price and the actual market value is considered income to the employee. You can get the options at $0 strike just as well (although companies generally just give RSUs instead in this case).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8dd55b46d9c07218fb9f8baf97aa6c57",
"text": "There is Free employer money on both sides of the tax fence for some employees. On the pretax side, your employer may provide you a match. If so, invest the maximum to get 100% of the match. On the after tax side, many companies offers a 15% discount on ESPP plans and a one year hold. My wife has such an employer. The one year hold is fine because it allows us to be taxed at Long Term Capital gains if the stock goes up which is lower than our current income bracket. After creating a seasoned pool of stocks that we could sell after the one year hold, we are then able to sell the same number of stocks purchased each month. This provides a 17.6% guaranteed gain on a monthly basis. How much would you purchase if you had a guaranteed 17.6% return. Our answer is 15% (our maximum allowed). The other trick is that while the employer is collecting the money, you will purchase the stock at the lowest day of the period. You will usually sell for even more than the purchase price unless the day purchased was the lowest day of month. The trick is to reinvest the money in tax free investments to balance out the pretax investing. Never leave the money in the plan. That is too much risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e0cf8987983f00b374283d45b82fb262",
"text": "You're right about FICA (I forgot it is calculated on gross income and not Adjusted Gross Income). State tax rate in that bracket still should be nominal or zero depending on the state. Sales tax... things cost what they cost. > Regardless, 70% of minimum wage isn't enough to cover a car, a child, a good vacation, a serious health care problem, an aging parent, or a modest retirement. Social safety nets are impossible to address via a minimum wage. You could make the minimum wage $30/hr and some people will still become bankrupt by our ridiculous healthcare system. Why not lobby for single-payer healthcare and a universal basic income like $1000/mo/adult and $500/mo/child?",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
5a722d124d0867c06239311c51a8598f
|
How can I find a checking account that allows for automated transfers of dynamic amounts?
|
[
{
"docid": "9d9b8106c6faa5826c974441dda0bf78",
"text": "Almost any financial institution has the technical ability to do this (simply called sweeps, auto sweeps, or deposit sweeps); the issue you face is finding an institution that is willing to do it for you. I think you will have the most luck at your primary financial institution where you currently keep the majority of your banking relationship. You will have better luck at small-town banks and credit unions. The mega banks will likely not waver from their established policies. Deposit sweeps are common for business accounts. They are usually tied to a savings account, which is usually held within the same institution, however this is not a requirement. The sweep can send money to any US bank if you can provide the routing number and account number. The sweep will establish a peg balance, or floor balance, on the checking account. At the end of the day, any amount above the peg is swept into the savings account automatically. I doubt you will find what you’re asking for within an online banking system. You will likely have to go into a branch and speak with a personal banker. Explain to them you want to establish a sweep on your checking account and want to send the funds to another financial institution. You will have better luck asking for a peg of $100, or some other small amount. They may not take your request seriously if you want to completely empty the checking account to zero.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e66a88b7cf69b7bdd8106cc680cc8d92",
"text": "\"I would suggest opening a bank account that you use to accept deposits only, and then get a system set up where it automatically transfers the money over to your main account. If not instantly it could transfer the money hourly or daily. Of course you would have to pay a premium for this \"\"peace of mind\"\" ;)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e73b8c9ad91cf3c650c89a14d2f62db",
"text": "Quicken has tools for this, but they have some quirks so i hesitate to actually recommend it on that basis.",
"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": "a01b8d2a8e4e272a5bb2dd7dd7d887e9",
"text": "http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/12/13/small-bank-in-kansas-is-a-financial-testing-ground/ Citizens Bank of Weir might allow you to do this, their experimentation in speeding up bank transfers was pushing money over the debit card network.",
"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": "58654a927a52b3436e6c0ccfaf535765",
"text": "Avoid talking to a person: Just use an automated system, such as an ATM or a cellphone app. Automated systems will ONLY scan for the RTN # and Account number at the bottom of the check (the funny looking blocky numbers). The automated system will not care who the check is made out to, or who is present, so long as you have an account to credit the money into, and the account number on the check can get the money debited properly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dbc64c870685d9d3c4e4e506ee4e6c5f",
"text": "I do know that a blank check has all the information they need for the electronic transfer. They probably add it as a customer service to streamline future payments. Though I don't think automatically adding it makes good business sense. It is possible that the form used to submit the check included a line to added the account to the list of authorized accounts. He might have been lucky he didn't set up a recurring payment. I would check the website to see if there is a tool to remove the account info from the list of payment options. There has to be a way to edit the list so that if you change banks you can update the information, yet not keep the old accounts on the list. Talk to customer service if the website doesn't have a way of removing the account. Tell them that you have to edit the account information. And give them your info. If they balk at the change tell them that they could be committing fraud if the money is pulled from an unauthorized account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "32cef36b284aa6cef14527c27cb8bca0",
"text": "\"The standard double-entry approach would just be to create a Liability account for the loan, and then make a transfer from that account to your Asset (Savings) account when the loan proceeds are distributed to you. After that point, the loan doesn't \"\"belong\"\" to your Savings account in any way. Each account and transaction is tracked separately. So, you might for instance pay that loan back with a transfer from your Checking account, even though the initial disbursement arrived into your Savings account. In order to see how much of a loan you have remaining, you need to look at the loan's Liability account to see what transactions occurred in it and what its remaining balance is. It sounds like what you're really trying to accomplish is the idea of \"\"earmarking\"\" or \"\"putting into an envelope\"\" certain assets for certain purposes. This kind of budgeting isn't really something that Gnucash excels at. It does have some budget features, but there's more about being able to see how actual expenses are to expected expenses for a reporting period, not about being able to ask \"\"How much 'discretionary' assets do I have left before I start hitting my 'emergency fund'\"\". The closest you get is splitting up your asset accounts into subaccounts as you suggest, in which case you can \"\"allocate\"\" funds for your specific purposes and make transfers between them as needed. That can work well enough depending on your exact goals, though it can sometimes make it a little trickier to reconcile with your actual bank statements. But there's not really an accounting reason to associate the \"\"emergency fund\"\" portion of your assets with the remaining balance of your loan; though there's nothing stopping you from doing so if that's what you're trying to do. Accounting answers questions like \"\"How much have I spent on X in the past?\"\" and \"\"How much do I own right now?\"\". If you want to ask \"\"How much am I allowed to spend on X right now?\"\" or \"\"Am I likely to run out of money soon?\"\", you may want a budgeting tool rather than an accounting tool.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "336b6996b017bb551981361ee8664699",
"text": "You don't mention how much money you are talking about but one option is to use reward checking accounts that are FDIC/NCUA insured. They pay 3-4% interest but generally have a few requirements such as 10-12 debit card transactions and sometimes require direct deposit as well as a limit of 10-50k deposits earning the top rate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3bbda03f837541c501058d5c2e9831a5",
"text": "Given your needs, GNUcash will do swimmingly. I've used it for the past 3 years and while it's a gradual learning process, it's been able to resolve most stuff I've thrown at it. Schedule bills and deposits in the calendar view so I can keep an eye on cash flow. GNUcash has scheduled payments and receipts and reconcilation, should you need them. I prefer to keep enough float to cover monthly expenses in accounts rather than monitor potential shortfalls. Track all my stock and mutual fund investments across numerous accounts. It pulls stock, mutual and bond quotes from lots of places, domestic and foreign. It can also pull transaction data from your brokers, if they support that. I manually enter all my transactions so I can keep control of them. I just reconcile what I entered into Quicken based on the statements sent to me. I do not use Quicken's bill pay There's a reconciliation mode, but I don't use it personally. The purpose of reconcilation is less about catching bank errors and more about agreeing on the truth so that you don't incur bank fees. When I was doing this by hand I found I had a terrible data entry error rate, but on the other hand, the bayesian importer likes to mark gasoline purchases from the local grocery store as groceries rather than gas. I categorize all my expenditures for help come tax time. GNUcash has accounts, and you can mark expense accounts as tax related. It also generates certain tax forms for you if you need that. Not sure what all you're categorizing that's helpful at tax time though. I use numerous reports including. Net Worth tracking, Cash not is retirement funds and total retirement savings. Tons of reports, and the newest version supports SQL backends if you prefer that vs their reports.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c7310340478610eea3f1d4b154baaf6",
"text": "\"As far as I can tell there are no \"\"out-of-the-box\"\" solutions for this. Nor will Moneydance or GnuCash give you the full solution you are looking for. I imaging people don't write a well-known, open-source, tool that will do this for fear of the negative uses it could have, and the resulting liability. You can roll-you-own using the following obscure tools that approximate a solution: First download the bank's CSV information: http://baruch.ev-en.org/proj/gnucash.html That guy did it with a perl script that you can modify. Then convert the result to OFX for use elsewhere: http://allmybrain.com/2009/02/04/converting-financial-csv-data-to-ofx-or-qif-import-files/\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a5d470327994078ddafe263e20ca5f4",
"text": "I use a hack to do this sort of thing: I have an ING Direct online bank account. I link both of bank accounts I want to transfer between to the ING Direct account. I transfer between them by moving money to ING direct and then from there to wherever. Any online bank that let's you link regular checking accounts would work for this.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "63a67f5bb1b9d088d1ba19fb30343e94",
"text": "\"Yes, that's all they do. It's effectively an \"\"automatic saving/investing\"\" program. Bank of America does something similar with \"\"Keep the Change\"\", transferring the leftovers from checking to savings. The basic concept here is that people are lousy at saving, so if you put money into savings/investments in some way that is not in your control, it will be better than if you do it under your control even if it costs something because you're going to spend whatever your checking account balance is - so if that balance is artificially reduced, you'll not spend that money and instead have it in savings. This may be effective for some people, I don't know. Not something I would touch with a ten foot pole.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd33cf6470421860ee098c213b08e658",
"text": "\"I opened several free checking accounts at a local credit union. One is a \"\"Deposit\"\" account where all of my new money goes. I get paid every two weeks. Every other Sunday we have our \"\"Money Day\"\" where we allocate the money from our Deposit account into our other checking accounts. I have one designated as a Bills account where all of my bills get paid automatically via bill pay or auto-pay. I created a spreadsheet that calculates how much to save each Money Day for all of my upcoming bills. This makes it so the amount I save for my bills is essentially equal. Then I allocate the rest of my deposit money into my other checking accounts. I have a Grocery, Household, and Main checking accounts but you could use any combination that you want. When we're at the store we check our balances (how much we have left to spend) on our mobile app. We can't overspend this way. The key is to make sure you're using your PIN when you use your debit card. This way it shows up in real-time with your credit union and you've got an accurate balance. This has worked really well to coordinate spending between me and my wife. It sounds like it's a lot of work but it's actually really automated. The best part is that I don't have to do any accounting which means my budget doesn't fail if I'm not entering my transactions or categorizing them. I'm happy to share my spreadsheet if you'd like.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3c3423be0fdb44cbd018bfe813fda469",
"text": "ACH transfers are reversible and traceable. So what's stopping them is the ease and the speed with which they would be caught. When you give a check - you have to provide some information to the payee so that they could cash it. You can't withhold the bank or the account number - how would they charge you? So it has to be on it, and if it is on it - it can be put on any other (fake) check. That is why checks come also with your signature, and are always available for you to inspect when they're cashed. If you notice something out of the ordinary (check you didn't give? ACH transfer you didn't authorize?) on your statement - it is your responsibility to notify the bank within X period of time (60 days, I think) of the statement, and it will be dealt with. So the best way to protect yourself would be to keep an eye on your account and verify that the transactions that you see are all authorized, and do it frequently. Keeping large amounts of cash on your checking account is never a good idea, regardless. Also, since checks are inherently unsafe - try to only give checks to people you trust, and use bill-pay or credit cards with anyone else.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
c63bc7eeb71bf80ee3bc8562e841f529
|
How do third-party banks issue car loans?
|
[
{
"docid": "ac5e3eceb0f3f7efed7542521895e212",
"text": "I have gotten a letter of credit from my credit union stating the maximum amount I can finance. Of course I don't show the dealer the letter until after we have finalized the deal. I Then return in 3 business days with a cashiers check for the purchase price. In one case since the letter was for an amount greater then the purchase price I was able drive the car off the lot without having to make a deposit. In another case they insisted on a $100 deposit before I drove the car off the lot. I have also had them insist on me applying for their in-house loan, which was cancelled when I returned with the cashiers check. The procedure was similar regardless If I was getting a loan from the credit union, or paying for the car without the use of a loan. The letter didn't say how much was loan, and how much was my money. Unless you know the exact amount, including all taxes and fees,in advance you can't get a check in advance. If you are using a loan the bank/credit Union will want the car title in their name.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af8b96a7087be6ba42486f0208c688a7",
"text": "I have had it two way now: I got pre-approval from my credit union which just so happened to be one of the bigger vehicle lenders in the metro area. What I found out was that the dealership (which was one of the bigger ones in the metro area) had a computer system that looked up my deal with the credit union. Basically, I signed some contracts and the CU and the dealership did whatever paperwork they needed to without me. I bought a used car and drove it off of the lot that night, and I didn't ever go back (for anything financial) Both my wife and her sister received blank checks that were valid up to a certain amount. In the case of my sister in law, she signed the check, the dealership called to confirm funds and she drove off. In the case of my wife, she ended up negotiating a better deal with dealer finance, but I was assured she only had to sign the check, get it verified and drive the car home.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "70e04ae623489ace987557576c29b943",
"text": "Banks can't simply make loans in the void. This is how the cash flow works, generally: 1. Depositers *add* cash into the bank. The Bank now has cash. 10% of that cash is held on *reserve* per law. This cash is held on the balance sheet as an *asset* (cash) *and a liability* (demand deposits). 2. Someone requests a loan. The loan is funded from the non-reserved cash of these deposits. This results in a lessening of an asset (cash), and the creation of a new asset (loan). 3. Traditionally, as the debtor pays back the loan, the interest is distributed in some sort of split between the bank and the depositors. This means cash in from the loan and interest, and a liability (deposits) also go up. 4. Alternatively, while the above still happens, the bank can *securitize* the loan and sell that to investors. Investors then get access to the loan and its income, and the bank collects a fee. However, this means more cash on hand for the bank to originate additional loans without going near the reserve requirement. If a bank extends too many loans and its reserve is threatened, it must borrow either from the fed or from other banks. These loans must be paid back.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "66e6381d2dc24069e7834a8319e6a8e8",
"text": "Generally these are public companies set up to do some particular thing and get revenue from use. And yes, the elected representatives signed the municpalities on to these things. If you co-sign a loan, sooner or later you may have to pay up.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "386d8e8e3af1fcae3812eb9ea29282c0",
"text": "\"They don't actually need to. They accept deposits for historical reasons and because they make money doing so, but there's nothing key to their business that requires them to do so. Here's a decent summary, but I'll explain in great detail below. By making loans, banks create money. This is what we mean when we say the monetary supply is endogenous. (At least if you believe Sir Mervyn King, who used to run England's central bank...) The only real checks on this are regulatory--capitalization requirements and reserve requirements, which impose a sort of tax on a bank's circulating loans. I'll get into that later. Let's start with Why should you believe that story--that loans create deposits? It seems like a bizarre assertion. But it actually matches how banks behave in practice. If you go borrow money from a bank, the loan officer will do many things. She'll want to look at your credit history. She'll want to look at your income and assets. She'll want to look at what kind of collateral or guarantees you're providing that the loan will be repaid. What she will not do is call down to the vaults and make sure that there's enough bills stacked up for them to lend out. Loans are judged based on a profitability function determined by the interest rate and the loan risk. If those add up to \"\"profitable\"\", the bank makes the loan. So the limiting factor on the loans a bank makes are the available creditworthy borrowers--not the bank's stock of cash. Further, the story makes sense because loans are how banks make money. If a bank that was short of money suddenly stopped making loans, it'd be screwed: no new loans = no way to make money to pay back depositors and also keep the lights on = no more bank. And the story is believable because of the way banks make so little effort to solicit commercial deposit business. Oh sure, they used to give you a free toaster if you opened an account; but now it's really quite challenging to find a no-fee checking account that doesn't impose a super-high deposit limit. And the interest paid on savings deposits is asymptotically approaching zero. If banks actually needed your deposits, they'd be making a lot more of effort to get them. I mean, they won't turn up their noses; your deposited allowance is a couple basis points cheaper to the bank than borrowing from the Fed; but banks seem to value small-potatoes depositors more as a source of fees and sales opportunities for services and consumer credit than as a source of cash. (It's a bit different if you get north of seven figures, but smaller depositors aren't really worth the hassle just for their cash.) This is where someone will mention the regulatory requirements of fractional reserve banking: banks are obliged by regulators to keep enough cash on hand to pay out a certain percentage of deposits. Note nothing about loans was said in that statement: this requirement does not serve as a check on the bank making bad loans, because the bank is ultimately liable to all its depositors for the full value of their deposits; it's more making sure they have enough liquidity to prevent bank runs, the self-fulfilling prophecy in which an undercapitalized bank could be forced into bankruptcy. As you noted in your question, banks can always borrow from the Fed at the Fed Discount Rate (or from other banks at the interbank overnight rate, which is a little lower) to meet this requirement. They do have to pledge collateral, but loans themselves are collateral, so this doesn't present much of a problem. In terms of paying off depositors if the bank should collapse (and minimizing the amount of FDIC insurance payout from the government), it's really capital requirements that are actually important. I.E. the bank has to have investors who don't have a right to be paid back and whose investment is on the hook if the bank goes belly-up. But that's just a safeguard for the depositors; it doesn't really have anything to do with loans other than that bad loans are the main reason a bank might go under. Banks, like any other private business, have assets (things of value) and liabilities (obligations to other people). But banking assets and liabilities are counterintuitive. The bank's assets are loans, because they are theoretically recoverable (the principal) and also generate a revenue stream (the interest payments). The money the bank holds in deposits is actually a liability, because it has to pay that money out to depositors on demand, and the deposited money will never (by itself) bring the bank any revenue at all. In fact, it's a drain, because the bank needs to pay interest to its depositors. (Well, they used to anyway.) So what happens when a bank makes a loan? From a balance sheet perspective, strangely enough, the answer is nothing at all. If I grant you a loan, the minute we shake hands and you sign the paperwork, a teller types on a keyboard and money appears in your account. Your account with my bank. My bank has simultaneously created an asset (the loan you now have to repay me) and an equal-sized liability (the funds I loaned you, which are now deposited in your account). I'll make money on the deal, because the interest you owe me is a much higher rate than the interest I pay on your deposits, or the rate I'd have to pay if I need to borrow cash to cover your withdrawal. (I might just have the cash on hand anyway from interest and origination fees and whatnot from previous loans.) From an accounting perspective, nothing has happened to my balance sheet, but suddenly you owe me closing costs and a stream of extraneous interest payments. (Nice work if you can get it...) Okay, so I've exhaustively demonstrated that I don't need to take deposits to make loans. But we live in a world where banks do! Here's a few reasons: You can probably think of more, but at the end of the day, a bank should be designed so that if every single (non-borrowing) depositor withdrew their deposits, the bank wouldn't collapse or cease to exist.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2e72d3d0b719144ed2a0437897bb447d",
"text": "An auto title loans are typically utilized by those that wish to obtain a funding with bad credit rating or no credit in any way. An auto-mobile title lending frequently called a vehicle title lending or merely title funding as well as pink slip funding’s. You merely should have a vehicle that is paid off or nearly paid off and also you could make use of the auto title as security to obtain the cash money you require, enabling you to continue driving your vehicle while paying your loan. Get Auto Car Title Loans Ontario CA and nearby cities Provide Car Title Loans, Auto Title Loans, Mobile Home Title Loans, RV/Motor Home Title Loans, Big Rigs Truck Title Loans, Motor Cycle Title Loans, Online Title Loans Near me, Bad Credit Loans, Personal Loans, Quick cash Loans Contact Us: Get Auto Car Title Loans Ontario CA 3045 S ARCHIBALD AVE H 299, Ontario, CA 91761 909-321-5737 [email protected] http://getautotitleloans.com/car-and-auto-title-loans-ontario-ca/",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed3a04403eb605af7ed68d5a4c79621c",
"text": "The buyer can get another cosigner or you can sell the car to pay off the loan. These are your only options if financing cannot be obtained independently.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a38604048fadd10f710848179e588073",
"text": "I see this as less conspiratorial than the housing market shenanigans because auto manufacturers really have no other choice but to make financing easier because if they didn't, they wouldn't be selling many cars and trucks. The 2008 financial meltdown happened mainly because of derivatives. I don't know of any packaged bonds or CDOs made up of auto loans with credit default swaps riding on their backs. So, a wave of defaulted auto loans just means that it will become a buyers market for used cars - if not another signpost of general American economic collapse.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eeac29631c2021c0a70d03a09c16d73b",
"text": "Most 0% interest loans have quite high interest rates that are deferred. If you are late on a payment you are hit with all the deferred interest. They're banking on a percentage of customers missing a payment. Also, this is popular in furniture/car sales because it's a way to get people to buy who otherwise wouldn't, they made money on the item sale, so the loan doesn't have to earn them money (even though some will). Traditional banks/lenders do make money from interest and rely on that, they would have to rely on fees if interest were not permitted.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e7949ba4d3c415a4fd358bc2b44ce02d",
"text": "I've had many home loans, and all have been sold to a big bank. They have certain rules about how much insurance you need to have, but I've never had one buy insurance on my behalf - they always send letters telling me I need to increase the insurance. They do say that if I don't get enough insurance, they will do it for me, but this has never been necessary.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "230bf99815c0f1b4b3d8aea5c08f2c0f",
"text": "The car dealership doesn't care where you get the cash; they care about it becoming their money immediately and with no risk or complications. Any loan or other arrangements you make to raise the cash is Your Problem, not theirs, unless you arrange the loan through them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "032d7d2e8659102e57df1c6678760cea",
"text": "An auto title loans are typically utilized by those that wish to obtain a funding with bad credit rating or no credit in any way. An auto-mobile title lending frequently called a vehicle title lending or merely title funding as well as pink slip funding’s. You merely should have a vehicle that is paid off or nearly paid off and also you could make use of the auto title as security to obtain the cash money you require, enabling you to continue driving your vehicle while paying your loan. Get Auto Car Title Loans North Hollywood CA and nearby cities Provide Car Title Loans, Auto Title Loans, Mobile Home Title Loans, RV/Motor Home Title Loans, Big Rigs Truck Title Loans, Motor Cycle Title Loans, Online Title Loans Near me, Bad Credit Loans, Personal Loans, Quick cash Loans Contact Us: Get Auto Car Title Loans North Hollywood CA 11604 Sylvan St # 7, North Hollywood, CA 91606 424-343-2256 [email protected] http://getautotitleloans.com/car-and-auto-title-loans-north-hollywood-ca/",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ba1aa8230b37c2401e3c92abe036ee2",
"text": "\"Your arrangements with the bank are irrelevant. Whoever is named on the title of the vehicle owns it. If she is the \"\"primary\"\", then I assume her name is on the title, therefore she owns the car. If you drive off with the car and it is titled in her name, she can report it stolen and have you arrested for grand theft auto unless you have a dated and signed permission in writing from her to use the car. Point #2: If a car loan was involved, then you didn't \"\"purchase\"\" the car, the bank did. If you want to gain ownership of the car, then you need to have her name removed from the title and have yours put in its place. Since the bank has possession of the title, this will require the cooperation of both your girlfriend and the bank.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb120e9ee3bcedb436bdfa4189180a21",
"text": "There is no rule that says the dealer has to honor that deal, nor is there any that says he/she won't. However, if you are thinking of financing through though the dealership they are likely to honor the deal. They PREFER you finance it. If you finance it through the dealer the salesman just got TWO sales (a car and a loan) and probably gets a commission on both. If you finance it through a third party it makes no difference to the dealer, it is still a cash deal to them because even though you pay off the car loan over years, the bank pays them immediately in full.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "979150f0ed4d6e0a2bded0486e3ed0a7",
"text": "\"They aren't actually. It appears to be a low interest rate, but it doesn't cover their true cost of capital. It is a sales tactic where they are raising the sticker price/principal of the car, which is subsidizing the true cost of the loan, likely 4% or higher. It would be hard to believe that the true cost of a car loan would be less than for a mortgage, as with a mortgage the bank can reclaim an asset that tends to rise in value, compared to a used car, which will have fallen in value. This is one reason why you can generally get a better price with cash, because there is a margin built in, in addition to the fact that with cash they get all their profit today versus a discount of future cash flows from a loan by dealing with a bank or other lending company. So if you could see the entire transaction from the \"\"inside\"\", the car company would not actually be making money. The government rate is also so low that it often barely covers inflation, much less operating costs and profit. This is why any time you see \"\"0% Financing!\"\", it is generally a sales tactic designed to get your attention. A company cannot actually acquire capital at 0% to lend to you at 0%, because even if the nominal interest rate were 0%, there is an opportunity cost, as you have observed. A portion of the sticker price is covering the real cost, and subsidizing the monthly payment.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6a82a58202ec394a50a1b5aa8ce2f7f3",
"text": "This is normal with the dealer's financing. To add more details to littleadv's answer, what happens is when you get the financing through the dealer, at first, they will try to do the loan on your behalf with local banks in your area. This is why you see several hard inquiries; one from each back. If none of these banks wants to take the loan, then dealer's financing entity will take the loan. This was my exact experience with Hyundai. In addition, don't get surprise if you start receiving letters saying that your loan was rejected. The dealer will send the loan requests simultaneously, and some of the banks might deny the loan. This also happened to me, and I have been owning my car for around a year. Still, make sure that the letters matches with the credit inquiries.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca6825a395b2bee9c84e0f46ececc662",
"text": "\"At one point in my life I sold cars and from what I saw, three things stick out. Unless the other dealership was in the same network, eg ABC Ford of City A, and ABC Ford of City B, they never had possession of that truck. So, no REAL application for a loan could be sent in to a bank, just a letter of intent, if one was sent at all. With a letter of intent, a soft pull is done, most likely by the dealership, where they then attached that score to the LOI that the bank has an automated program send back an automatic decline, an officer review reply, or a tentative approval (eg tier 0,1,2...8). The tentative approval is just that, Tentative. Sometime after a lender has a loan officer look at the full application, something prompts them to change their offer. They have internal guidelines, but lets say an app is right at the line for 2-3 of the things they look at, they chose to lower the credit tier or decline the app. The dealership then goes back and looks at what other offers they had. Let's say they had a Chase offer at 3.25% and a CapOne for 5.25% they would say you're approved at 3.5%, they make their money on the .25%. But after Chase looks into the app and sees that, let's say you have been on the job for actually 11 months and not 1 year, and you said you made $50,000, but your 1040 shows $48,200, and you have moved 6 times in the last 5 years. They comeback and say no he is not a tier 2 but a tier 3 @ 5.5%. They switch to CapOne and say your rate has in fact gone up to 5.5%. Ultimately you never had a loan to start with - only a letter of intent. The other thing could be that the dealership finance manager looked at your credit score and guessed they would offer 3.5%, when they sent in the LOI it came back higher than he thought. Or he was BSing you, so if you price shopped while they looked for a truck you wouldn't get far. They didn't find that Truck, or it was not what they thought it would be. If a dealership sees a truck in inventory at another dealer they call and ask if it's available, if they have it, and it's not being used as a demo for a sales manager, they agree to send them something else for the trade, a car, or truck or whatever. A transfer driver of some sort hops in that trade, drives the 30 minutes - 6 hours away and comes back so you can sign the Real Application, TODAY! while you're excited about your new truck and willing to do whatever you need to do to get it. Because they said it would take 2-5 days to \"\"Ship\"\" it tells me it wasn't available. Time Kills Deals, and dealerships know this: they want to sign you TODAY! Some dealerships want \"\"honest\"\" money or a deposit to go get the truck, but reality is that that is a trick to test you to make sure you are going to follow through after they spend the gas and add mileage to a car. But if it takes 2 days+, The truck isn't out there, or the dealer doesn't have a vehicle the other dealership wants back, or no other dealership likes dealing with them. The only way it would take that long is if you were looking for something very rare, an odd color in an unusual configuration. Like a top end model in a low selling color, or configuration you had to have that wouldn't sell well - like you wanted all the options on a car except a cigarette lighter, you get the idea. 99.99% of the time a good enough truck is available. Deposits are BS. They don't setup any kind of real contract, notice most of the time they want a check. Because holding on to a check is about as binding as making you wear a chicken suit to get a rebate. All it is, is a test to see if you will go through with signing the deal. As an example of why you don't let time pass on a car deal is shown in this. One time we had a couple want us to find a Cadillac Escalade Hybrid in red with every available option. Total cost was about $85-90k. Only two new Red Escalade hybrids were for sale in the country at the time, one was in New York, and the other was in San Fransisco, and our dealership is in Texas, and neither was wanting to trade with us, so we ended up having to buy the SUV from one of the other dealerships inventory. That is a very rare thing to do by the way. We took a 25% down payment, around $20,000, in a check. We flew a driver to wherever the SUV was and then drove it back to Texas about 4 days later. The couple came back and hated the color, they would not take the SUV. The General Manager was pissed, he spent around $1000 just to bring the thing to Texas, not to mention he had to buy the thing. The couple walked and there was nothing the sales manager, GM, or salesman could do. We had not been able to deliver the car, and ultimately the dealership ate the loss, but it shows that deposits are useless. You can't sell something you don't own, and dealerships know it. Long story short, you can't claim a damage you never experienced. Not having something happen that you wanted to have happen is not a damage because you can't show a real economic loss. One other thing, When you sign the paperwork that you thought was an application, it was an authorization for them to pull your credit and the fine print at the bottom is boiler plate defense against getting sued for everything imaginable. Ours took up about half of one page and all of the back of the second page. I know dealing with car dealerships is hard, working at them is just as hard, and I'm sorry that you had to deal with it, however the simplest and smoothest car deals are the ones where you pay full price.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
5431c1285ef5a01f774ff579d1eea398
|
Bait-and-switch on new car lease
|
[
{
"docid": "b8243334f485269b3efe3be7e46832b8",
"text": "Within some limitations, the dealer is allowed to approve or deny lending to anyone that it chooses. Those constraints are the basics that you'd expect for any regulation in the US: Race Religion Nationality Sex Marital Status Age Source of income You can read more about them in this leaflet from the FDIC's Fair Lending Laws office. (Link is a pdf download.) As far as what to do in your mother's case, it sounds like it may be some slightly shady sales tactics, but it isn't entirely illegal... It's just annoying. One thing you could do to try to head off some of the crazy bait-and-switch sales tactics is to communicate with a handful of dealerships in your area about the specifics of your mother's profile as a purchaser. It's much harder to give someone the run-around if you have already agreed to something in principle by email.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0811da7ac2144ef3ebc1e2d2b013f5fd",
"text": "\"I strongly discourage leasing (or loans, but at least you own the car at the end of it) in any situation. it's just a bad deal, but that doesn't answer your question. Most new cars are \"\"loss leaders\"\" for dealerships. It's too easy to know what their costs are these days, so they make most of their money though financing. They might make a less than $500 on the sale of a new car, but if it's financed though them then they might get $2,000 - $4,000 commission/sale on the financing contract. Yes, it is possible and entirely likely that the advertised rate will only go to the best qualified lessees (possibly with a credit score about 750 or 800 or so other high number, for example). If the lessee meets the requirements then they won't deny you, they really want your business, but it is more likely to start the process and do all the paperwork for them to come back and say, \"\"Well, you don't qualify for the $99/month leasing program, but we can offer you the $199/month lease.\"\" (since that's the price you're giving from other dealerships). From there you just need to negotiate again. Note: Make sure you always do your research and negotiate the price of the car before talking about financing.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "9e750f0e4742820944816ee5fc7cc817",
"text": "Break the transactions into parts. Go to your bank or credit union and get a loan commitment. When applying for loan get the maximum amount they will let you borrow assuming that you will no longer own the first car. Take the car to a dealer and get a written estimate for selling the car. Pick one that gives you an estimate that is good for a week or ten days. You now know a data point for the trade-in value. Finally go to the dealer where you will buy the replacement car. Negotiate the price, tell them you don't need financing and you will not be trading in the car. Get all you can regarding rebates and other special incentives. Once you have a solid in writing commitment, then ask about financing and trade in. If they beat the numbers you have regarding interest rate and trade-in value accept those parts of the deal. But don't let them change anything else. If you keep the bank financing the dealer will usually give you a couple of days to get a check. If you decide to ell the car to the first dealer do so as soon as you pick up the replacement car. If you try to start with the dealer you are buying the car from they will keep adjusting the rate, length of loan, trade-in value, and price until you have no idea if you are getting a good deal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ef7667232ab7ff56a77be06213e42c5",
"text": "\"Yes, he can retract the offer - it was a cash-only offer, and if you're financing, it's no longer \"\"cash\"\". Unless, of course, you get the financing through your local bank / credit union, and they hand you a check (like on a personal loan). Then it's still cash. However, the salesman can still retract the offer unless it's in writing because you haven't signed anything yet. The price of financing will always be higher because the dealer doesn't get all their money today. Also, if you finance, you are not paying just the cost of the vehicle, you are paying interest, so your final cost will be higher (unless you were one of the lucky souls who got 0% financing atop employee pricing, and therefore are actually saving money by having a payment).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b4edaa73af0efe82cbb95c36722f852",
"text": "I would like to add that from my own research, a pro to leasing over buying a new vehicle would be that with the lease the entire 7,500 federal incentive is applied directly to the lease, or so they say. If you buy a new car you get a 7,500 federal tax incentive also but if you dont have 7,500 bucks in taxes this wont be as much value. It doesn't sense to me to buy used since you dont get the tax incentive and also if you're in california the 2,500 rebate only applies to buying new or leasing 30 month or longer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d651fd9c2cecbe2d92941c92c58e408",
"text": "With new cars it's usually the other way around: finance at a low APR or get cash back when you buy it outright. With used cars you usually don't know how much they have invested in the car, so it's more difficult to know how low they're willing to go. Regardless, I do think it's odd that they would knock 2K off the price if you finance with them, but not if you pay cash. The only reason they would do that is if they intend to make at least 2K in interest over the life of the loan, but they have no way of guaranteeing you won't refi. Therefore, I suspect they are bluffing and would probably close the deal if you wrote them a check (or put the cash on the table) for 2K less. However, if they won't budge and will only knock off 2K if you finance, you could finance and pay it off in full a week later. Just make sure they don't have any hidden origination fees or pay-off-early fees.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "41ff11e41f0777dc700007331f778d13",
"text": "\"Every car company does this and its frustrating as hell. Something much more prevalent -- even commonplace -- is the car you booked not being able... not just car (much more common), but car type. When I travel I book flights/cars weeks if not months in advance. I travel on the company dime and they don't care if I get a Mustang convertible, Charger RT, etc., whatever. Again, booked weeks/months in advance. I can't tell you how frustrating it is to get off a 5-hour flight, take a 30-minute shuttle ride to the airport rental center (here's looking at you, DFW) and get there to be told I'm getting a Kia Sorento. I know it sounds snobbish, but I paid for the upgrade, I've still got an hour drive to XYZ, and I want something fun to drive. And they know, and I know, that bitching and moaning does absolutely nothing. If X car isn't on the lot, I'm not getting it, unless Jesus Christ himself comes down and brings a Hemi with him. I always see first timers there -- dads screaming at the desk agent with the wife and kids waiting on the benches, obviously exhausted and embarrassed -- trying to get the Tahoe or whatever they reserved. \"\"Let me speak to your manager.\"\" I have seen this maybe 5-6x, and every. single. time. the wife ends up calming the husband down, wife apologizes to the desk agent, and they take their Hyundai Santa Fe or whatever. It's like the twilight zone every time I see it. \"\"Is this family still here from last time? Nope, new family.\"\" TLDR; Convertible wasn't available, got the moped. Kind of like a convertible, I guess.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba37f8fbac914f2ec53278db02793614",
"text": "Dealer financing should be ignored until AFTER you have agreed on the price of the car, since otherwise they tack the costs of it back onto the car's purchase price. They aren't offering you a $2500 cash incentive, but adding a $2500 surcharge if you take their financing package -- which means you're actually paying significantly more than 0.9% for that loan! Remember that you can borrow from folks other than the dealer. If you do that, you still get the cash price, since the dealer is getting cash. Check your other options, and calculate the REAL cost of each, before making your decisions. And remember to watch out for introductory/variable rates on loans! Leasing is generally a bad deal unless you intend to sell the car within three years or so.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d83da8b4a1ccb7bde4d33e13cb0fd76",
"text": "I agree with Speedbird389 - I leased an economy car 10 years ago, paid the residual at the end of the lease because I knew the car would last a long time, but that cost me $5000 more than if I had bought it in the first place...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2dc2dfe450a48df2c777876f86fd96ba",
"text": "I have a colleague who always leases cars first. He's very well off, has piles of money in savings, owns a home, and the cherry on top, he could just write a check for the car.... He sees the lease as an insurance policy on the first couple of years of the car's life. If it gets in an accident or he finds something about it he doesn't like, he can give it back to the dealer at the end of the term with no hassle and move on to the next car. Some people value the fact that a lease is a rental. If you're leasing a luxury car or something you couldn't otherwise afford, no amount of mental gymnastics will turn this in to a good idea. Separately, you should never make a down payment on a lease. If the car is totaled early on, you will not recoupe the money you put down. The issue here is that while the numbers all work out the same between a lease and a purchase your situation is different. If the leased car is totaled, the bank gets its money back from an insurer. If that payment doesn't cover the value of the car, the GAP insurance will cover it. In either situation, if there's an excess remaining it will be returned to you. The issue is the excess may not fully replace your down payment. If you then went to lease another car you would need to come up with that down payment again because you couldn't just simply choose to lease a used car; like you could in the case of a purchase. Additionally, GAP is generally included in a lease whether you want it or not. As far as I'm concerned it doesn't make financial sense to mitigate the value of the GAP coverage once you've decided to live in a lease situation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d2230d1d67aebbf0cbe938d31de014c5",
"text": "\"Imagine that, a car dealership lied to someone trusting. Who would have thought. A big question is how well do you get along with your \"\"ex\"\"? Can you be in the same room without fighting? Can you agree on things that are mutually beneficial? The car will have to be paid off, and taken out of his name. The mechanics on how to do this is a bit tricky and you may want to see a lawyer about it. Having you being the sole owner of the car benefits him because he is no longer a cosigner on a loan. This will help him get additional loans if he chooses, or cosign on his next gf's car. And of course this benefits you as you \"\"own\"\" the car instead of both of you. You will probably have to refinance the car in your name only. Do you have sufficient credit? Once this happens can you pay off the car in like a year or so? If you search this site a similar questions is asked about once per month. Car loans are pretty terrible, in the future you should avoid them. Cosigning is even worse and you should never again participate in such a thing. Another option is to just sell the car and start over with your own car hopefully paid for in cash.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7d4e2921fe70ac4e499dd5d0c24be24c",
"text": "A Lease is an entirely different way of getting a car. In two situations it makes sense, in all other scenarios it generally doesn't make sense to lease. In the case of always wanting a new car every 2 or 3 years it can make sense to lease. Of course if you drive more the allowed miles you will pay extra at the end of the lease. If you can take the monthly lease as a business expense leasing makes sense. Otherwise you want to pay cash, or get financing. Does zero percent make sense? Sometimes. The only way to make sense of the numbers is to start with your bank, have them approve of the loan first. Then armed with the maximum loan amount they will give you and the rate and the length of the loan, then visit the dealer. You have to run the numbers for your situation. It depends on your income, your other expenses, your credit score, your bank, what deal the dealership is running, how much you have for a down payment. Here is an example. For a recent loan situation I saw: 36 months, 1.49% rate, 20K loan, total interest paid: ~$466. Armed with that information can the person get a better deal at the dealership? There was only one way to find out. In that case the credit union was better. The rebate was larger than the interest paid.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cdbf1d79dfc6ad93dfb29d25b8556d18",
"text": "Christ, Seinfeld was mocking this twenty years ago. Do they not have a non-refundable, cast-iron reservation system? Seems nuts just to assume that customers prefer being able to cancel over the reassurance that Hertz won't cancel on them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba8dfecc2fe55f55b0b3c8313eb18008",
"text": "\"I'm impressed. She must have a substantial income to agree to a $500/month car payment. I imagine her income is about 20K per month for that to make sense. What kind of work does she do? To answer your question, typical lease do not work the way you describe. Paying an extra $2000 will allow you to skip 4 payments (provided the payments were exactly $500) any time in the future. It does not modify the terms of the lease which would include the payment amount. Also one does not receive a fiance charge reduction benefit as with a loan. Essentially you are providing a loan to the leasing company for free. To be explicit you cannot tell the mortgage company anything as she is applying for the loan, not you. She can tell the mortgage company the new payment is $400, but she would be falsifying the application which is not advisable. Perhaps the mortgage company is doing her a favor. They are indicating her life is out of control financially. Either she is attempting to purchase way to much home or her consumer debt is out of control. It could be a combination of both. My first paragraph was written to be \"\"tongue in check\"\" in order to demonstrate absurdity. Without a substantial income and an substantial net worth, a 500/month car payment is simply ridiculous. While it is someone average, when you compare it to the average income (~54K/year) you understand why 78% of US households live paycheck-to-paycheck (are broke), and have no retirement savings. For your and her sake, please stop giving all your hard earned money to banks.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c03c89b9c8a7b1f7dc27747751e1c316",
"text": "\"This is completely disgusting, utterly unethical, deeply objectionable, and yes, it is almost certainly illegal. The Federal Trade Commission has indeed filed suit, halted ads, etc in a number of cases - but these likely only represent a tiny percentage of all cases. This doesn't make what the car dealer's do ok, but don't expect the SWAT team to bust some heads any time soon - which is kind of sad, but let's deal with the details. Let's see what the Federal Trade Commission has to say in their article, Are Car Ads Taking You for a Ride? Deceptive Car Ads Here are some claims that may be deceptive — and why: Vehicles are available at a specific low price or for a specific discount What may be missing: The low price is after a downpayment, often thousands of dollars, plus other fees, like taxes, licensing and document fees, on approved credit. Other pitches: The discount is only for a pricey, fully-loaded model; or the reduced price or discount offered might depend on qualifications like the buyer being a recent college graduate or having an account at a particular bank. “Only $99/Month” What may be missing: The advertised payments are temporary “teaser” payments. Payments for the rest of the loan term are much higher. A variation on this pitch: You will owe a balloon payment — usually thousands of dollars — at the end of the term. So both of these are what the FTC explicitly says are deceptive practices. Has the FTC taken action in cases similar to this? Yes, they have: “If auto dealers make advertising claims in headlines, they can’t take them away in fine print,” said Jessica Rich, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “These actions show there is a financial cost for violating FTC orders.” In the case referenced above, the owners of a 20+ dealership chain was hit with about $250,000 in fines. If you think that's a tiny portion of the unethical gains they made from those ads in the time they were running, I'd say you were absolutely correct and that's little more than a \"\"cost of doing business\"\" for unscrupulous companies. But that's the state of the US nation at this time, and so we are left with \"\"caveat emptor\"\" as a guiding principle. What can you do about it? Competitors are technically allowed to file suit for deceptive business practices, so if you know any honest dealers in the area you can tip them off about it (try saying that out loud with a serious face). But even better, you can contact the FTC and file a formal complaint online. I wouldn't expect the world to change for your complaint, but even if it just generates a letter it may be enough to let a company know someone is watching - and if they are a big business, they might actually get into a little bit of trouble.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b605715d4578ff53e0f1b6bc6e390df0",
"text": "The car deal makes money 3 ways. If you pay in one lump payment. If the payment is greater than what they paid for the car, plus their expenses, they make a profit. They loan you the money. You make payments over months or years, if the total amount you pay is greater than what they paid for the car, plus their expenses, plus their finance expenses they make money. Of course the money takes years to come in, or they sell your loan to another business to get the money faster but in a smaller amount. You trade in a car and they sell it at a profit. Of course that new transaction could be a lump sum or a loan on the used car... They or course make money if you bring the car back for maintenance, or you buy lots of expensive dealer options. Some dealers wave two deals in front of you: get a 0% interest loan. These tend to be shorter 12 months vs 36,48,60 or even 72 months. The shorter length makes it harder for many to afford. If you can't swing the 12 large payments they offer you at x% loan for y years that keeps the payments in your budget. pay cash and get a rebate. If you take the rebate you can't get the 0% loan. If you take the 0% loan you can't get the rebate. The price you negotiate minus the rebate is enough to make a profit. The key is not letting them know which offer you are interested in. Don't even mention a trade in until the price of the new car has been finalized. Otherwise they will adjust the price, rebate, interest rate, length of loan, and trade-in value to maximize their profit. The suggestion of running the numbers through a spreadsheet is a good one. If you get a loan for 2% from your bank/credit union for 3 years and the rebate from the dealer, it will cost less in total than the 0% loan from the dealer. The key is to get the loan approved by the bank/credit union before meeting with the dealer. The money from the bank looks like cash to the dealer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "779d5046f25234a651f2736f371e4849",
"text": "For people who are good with money (presumably), Kiva.org gives your money to such people who apply for loans through social service organizations in various countries (I believe this is how it's done). The people state what they will use the money for. It can be as simple as 'buying provisions for food truck business' or 'replacing wheels on tractor.' Then they pay the money back and you (who donated x number of dollars) use that repaid money to make another loan.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
954f4155390f7726944b0ed33829f8a7
|
Why do cash back credit cards give a higher rate for dining and gasoline purchases?
|
[
{
"docid": "1de928b6f5d455700ded4382b556409c",
"text": "These two categories ensure you will carry the card in your wallet (since they only work for physical locations), but don't tend to have excessive spending (most people maxing out at $200 or so per month, so $2 for the bonus). You then use the same card for other purchases, because you have it on you, where you only get the 1%. It worked for me, I started carrying the Amazon card when I found out it had a higher percentage for gas purchases. I only use it for gas though.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "035a423b9e88c47a1530b4882e8a95c7",
"text": "I am not sure but probably it depends upon the cut the credit card company receives from the merchant. For Hotels such as dining etc. the cut could be more. Again, periodically, many merchants join with the card company to launch promotions. It could be part of such promotions. Apart from class of merchants, these points also differ on class of cards e.g a premium card will earn more rewards than a simple classic card.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "328239ea8f56ab3fdff5eb918da716a7",
"text": "Don't really know but I can guess. Firstly, everyone thinks the price of gas is too high. You drive to work every day, and gas is basically the only product who's price is advertised from the street! From that perspective. So mentally, I argue, we overvalue an extra 1 percent discount on gas. It's only worth maybe 60 cents a month to me, but worth a lot of other interchance fees for the credit card company. Secondly, gas stations are a prime robbery target. Credit cards mean less cash in the till. And less chance for employees to steal from the till, and less chance of counterfit money. Finally, it's a competitive market. If stations don't accept a card, they'll lose business to elsewhere. There's a gas station on either side of an intersection, and you can always tell which station is a few cents cheaper because it's the one with customers fueling up while the other one is a ghost town. They feel they have to compete on convenience or go under, and the credit card companies recruit you into the game with higher cash back rewards.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7c7cb28945526fa3c8277291b30bafa1",
"text": "There are several issues with paying for furniture and appliances with 0% credit instead of paying with cash. When you pay with 0% credit, you might be tempted to spend more on something than you would have if you paid with cash, because it feels like free money, and you've justified in your mind that the extra you earn will help pay for the more expensive item. Businesses don't offer 0% credit for free, and they don't lose money on the deal. When you shop at a store that offers 0% credit, you are generally overpaying for the item. By shopping at a store that does not offer 0% credit, you might be able to get a better price. Your savings account is likely earning very little interest. You might invest the money you intend for your purchases in a place that gets better returns, but in most of these places the returns are not guaranteed, and you might not do as well as you think. 0% loans typically come with lots of conditions that have very heavy penalties and interest rate hikes for late payments. You can mitigate this risk by setting up automatic payments, but things can still go wrong. Your bank might change your account number, making the automated payment fail. As you mentioned, you might also forget to put the proper amount of money in the account. A single mistake can negate all of the tiny gains you are trying to achieve. Ultimately, the decision is yours, of course, but in my opinion, there is very, very little to gain with buying something on 0% credit when you could be paying cash.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "777609ebf107f439f7d88abfd8f47406",
"text": "\"In the end, all these fees hurt the average consumer, since the merchant ultimately passes cost to consumer. Savvy consumers can stay at par or get ahead, if they put in the effort. It's a pain, but I rotate between 4 cards depending on time of year and type of purchase, to optimize cash back. My cards are: 1. 5% rewards card on certain categories, rotates each quarter 2. 2% travel/dining card (fee card, but I travel a bunch so it's worth it, no foreign transaction fees) 3. 1.5% rewards card for everything else 4. Debit card (swiped as a CC) for small purchases (i.e. lunches) at credit union for \"\"enhanced\"\" high interest checking account, requiring certain # swipes/month. This alone returns to me ~$800/yr.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "17e6cb39363323512e4c56d5b0e5e694",
"text": "Credit cards and debit cards make up the bulk of the transactions in the US. Visa and Mastercard take a percentage of each credit card transaction. For the most part, this fee it built into the price of what you buy. That is, you don't generally pay extra at the grocery store if you use a credit card (gasoline purchases are a notable exception here.) If you were getting something like 2% of a third of all the retail transactions in the US, you'd probably not want to rock the boat too much either. Since there is little fraud relative to the amount of money they are taking in, and it can often be detected using statistical analysis, they don't really stand to gain that much by reducing it through these methods. Sure they can reduce the losses on the insurance they provide to the credit card consumer but they risk slowing down the money machine. These companies want avoid doing something like reducing fraud by 0.5% revenues but causing purchases with the cards drop by 1%. More security will be implemented as we can see with the (slow) introduction of chip cards in the US but only at a pace that will prevent disruption of the money machine. EMV will likely cause a large drop in CC fraud at brick-and-mortar stores but won't stop it online. You will likely see some sort of system like you describe rolled out for that eventually.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "074ce24b4b91ea5b5e687d5911d8da83",
"text": "5% cashback? Wow. No, this would not generally affect your credit rating. You aren't altering anything that is generally tracked by the credit rating agencies. You put a purchase on your credit card which temporarily increases your utilisation, but then immediately pay it off, leaving your utilisation practically unchanged.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f92d29b145907a0e067d913ff84eeed4",
"text": "\"The confusion comes from ambiguity in popular belief -- that businesses are required to accept x_y_x as payment. In reality, a business can state the terms of a transaction to their pleasure. On the other hand, debt is different -- no lender can refuse cash or other legal tender for repayment of debt. Sometimes, people try to split hairs and argue \"\"Well, if I eat a steak and I owe the restaurant $100, they should have to accept my $100 as tender for the debt of my meal.\"\" Not true. The restaurant isn't giving you a line of credit, they're billing you after services rendered, and your payment is due on their terms.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "842d702d0a16587e75274be26c6e911e",
"text": "One reason why some merchants in the US don't accept Discover is that the fee the store is charged is higher than the average. Generally a portion of transaction fee for the network and the issuing bank goes to the rewards program. In some cases a portion of the interest can also be used to fund these programs. Some cards will give you more points when you carry a balance from one month to the next. Therefore encouraging consumers to have interest charges. This portion of the program will be funded from the interest charges. Profits: Rewards: Some rewards are almost always redeemed: cash once the amount of charges gets above a minimum threshold. Some are almost never redeemed: miles with high requirements and tough blackout periods. Credit cards that don't understand how their customers will use their cards can run into problems. If they offer a great rewards program that encourages use, but pays too high a percentage of points earned can lead to problems. This is especially true when a great percentage of users pay in full each month. This hurt Citibank in the 1990's. They had a card with no annual fee forever, and a very high percentage never had to pay interest. People flocked to the card, and kept it as an emergency card, because they knew it would never have a annual fee.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "767066e1be82bb833f52d561ec8096d6",
"text": "Businesses are free to decide what payment methods they accept for their goods and services. Businesses sometimes advertise what credit cards they accept by posting some stickers at their door. When your credit card isn't among them and you don't have enough cash with you, ask about your card before you order. If a business doesn't accept your credit card, your best recourse is to take your business elsewhere. When you already ate there and got into an awkward situation because you assumed that they would accept your card, you might also want to write an online review of the place and warn others to bring cash for their visit (but please be fair in the review. When the food and service are decent, a restaurant doesn't deserve a one star rating just because they don't take credit cards). Note that businesses have good reasons to not accept credit cards. It often means additional cost for them in form of: But there is also a more shady reason. Taking payment in cash means that there is no electronic trail of the transaction. That makes it far easier for an establishment to misreport their income. They might under-report it to evade taxes or over-report it to launder money (both are illegal, of course).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9986ea75e33396169977ca008189726c",
"text": "A *lot* of big companies offer credit cards. And it makes total sense. For example, if you have a Macy's card, you get access to special discounts that you wouldn't normally get. It saves the consumer money and builds loyalty to the brand. Same for Southwest credit cards. It's a completely normal move. EDIT: Also, Uber doesn't actually have to do much - it's the issuing bank that manages the program. *Most* of the branded credit cards you see are Chase, BTW. Amazon and Southwest are both run by Chase.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb0e3e99c7cda972e38413ba3620e23d",
"text": "\"There are hidden costs to using rewards cards for everything. The credit card company charges fees to the merchant every time you make a purchase. These fees are a small amount per transaction, plus a portion of the transaction amount. These fees are higher for rewards cards. (For example, the fees might be 35 cents for a PIN-transaction on a debit card, or 35 cents plus 2 percent for an ordinary credit card or signature transaction on a debit card, or 35 cents plus 3.5 percent on a rewards card.) After considering all of their expenses, merchant profit margins are often quite small. To make the same amount of profit by serving a rewards-card customer as a cash customer, the merchant needs to sell higher profit-margin items and/or more items to the rewards-card customer. People who \"\"pay with plastic\"\" tend to spend more than people who \"\"pay with cash\"\". If you pay with a rewards card, will you spend even more?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4571505cd5e76a598b1090e109add091",
"text": "\"A lot of credit card companies these days uses what they call \"\"daily interest\"\" where they charge the interest rate for the number of days till you pay off what you spent. This allows them to make more money than the \"\"period billing\"\". The idea of credit, theoretically, is that there isn't really a day when you can borrow without paying interest - in theory\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac18f121ae9ec8c4697b03740588d5c8",
"text": "Michael Pryor's answer is accurate to the actual question asked. The current accepted answer from Dheer is not entirely true but roughly provides an overview of the different entities involved in a typical transaction, with some wrong terminologies, corrected and improved below. The issuing bank, the one that issues the credit card to the customer. When it comes to the service fee split, the issuer bank takes on the majority of the cut in the service fee paid by the merchant to the different entities. For example, on a 2.5% overall fee paid by merchant, roughly 1.5% goes to the issuer, 0.3% goes to the card network (visa, master card, etc) and the remaining 0.7% goes to the acquiring bank. Reward programs have a partnership with participating merchants, where merchants are charged a higher service fee, for the likelihood of driving a higher volume of transactions to the merchant. A portion of the rewards also comes from the issuer, who shares a percentage of their fee back to the customer, in exchange for the same likelihood of making more profit through increased volume in total transactions. For example, a reward program may charge merchants 4.5% fee, with 3.5% of it going to the issuer. Upto 3% of this can be given back to the customer for their loyalty in using the card service. The banks can afford to take as little as 0.5% instead of their regular 1.5% due to the increased volume of transactions and the fixed fee they collect as membership fee. Note that costco has a similar business plan, but they make money entirely of membership fee. So with enough clients, banks can theoretically afford to run their program entirely on membership fees, costing no additional service fee to merchants. The service fee depicted above is arbitrary, and it can be lowered if the merchant is also a client of the issuing bank, that is, both the issuing bank and acquiring bank are the same. So it is kind of a win-win-win situation. And as usual, the banks can afford to make a larger income, if the customer ends up paying interest for their credit - although the rewards program is not designed accounting on this.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc736a0253f9ea442158e48f5bc98ccb",
"text": "\"I thought I'd see if the credit card companies had anything to say about this while trying to get merchants to sign up. I went to visa.com, clicked \"\"Run Your Business\"\" in the top nav, then \"\"Accept Visa Payments\"\". This page has a \"\"More benefits of accepting Visa\"\" link with an overlay (which I can't easily link directly to), which includes these lines: While the average cash transaction is $17, credit card purchases average $70 while debit card purchases average $36.² ² Visa Payment Panel Study (2Q11 to 1Q12 time period); Visa MARS Data: March 2015 – May 2015 That obviously doesn't tell the entire story (I suspect people are more likely to pull out cash when they're just buying a stick of gum, and more more likely to pull out a card when they're buying large electronics), but certainly there is some evidence from the credit card companies themselves that people spend more when using cards, which is one of the aspects they use to convince merchants to accept cards. I think the best evidence that people spend more is that more and more merchants accept cards. Accepting cards comes with some significant costs (though it's important to keep in mind that accepting cash can come with some significant costs as well). I suspect that merchants wouldn't do so unless the increased sales that they get for accepting cards makes up for the fees that they need to pay and the equipment they need to buy to accept them (not to mention the risks of chargebacks and the like).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f0411535c70229c0ad41f4dd04e9319",
"text": "\"My wife and I have Gap, Kohl's and Amazon cards. They each give extra benefits when using them at their stores, and usually 1% cash back at other places, although we don't use the Gap or Kohl's anywhere else. We don't carry a balance, so as mentioned, the rate doesn't matter. And they are so spread out when we've gotten them (Kohl's for a good 3 years, Amazon about 2 months ago) that I don't expect any issues for credit checks. In fact I just got approved for a mortgage loan, way more than what I know I can really afford. In my mind, credit cards are a bad idea when you use them as \"\"real\"\" credit. If they are used more like a debit card (spending money that you have), its like a loan (you don't have to pay it off til later), and you get paid for it (whether in cash or merchandise).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e20ca1ed7ba57ada5af42c7a9bdf23d1",
"text": "RTFA >Noah places the high-water mark for unionism in the mid-1950s, when nearly 40 percent of American workers were either union members or “nonunion members who were nonetheless covered by union contracts.” In the early postwar years, even the Chamber of Commerce believed that “collective bargaining is a part of the democratic process,” as its then-president noted in a statement. >But, in the late-1970s, union membership began falling off a cliff, brought on by a variety of factors, including jobs moving offshore and big labor’s unsavory reputation. Government didn’t help either: Ronald Reagan’s firing of the air traffic controllers in 1981 sent an unmistakable signal that companies could run roughshod over federal laws intended to protect unions — which they’ve done ever since. >The result is that today unions represent 12 percent of the work force. “Draw one line on a graph charting the decline in union membership, then superimpose a second line charting the decline in middle-class income share,” writes Noah, “and you will find that the two lines are nearly identical.” Richard Freeman, a Harvard economist, has estimated that the decline of unions explains about 20 percent of the income gap.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e5173b4baf00f45b2cd4262eb0d06c1c",
"text": "\"Here's an excerpt from VISA's Card Acceptance Guidelines for Visa Merchants (PDF) The merchant name is the single most important factor in cardholder recognition of transactions. Therefore, it is critical that the merchant name, while reflecting the merchant’s “Doing Business As” (DBA) name, also be clearly identifiable to the cardholder. This can minimize copy requests resulting from unrecognizable merchant descriptors. Merchant applications typically list the merchant name as the merchant DBA. This may differ from the legal name (which can represent the corporate owner or parent company), and may differ from the owner’s name which, for sole proprietorships, may reflect the business owner. I think that the key statement above is \"\"Therefore, it is critical that the merchant name [...] be clearly identifiable to the cardholder.\"\" Since this merchant was not clearly identifiable to the cardholder, they are in breach of a critical point in these guidelines. This is from VISA, but I would assume that all other major credit cards would have similar guidelines for their merchants. However keep in mind that these are \"\"guidelines\"\", and not (necessarily) rules.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
3af30a92409735167b69493c3264aac0
|
Does Edmunds get a kick-back from the use of Edmunds Price Promise?
|
[
{
"docid": "2a7fe5da9ac721e18879a72399c629a4",
"text": "Yes, Edmunds gets money from the dealerships in this program. According to this USA Today article from 2013, dealers pay Edmunds a monthly fee to participate in the program. This contrasts with TrueCar.com, a similar service, where dealers pay a fee for each sale. And yes, it is certainly possible to negotiate a lower price than the Edmunds Price Promise quote, if you enjoy haggling. The purpose of the program is not to get you the best price, just the easiest buying experience. From the USA Today article: Edmunds.com's price promise business model is designed to take the uncertainty out of pricing, speed up the buying process and also comes with the expectation that the customer will be given top-notch customer service. Dealers who have participated find that they are able to sell their cars for $300 to $500 more than consumers who go through the more traditional price quote request process. Customers, [Edmunds.com president and chief operating officer Seth] Berkowitz said, are willing to pay a little more than the best possible deal if they can save time, get great customer service and know they are getting a fair price.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "cf2cc994457ea13e93d3bd7c72e58655",
"text": "I'm not familiar with the deal, nor is this my specialty, but a cursory Google search yields that Greybull (the buyer) also [agreed to invest £400m in Scunthorpe](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/11/greybull-nears-deal-to-buy-tata-steels-scunthorpe-plant/). The £1 was, as far as I can tell, somewhat symbolic. [The whole thing](http://www.businessinsider.com/tata-steel-sells-uk-business-to-greybull-capital-2016-4?r=UK&IR=T) sort of reads to me like Tata wanted it off their books and the UK government wanted it to be [revitalized](https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/719478349886791680), but again, not really my wheelhouse.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8eb15fd9cad42cbd62a7309b9306c4e1",
"text": "But the notes are always called at par, no? So you have a fixed yield which depends on the coupon and price you bought it at. I still don't see how the company doing better than expected changes the yield on your investment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f07931ab0a3b2de1c793e594ebd6167",
"text": "I've done a rights offering once. Basically you had to pay money to exercise the right to buy. The offer was far below market rate, so the company was making money, and overall by exercising you ended up in a bit of a better position, even though your original position was diluted. I'm not really sure what you're asking though. The money does come from the people exercising the right.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20f01969fc7c5ecc435420d3f8a15930",
"text": "This is not right. Inferring the employee stock pool’s takeaway is not as easy as just taking a fraction of the purchase price. As an example, that wouldn’t account for any preferred returns of other ownership classes, among other things. All considered though, it’s reasonable to assume that the employee stock pool will get some premium. Best of luck.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "27ae0c0baca643da371cc42fc96b5eb9",
"text": "That's true the system does effectively give HFT a right of first refusal to everything it sees. If HFT is willing to take all comers at your price for longer than you are willing to wait then you are indeed out of luck. OK it's cheating :)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6bec9caf8b089c9ce554751fccbf01ad",
"text": "In this case, trust the real estate agent; negotiating experience is one of the things you selected them for. Especially if they're suggesting a lower number than you expected, since they get paid on commission and so may be biased the other way. Part of their job is to look for hints about how motivated this seller is and what price they might accept, as opposed to what price they hope to get. And remember that the default assumption is that the two parties will meet in the middle somewhere, which means it's customary to offer 10% less to signal that you could probably be talked into it if they drop the price about 5%. This is like bridge-hand bidding: it's a semi-formalized system of hints about levels of interest, except with fewer conventions and less rationality. As far as the seller paying the closing costs: that's really part of the same negotiation, and doing it that way makes the discussion more complicated for the seller since they need to figure out how much more to charge you to cover this cost. If they offer, great, factor that into what you are willing to pay... but I wouldn't assume it or ask for it. Edit: Yes, unless you have engaged a Buyer's Agent (which I recommend for first-time buyers and maybe all huyers), their fiduciary duty is to the seller. But part of that duty is to make the sale happen. If the price goes too high and you walk away, neither the agent nor the seller make money. A bad agent can be as bad as a bad car salesman, sure. But if you don't like and mostly trust your agent, you are working with the wrong agent. That doesn't mean you give them every bit of information the seller might want, but it does mean you probably want to listen to their input and understand their rationalle before deciding what your own strategy will be.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2ccec416009d6be5e46db4ecf93482af",
"text": "I certainly do not agree and you are making some sweeping statements without backing them up. What I am saying is that a company cannot make a promise of credit to an employee without having something to back that up. If you don't have that then you cannot offer pensions or other futures that you cannot ensure are going to be properly funded. No one forces a company to offer pensions in this day and age (there are exceptions of course) so they do not need to offer it at all. Things like pensions are often used as incentives that can be provided in lieu of cash payments to the employee. If we are going to make cash like exchanges of value then that value should be just as guaranteed as it is when the company promises to pay back a loan. In short you should not be able to hire employees on a financial promise you cannot keep in good faith. If for some reason you cannot keep that promise, just like with standard credit it should hurt you. Or you know, as a company don't make BS promises and just pay people what they are worth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a3c3f7f714d69f7465454a8c207943a1",
"text": "I didn't mean to imply that bankruptcy is a magical process. I was using that to clarify my use of conservative vs. aggressive. To be fair, I guess it can vary depending on your perspective. If you're taking the perspective of the debt-laden company, then yes, erring on the side of a higher value could be defined as aggressive. If you're taking the perspective of someone looking to acquire business, I would say erring on the side of a higher value is conservative. if the debt is trading at, say, $0.20 on the dollar, then yes, I can agree that the market value of the debt is likely more representative of the book value. I guess I wasn't thinking of that type of extreme example. A more common scenario I'd encounter would be a) the debt trading at maybe $0.95 on the dollar and b) taking the perspective of someone looking to invest in the equity, which is why I'd say that it's more conservative to use the higher value, which is the book value. So I'm persuaded that using market value of the debt can make sense in some cases, but I would still argue that the book value might make more sense in other cases.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2cac87b6d90efe8a71308cdef07ea40c",
"text": "\"No, but it is certainly a possibility. the efficient market hypothesis would say that this means that the market perceives the present value of all future earning as negative. These earnings might take the form of a writedown of assets at some point. (Companies carry a goodwill asset that is generally imaginary. They book that asset when they buy companies for more than they are worth.) It would be as if PRUN was a stock tracking my life. If I bought my house in 2006 for $1 million cash. I might have a book value of $1 million. However, PRUN might trade at $500k because the market knows that my asset isn't really worth $1 million and at some point my earnings will take a hit to reflect that. It might also mean that future \"\"real\"\" earnings \"\"ie actual profit and loss on sales\"\" are going to be negative. This would mean bankruptcy is more likely.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f70a899fec01d9205d64124e0970dc19",
"text": "\"In the words of David Einhorn, Flash Boys was \"\"based on a true story.\"\" The way Lewis tells the story is extremely misleading, and you seem to have been suckered in. HFT has reduced spreads to a small fraction of what they were 20 years ago, they are awesome for average people, who are retail traders. Lewis uses \"\"ordinary investors\"\" to mean guys like Einhorn, who do suffer from HFT because they make it hard to buy large blocks of stock without moving the price. But it is not a God-given right to buy stock without moving the price against yourself, and guys like Einhorn now understand how to trade given the current market structure.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f7bb9291e73db9c7404236332cae8302",
"text": "\"In my experience when a salesperson says a particular deal is only good if you purchase right now, 100% of the time it is not true. Of course I can't guarantee that is universally the case, but if you leave and come back 5 minutes later, or tomorrow, or next week, it's extremely likely that they'll still take your money for the original price. (In fact, sometimes after you leave you get a call with even a lower price than the \"\"excellent offer\"\"...) Most of the time when you are presented with high pressure sales accompanied by a \"\"this price is only good right now\"\" pitch, it ends up being because they don't want you to go search the competition and read reviews. In this case you have already done that and deemed the item to be worthwhile. Perhaps a better tactic for the salesperson would have been to try to convince you that others are interested in the item and if you wait it might be sold to someone else at that excellent price. Sales is an art, and it requires the salesperson to size you up and try to figure out your vulnerability and exploit it. This particular salesperson obviously misjudged you and/or you don't have an easily exploitable vulnerability. I wouldn't let the shortcomings of the salesperson get in the way of your purchase. If you are worried about the scenario of someone else snatching up the item, consider offering a deposit to hold the item for a certain amount of time while you \"\"reflect\"\" and/or \"\"arrange for the funds\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5cdae39af54b52af6326f1f7250d6a5d",
"text": "Thanks for replying. I think we are talking at cross purposes, though. In your original example you were talking terms of a promise to pay at a future time. In that example the asset might be destroyed but the promise to pay would still be binding (under typical laws of obligations) and so a court could enforce the obligaton to pay - unless perhaps the promise was itself nullified eg by being contingent on the asset (the apples) being harvested (ie not being destroyed). So, my question was really whether such a contingent promise really amounts to creating new money (as is suggested by the original example). I don't see a promise of this nature can be akin to creating money - it is a new bargain entered into by two (or more) parties",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc10e9f0cce1366b1f40851db92b0fd7",
"text": "It's monopoly money. Everybody treats it like that. Of course it doesn't work. It would be vastly different if you had you budget **plus** (a) freedom of choice for the supplier, internal or external, (b) your group could spend any budget surplus on whatever they wanted (well, for the office). But that will never happen because company policy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6f74e06785dd589d7d2e3505795b36bf",
"text": "\"It's definitely annoying, but it's not necessarily false advertising. There is no rule or law that says they have to fix a pricing error at all, let alone within a certain period of time. Unfortunately they have no obligation to do business with you unless they take (and keep) your money. If they canceled the order and returned your money you have no binding agreement with them. On top of that, in the US... 'misleading advertising' usually refers to \"\"Any advertising or promotion that misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities or geographic origin of goods, services or commercial activities\"\" (Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1125(a)). The main criteria that they evaluate before taking legal action is whether or not someone has suffered harm or loss due to the reliance on the bad information. But you're in Europe. The EU ideas behind misleading advertising tend to focus a lot more on comparing one product to someone else's and making subjective claims or false promises. Pricing does come up, but still, you need to have an ability to prove that you suffered harm or a loss from the business' actions. Even if you were able to prove that, to force the business to change its price catalog, you would need to go through legal proceedings, demonstrate the harm that you've sustained, and then have a judge decide in your favor and order the supplier to comply. My guess is that it's just not worth it for you, but you haven't specified if this is just an annoying shoe-shopping experience or if you are regularly experiencing bait-and-switch tactics from a supplier that is a crucial part of a business operation. If it's the former, just like a physical shop reserves the right to kick you out if you're not behaving, (but usually doesn't because they'd like to keep you as a customer), an online shop can update its prices whenever they like. They can change their prices too, and cancel orders. If it's the latter, then start putting together some documentation on how many times this has happened and how it has damaged your business. But before you get on the warpath I would recommend you look for another place to buy whatever you have in mind, or else try a pound of sugar in your approach to this supplier... My own business experience has shown that can go a lot way in figuring out a mutually beneficial resolution. If you want to see a bit more... Here is the EU Justice Commission's website on false advertising, Here is a PDF leaflet from the UK Office of Fair Trading that spells out what is explicitly not allowed from a business by way of advertising & business practices.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b996e352bd15885b1fe99402e082c5d",
"text": "Maybe one of my issues is that I have a 5 year model with a terminal value. The repayment of debt principal is outside this time frame so I don't assume any repayment. If you're valuing a company share price though you don't model all debt repayments.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
2dc6b06eb5a80b412426cb347d9d6156
|
Is it better to buy this used car from Craigslist or from a dealership?
|
[
{
"docid": "715380f95aaedb38a91ca6a8d595aded",
"text": "\"I do not think you are missing much. One thing you have right is low cost cars depreciate almost nothing. One thing you are missing is your satisfaction index. Driving a 200K car for 4 years requires a bit of motivation when your friends are driving new cars. Typically you need a larger goal to keep you focused. That might be saving money, getting out of debt, or obtaining an education. Buying a car from a private party, Craigslist is only one source, can save both parties money as the \"\"middle man\"\" is cut out. If you have the ability to do so, one can save a lot of money by doing your own brakes. The info is up on youtube, and I typically \"\"earn\"\" between 100-300/hour doing this work myself. Most of the time warranties do not pay off. At the core, they are insurance and insurance companies are in the business to make money. If your car is likely to need repairs a policy may be unattainable or very high in price.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "54b649e0753c493a9e5af79488bdd4f9",
"text": "The 200K vehicle is likely the better deal. Get your own mechanic to check it out. If it doesn't have major issues, it will likely cost you less. Why? Because you've wisely included $6000 in expected maintenance. Yet it has the possibility of not needing more than $500 of maintenance during the 4 years you plan on owning it. It's a gamble, but you have the chance to save $5500 of that estimated cost with that vehicle. Note that you will also need to factor in tires for either vehicle, unless that is included in your maintenance estimate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1de980fe6ce77033708ed70f8e90fab3",
"text": "I agree with the previous comments one thing that got brought up a while back when I was looking into purchasing a Prius was the battery replacement, someone once told me it was very expensive in the event it failed and needed to be changed, I'm not talking about the 12 volt but the big nickel metal hydride one. Another thing to factor is the gas that you will save, normally the Prius get double the gas milage of that of civic or a corolla but unless you drive a bunch of miles per day you really don't see the pay off. Also if you can pull a CarFax on the car, the 20 dollar investment is worth it because you can find out if it was in an accident or if it's a lemon! I once bought a bmw and didn't do a CarFax and later ended up finding out that the car had more owners than a taxi had customers. Also just like said above 200k car vs 100k doest always mean the 100k is better off, especially if the previous owner never services it well. Get the car checkout before you make the deal to buy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "896fc19c6cb27eb1df5da3d3ffa040c5",
"text": "\"You seem to be on the right track. I feel, though, that it's worth addressing your maintenance budget. Even if both cars described in your question are from the same model year, one has been in service 2x more; one car has been on the road, in weather, twice as much as the other. I'm not sure what's being represented in the $6k of maintenance, but a whole host of systems can require maintenance or replacement at 200k+ miles. A/C compressor, all sorts of rubber parts (seals, hoses, belts, bushings), computer systems, stereo, window regulators, the list goes on. I don't know at what point the battery on a hybrid needs to be replaced, or what that replacement entails, but likely the battery or the hybrid recharge system will require something after 200k miles of service. I would learn more about what actual maintenance a high mileage prius can experience. To answer your question though, at this level of \"\"used\"\" I don't think the dealership adds anything to the equation. When you're buying certified pre-owned, the dealership/manufacturer relationship and warranty can be meaningful. When you're buying a 100k+ miles car from a random small used car lot it might as well be a stranger on craigslist...\"",
"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": "3cb703e814782a743951ba7064011bcc",
"text": "\"Once the examination is done, it is recommended to begin calling around to different purchasers. The most solid reestablished auto purchasers are scrap auto evacuation organizations, scrap terraces, and \"\"money for autos\"\" administrations. These are the parts that compensation the most for rescued, assaulted, and trashed vehicles and furthermore give junk car quote. It is critical to contact a few associations, additionally in the event that they are not in your general vicinity. This sort of research will offer you a thought for the going rate of the piece vehicle you have and the condition it stays in; at that point you could unquestionably recognize reasonable offers and forthcoming cheats. They ended up being the best cash for Cars Company.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "824b241dfb09f7905b7107735424dec4",
"text": "On the off chance that you have thoughts to purchase an utilized car, the initial step includes endeavoring to locate the trustable second hand car dealer that fits your funds. You can sift through the chase in light of different parameters comprising Masai second hand car seller, kms driven, gas sort, body kind and ownership which also rearranges the way to buy second hand car. The utilized vehicle stage at Masai Auto City offers probability to each individuals and venders to list their used Cars available and bear in mind it's far completely fit for you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "67525a00d56b3e4c7396761c4f96f362",
"text": "Either approach will put a strain on your friendship, unless you are willing to treat it as a gift which may or may not be returned rather than a loan. I agree that paying it direct to the dealer (or giving her a check that is made out to the dealer) avoids the risk of the money getting sidetracked.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c7adf55a699104d0b1792e2f1fd88d4",
"text": "Find a mechanic in the area that will, for a fee, do a pre-approval inspection. Then when you call the seller to inquire you can ask them to let you take the vehicle there as part of your test drive. I'm not sure how many RV mechanics there are that don't work for a dealership, and those that do may be less inclined to assist you in purchasing from a private party. You could also have a friend or family member who is a mechanic or good with vehicles come along. Also, the seller may not want to bother with the extra hassle, and if it really is a good deal, they likely won't need to. Of course, the other option is to just test drive it and trust your gut. This doesn't sound like a huge risk at 2K. Even if it breaks down right away and can't be repaired for a reasonable price, you could scrap the vehicle and hopefully make up a significant portion of the purchase price.",
"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": "26df4a9a805b46a628a9bb3c0a7000f2",
"text": "Option 2. Selling the car yourself will give you the best value, especially if you can get its full value. This will cost you time, but will return much better return for your money. Also, I would strongly recommend buying a used car from a private owner (not a dealer), rather than buying a new car. For $14,000 in cash you can probably get a car like a 2013 Ford Fusion that has excellent all-wheel drive and winter handling. A new Fusion, loaded, will cost at least $25,000 from a dealer. If you buy a 2013 car outright from a private owner, you will have NO PAYMENTS and can spend that money on investments and build your wealth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1722872e0efc515582b9b58d050917c5",
"text": "\"Talk to your bank first but shop around a bit as well with other reputable lenders in your area. Another option, if you're willing to put down ~84% of the purchase price would be to talk to several dealerships BEFORE you set foot on a single lot. Tell them that you are interested in buying a Versa and that you are willing to pay cash but you are not willing to pay more than $10,200. They won't agree (trust me on that) but they will come down from $13,000. Say \"\"Thanks, I'll call you back.\"\" and call one of the other dealerships on your list and tell them \"\"I just spoke with this dealership and they are willing to sell me the car for [whatever number they gave you].\"\" One of two things will happen, either the dealership will come back with a lower price or they will tell you to go buy the car there. Continue this process until you have one dealership left. I did this with 3 dealerships in 2011 and bought a truck with a $27,000 sticker price for just over $19,000. It took about a week to make all of the calls and I ended up going to a dealership 3 hours away but it was worth it for $8,000.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "10b547be9d05268240b4754171364205",
"text": "Any car manufacturer that undercuts their own dealer network would have that network fall apart quickly. Tesla is using a dealer-free distribution model from the start, so they don't have that problem. Toyota doesn't work that way, though. GM imposed a uniform no-haggling policy with their Saturn brand, but that policy was coupled with local monopolies for dealers to make it work. Lexus has also experimented with no-haggling and online ordering (with delivery still taking place at a dealership). The rest of Toyota doesn't work that way, though. Some car manufacturers, such as BMW and Audi, allow you to take delivery of your new car at the factory for a discount. But even then, the transaction still takes place through a dealer. Toyota doesn't work that way, though. For one thing, they work at a different scale. If you buy a Camry in the US, it might be produced in Kentucky, Indiana, or Aichi, depending on business conditions. You say that you want to cut out the middleman, but the fact is that you do require someone to deliver a Toyota to you, like it or not. If you're interested in saving money, consider trying various well documented tips, such as negotiating by e-mail before showing up, pitting dealerships against each other. If you don't want to negotiate, you might be able to take advantage of pre-negotiated dealer prices through Costco. You mentioned that the dealership offered you a 7.99% interest rate for your 710 FICO score. That sounds insanely high — I'd expect deals more like 2% advertised by buyatoyota.com. (Remember, Toyota Motor Credit Corporation exists to help Toyota Motor Corporation sell more cars cheaply.) You can also seek alternate financing online (example) or through your own bank.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c67a88c4227e0bf04bf2a770ce04fe61",
"text": "When getting a car always start with your bank or credit union. They are very likely to offer better loan rate than the dealer. Because you start there you have a data point so you can tell if the dealer is giving you a good rate. Having the loan approved before going to the dealer allows you to negotiate the best deal for the purchase price for the car. When you are negotiating price, length of loan, down payment, and trade in it can get very confusing to determine if the deal is a good one. Sometimes you can also get a bigger rebate or discount because to the dealer you are paying cash. The general advice is that a lease for the average consumer is a bad deal. You are paying for the most expensive months, and at the end of the lease you don't have a car. With a loan you keep the car after you are done paying for it. Another reason to avoid the lease. It allows you to purchase a car that is two or three years old. These are the ones that just came off lease. I am not a car dealer, and I have never needed a work visa, but I think their concern is that there is a greater risk of you not being in the country for the entire period of the lease.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a4e4589e77150edb6090a7c725d0b86",
"text": "I am going to give advice that is slightly differently based on my own experiences. First, regarding the financing, I have found that the dealers do in fact have access to the best interest rates, but only after negotiating with a better financing offer from a bank. When I bought my current car, the dealer was offering somewhere around 3.3%, which I knew was way above the current industry standard and I knew I had good credit. So, like I did with my previous car and my wife's car, I went to local and national banks, came back with deals around 2.5 or 2.6%. When I told the dealer, they were able to offer 2.19%. So it's ok to go with the dealer's financing, just never take them at face value. Whatever they offer you and no matter how much they insist it's the best deal, never believe it! They can do better! With my first car, I had little credit history, similar to your situation, and interest rates were much higher then, like 6 - 8%. The dealer offered me 10%. I almost walked out the door laughing. I went to my own bank and they offered me 8%, which was still high, but better than 10%. Suddenly, the dealer could do 7.5% with a 0.25% discount if I auto-pay through my checking account. Down-payment wise, there is nothing wrong with a 35% down payment. When I purchased my current car, I put 50% down. All else being equal, the more cash down, the better off you'll be. The only issue is to weigh that down payment and interest rate against the cost of other debts you may have. If you have a 7% student loan and the car loan is only 3%, you're better off paying the minimum on the car and using your cash to pay down your student loan. Unless your student loan balance is significantly more than the 8k you need to finance (like a 20k or 30k loan). Also remember that a car is a depreciating asset. I pay off cars as fast as I can. They are terrible debt to have. A home can rise in value, offsetting a mortgage. Your education keeps you employed and employable and will certainly not make you dumber, so that is a win. But a car? You pay $15k for a car that will be worth $14k the next day and $10k a year from now. It's easy to get underwater with a car loan if the down payment is small, interest rate high, and the car loses value quickly. To make sure I answer your questions: Do you guys think it's a good idea to put that much down on the car? If you can afford it and it will not interfere with repayment of much higher interest debts, then yes. A car loan is a major liability, so if you can minimize the debt, you'll be better off. What interest rate is reasonable based on my credit score? I am not a banker, loan officer, or dealer, so I cannot answer this with much credibility. But given today's market, 2.5 - 4% seems reasonable. Do you think I'll get approved? Probably, but only one way to find out!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b9547bbb145fba640b8a5633ba5deea",
"text": "Would you buy this used car, in its current condition but with new tires, for the price of the tires? If so, buy the tires.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "34e832e1a799ca7ec15ddc54e6c37cef",
"text": "\"JohnFX and TTT provide excellent answers. Researching prices others have paid, being up front that you'll go buy a junker car to hold you over if they won't meet your price, and playing a few dealerships off of each other are all great tactics. In addition, I've got a few points about timing your purchase. If you're not desperate for a car, these can really help give you the upper hand in negotiations: Wait until the end of the month. Dealerships and individual salespeople usually have quotas that they're trying to clear, and the month is usually the standard cutoff. The last time I bought a car, the salesman made the mistake of mentioning, \"\"I don't usually work Thursdays, but I'll be in this Thursday.\"\" Thursday was the 31st - I inferred from this information that he hadn't made his quota for the month yet. So I came back on the 31st to negotiate, and managed to hammer out a pretty good deal. Wait until about an hour before the dealership closes to show up and shop. This gives you enough time to not be obvious about the tactic, but you'll definitely be holding them past their normal quitting time if you do much negotiating. The salesman will be a little more inclined to make a deal so he can get home and have dinner. Bonus points if you can wait until a month that ends on a Friday!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cf8c1d1e9cbb96a615e3f71f8ca964e2",
"text": "I'm leaning more towards trading it in can anyone give me some pointers on how to get the best deal? Information is key to getting the best deal possible. That is why I would strongly suggest getting a second opinion on the repairs. A misfire could be caused by many things. From cheap (bad spark plugs or cables) to mid-range cost (timing is off) to expensive (not getting proper compression in the cylinders due to mechanical issues that could require an engine rebuild). Also, car diagnostics is not an exact science, so it is definitely worth checking with another mechanic. You trust the first place you took it too, which is great. You taking it to another place does not represent a lack of trust, it represents knowing that humans are fallible and car repair diagnostics are not perfect either. Once you have quotes from 2 or 3 places for the repair work, you are in a much better position to negotiate. The next step is to see how much it will cost to replace the thing. Get actual quotes for trade-in from dealers, and you must disclose the engine troubles to them when getting this quote. $8,000 minus this amount is how much you are under water. Add that to the price of the car you would like to purchase to know how much of a loan you will have to take out (minus any downpayment). The next thing to consider is how you manage your risk from there. Your new car will be under-water too. Can you even get a loan? Will you need additional collateral or gap insurance to get the loan? What happens if you get in an accident the next day and total this car? Once you have all of this information, you are ready to really start thinking about the decision to be made. Things to consider: How reliable has the HHR been up to now? You don't want to put $3,500 into it now only to have to spend a few grand more in a month to replace the transmission. It is hard for us to know this as we don't know how long you have had it, what troubles you have had in the past, how well you have taken care of it (regular oil changes and maintenance). Keshlam is right about asking mechanics to check for other problems and scheduled maintenance that has not been done (e.g., timing belts replaced). Once you have made your decision, remember that everything is negotiable if you are wiling to walk away. If you decide to keep the car, try to get a better deal on the repairs by checking out other repair shops. If you decide to buy another car and get rid of this one, both the sale price of the new car and the trade-in price of the HHR are negotiable. Shop around and put in the work to buy something that will last a at a good price.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee60151939fc8a15f134d44755e021c1",
"text": "$27,000 for a car?! Please, don't do that to yourself! That sounds like a new-car price. If it is, you can kiss $4k-$5k of that price goodbye the moment you drive it off the lot. You'll pay the worst part of the depreciation on that vehicle. You can get a 4-5 year old Corolla (or similar import) for less than half that price, and if you take care of it, you can get easily another 100k miles out of it. Check out Dave Ramsey's video. (It's funny that the car payment he chooses as his example is the same one as yours: $475! ;) ) I don't buy his take on the 12% return on the stock market (which is fantasy in my book) but buying cars outright instead of borrowing or (gasp) leasing, and working your way up the food chain a bit with the bells/whistles/newness of your cars, is the way to go.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
63965f5a293e64910523cecbb8e3efe2
|
Escrow Removal Fee?
|
[
{
"docid": "01558f7d14b174c47a9cde99f93c2a56",
"text": "\"Assume they do not overwithhold. You pay in $500/mo, and every time it hits $3000, they pay the tax. Engineers call this a sawtooth function, it looks like this. The average balance is not $3000, but close to $1500. The very simple math is $1500 * rate * years. It looks like your equation except it's not 58, it's just the years. And the question is whether you can make more than $850 on $1500 average before you sell. I wouldn't be so quick to plug in 29 years, as the average home ownership is 7 years, and depending, who knows if a refinance is in your future? The bottom line - How long would it take you to get a 57% return (2350/1500)? Ironically, the most responsible (and risk averse) person would say \"\"decades. Banks offer less than 1%.\"\" even an 8% market return, while not guaranteed, is close to 7 years. But, if you carry 18% credit card debt, you can pay it down a bit each month and let it float back up every 6 months. Less than 4 years to break even.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e0f5a5bd8fcf16434ed72e82e14daf0",
"text": "Consider that the bank of course makes money on the money in your escrow. It is nothing but a free loan you give the bank, and the official reasons why they want it are mostly BS - they want your free loan, nothing else. As a consequence, to let you out of it, they want the money they now cannot make on your money upfront, in form of a 'fee'. That explains the amount; it is right their expected loss by letting you out. Unfortunately, knowing this doesn't change your options. Either way, you will have to pay that money; either as a one-time fee, or as a continuing loss of interest. As others mentioned, you cannot calculate with 29 years, as chances are the mortgage will end earlier - by refinancing or sale. Then you are back to square one with another mandatory escrow; so paying the fee is probably not a good idea. If you are an interesting borrower for other banks, you might be able to refinance with no escrow; you can always try to negotiate this and make it a part of the contract. If they want your business, they might agree to that.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "9bc64707f88aaa78053413758a34ecec",
"text": "First, you are reading that document correctly, but it's not 78% of original mortgage. It is actually 78% of original home value. For example, if the home was valued at $100K when you bought it and you received a $90K loan, PMI must be removed when you owe $78K, not 78% of $90K. To make matters worse for the bank, they missed the required timing to drop PMI. I would print the document you referenced, cite the applicable portion, and tell them if they do not comply, you will report them for failure to comply. For example, I'm sure I am not the only one in this situation, and the FDIC will be eager to assess the huge fines they can collect from a bank that isn't operating within the law. Something like that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "274791c8ba2da06007fb295ff065b8aa",
"text": "FYI - I'm not a lawyer I would not try to reverse the transfer. You need to create a paper trail as to what happened to this money and why. Be sure to document whatever you do. Reach out again Reach out to the company again and see if you can transfer the money back to their account. A wire transfer is $20 (usually), be sure to negotiate the company covering this, and every other fee. If you cannot reach them You could probably move the money to an escrow account at your new bank. The new bank will likely be able to advise you on the best way do this. You should probably also send a letter via certified mail (to ensure they received it) informing them you've done this and how to get in touch with you. By putting the money in an escrow account, you've proven that you haven't used it, and if the company wants it back its very obvious who's money it is. Sending the certified mail (someone must sign for it), will also create a paper trail that will help you if things get ugly. Finally don't spend it",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3ed0701b49eb83aaf28ee43892e06062",
"text": "I don't think you should have to cancel your card. Call your customer service line and just indicate to them what has happened. You aren't getting service for what they are charging you and they are refusing to remove it themselves.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "346dde80264c35ac1d211efd5b83ad38",
"text": "\"My gym has a habit of randomly increasing our monthly payment with a $20 \"\"Special Fee\"\" a couple times a year. This charge was not initiated until after I signed up, and signed authorization for a set monthly fee. The agreement I signed included no wording of this fee, so I have not given them permission to charge me this fee. I also have received no type of notification of this fee prior to it being charged to my credit card on file. This seems very illegal to me. Am I right? What course of action might I have to get this stopped?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6fdb10d3eb915b4a852e9c5f6aee1d2e",
"text": "i prepaid roughly $400 at closing into escrow. that's my minimum allowable balance. paid in all year, and now taxes and insurance are paid in december. after december, they're projecting a $200 balance, which is $200 too low. homeowners insurance hasn't changed, pmi hasn't changed, property taxes are virtually identical to estimate at closing. the difference is that the $400 initial payment didn't factor in timing of those payments out of escrow. pretty lame if you ask me.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "15403ed7ab7fbb0b95f83fa531977291",
"text": "I've done this, but on the other side. I purchased a commercial property from someone I had a previous relationship with. A traditional bank wouldn't loan me the money, but the owner was willing to finance it. All of the payments went through a professional escrow company. In our case it was a company called Westar, but I'm sure there are plenty out here. They basically serve as the middle-man, for a fee (something like $5 a payment, plus something to set it up). They have the terms of the loan, and keep track of balances, can handle extra principle payments and what that does to the term of the loan, etc. You want to have a typical mortgage note that is recorded with the local clerk's office. If you look around, you should be able to find a real estate lawyer who can set all this up for you. It will cost you a bit up front, but it is worth it to do this right. As far as taxes, my understanding is that the property itself is taxed the same as any other property transfer. You would owe taxes on the difference between the value of the property when you inherited it and when you sold it. The interest you get from the loan would be taxed as regular income. The escrow company should send you tax forms every year listing the amount of interest that you received. There are also deductions you can take for expenses in the process.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6dcd0516af6d616c1e49d8aa1005b801",
"text": "\"I simply wrote my bank an email and said, \"\"I want to handle my own escrow\"\". They said, \"\"fine\"\" and even let me set up a third account called \"\"escrow\"\" (savings and checking being the other two) that I just transfer money into whenever I want. But, I don't actually know what their requirements are for doing that. I have a ton of equity in the house, and I never missed a payment, AND I have direct deposit at that institution. So, it can be done.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fbd6c2dfd00266e39e2432389d038f40",
"text": "The money NEVER becomes your money. It has been paid to you in error. Your best response is to write to the company who has paid you in error and tell them that for the responsibilty and subsequent stress caused to you by them putting you in a position of looking after their money you hereby give notice that you are charging them $50 per week until such time as they request the repayment of their money. Keep a dated copy of your letter and if they fail to respond then in 12 weeks they will have to pay you $600 to retrieve their $600. If they come back to you anytime after that they will OWE YOU money - but I wouldn't push for payment on that one. I have successfully used this approach with companies who send unsolicited goods and expect me to mess about returning them if I don't want them. I tell them the weekly fee I am charging them for storage and they quickly make arrangements to either take their goods back or (in one case) told me to keep them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac46dcc33f60672082a44fa0a9ae358d",
"text": "Question: I live in half of a duplex together with other college students. I put my rent (roughly $750 in cash) in the landlord's mailbox while he was out of town for three weeks. I told him ahead that I would do this, but he claims I never did, and he would have asked me not to. Anyway, now he claims the money was not there when he returned and I still owe $750. Answer: Well, that's tough. It could be that the money was stolen from the mailbox. It could be that the landlord pocketed the money and is trying to scam you. Your problem is that you have no receipt, and no evidence at all that you paid the money. There's little you can do other than paying up (again) and learning from this expensive lesson.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6c76b97fce53688c272eebaeee2f0c8d",
"text": "What you are describing here is the opposite of a problem: You're trying to contact a debt-collector to pay them money, but THEY'RE ignoring YOU and won't return your calls! LOL! All joking aside, having 'incidental' charges show up as negative marks on your credit history is an annoyance- thankfully you're not the first to deal with such problems, and there are processes in place to remedy the situation. Contact the credit bureau(s) on which the debt is listed, and file a petition to have it removed from your history. If everything that you say here is true, then it should be relatively easy. Edit: See here for Equifax's dispute resolution process- it sounds like you've already completed the first two steps.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "28ae310b1e58177ed295db70764fc0fc",
"text": "My bank did fine the first couple years of handling my escrow, then out of the blue, totally messed it up and cost me a lot of time straightening it all out with them as well as straightening out with my taxing authority. I told them to send me the balance of the escrow and cancel it, that I would handle it from then on and they did. There was a qualification that I met, I just can't remember what that was. I too have a lot of equity and was never late on a payment. I also manage it via direct deposit from my paychecks into interest bearing accounts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96aefa42c9120412e688d4e47ccabd3c",
"text": "Street name is not what you think it is in the question. The broker is the owner in street name. There is no external secondary owner information. I don't know if there is available independent verification, but if the broker is in the US and they go out of business suddenly, you can make a claim to the SIPC.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1b5d19c84907af1282291361ec88cd5c",
"text": "\"Any clearing/ legal experts out there? Is this possible- and if so, is it that big of a deal? Here are my thoughts: 1. The EU is right to request euros to be cleared on \"\"home soil\"\" for sovereignty reasons since 2/3s of euro currency is cleared in London. 2. Moving euro clearing back to the eurozone... would just mirror US regulations. Whats the big deal?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b20dde4b533b9447acdebeffe1611f43",
"text": "According to the article this is not actually a fine, they are just buying back the mortgages they sold in the first place. One has to wonder if they are buying them back at the same price that they sold them or if it's a discount. E.g. They sold you a lemon for $1000, offer to buy it back for $10? Other questions: If they are buying them back then are they now going to start foreclosing like criminals like BoA did?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "68e38803810fa7ef91d6f8e0c8d3ca94",
"text": "Sorry, this is sensationalist bullshit. Escrow payments have been around forever - they're not specific to BofA or the mortgage bubble, they've probably been common practice for decades. It's a much easier way for many people to pay their taxes and insurance, and banks don't net any profit for doing this*. Rather, it's an easy way for them to keep tabs on whether homeowners have insurance or not - if a home is uninsured by the owner the bank will have to insure it on its own. (* banks are entitled to collect some escrow overage - I think it's 8% - in the event that taxes or insurance are higher than expected, but that is still the homeowners money, and would be cashed out in a payoff.)",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
644256c4438825487c49b6d7781d9882
|
Why is Net Asset Value (NAV) only reported by funds, but not stocks?
|
[
{
"docid": "145a5decacc13be14030121db03b4578",
"text": "The (assets - liabilities)/#shares of a company is its book value, and that number is included in their reports. It's easy for a fund to release the net asset value on a daily basis because all of its assets (stocks, bonds, and cash) are given values every day by the market. It's also necessary to have a real time value for a fund as it will be bought and sold every day. A company can't really do the same thing as it will have much more diverse assets - real estate, cars, inventory, goodwill, etc. The real time value of those assets doesn't have the same meaning as a fund; those assets are used to earn cash, while a fund's business is only to maximize its net asset value.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "31ddc4ebffed415c057593a0a676c33a",
"text": "Nobody tracks a single company's net assets on a daily basis, and stock prices are almost never derived directly from their assets (otherwise there would be no concept of 'growth stocks'). Stocks trade on the presumed current value of future positive cash flow, not on the value of their assets alone. Funds are totally different. They own nothing but stocks and are valued on the basis on the value of those stocks. (Commodity funds and closed funds muddy the picture somewhat, but basically a fund's only business is owning very liquid assets, not using their assets to produce wealth the way companies do.) A fund has no meaning other than the direct value of its assets. Even companies which own and exploit large assets, like resource companies, are far more complicated than funds: e.g. gold mining or oil extracting companies derive most of their value from their physical holdings, but those holdings value depends on the moving price and assumed future price of the commodity and also on the operations (efficiency of extraction etc.) Still different from a fund which only owns very liquid assets.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "81ec14fc701de02e845c914aa6aa8ca4",
"text": "No, this is quite wrong. Almost all hedge funds (and all hedge fund investors) use Sharpe as a *primary* measure of performance. The fact that they don't consider themselves risk-free has no bearing on the issue (that's a bizarre line of reasoning - you're saying Sharpe is only relevant for assets that consider themselves risk-free?). And as AlphaPortfolio rightly points out, most funds have no explicit benchmark and they are usually paid for performance over zero. I've never seen a hedge fund use a benchmark relative information ratio - for starters, what benchmark would you measure a CB arb fund against? Or market neutral quant? Or global macro? Same for CTAs...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "88df300e6b133556974c6289f78c352f",
"text": "The only way for a mutual fund to default is if it inflated the NAV. I.e.: it reports that its investments worth more than they really are. Then, in case of a run on the fund, it may end up defaulting since it won't have the money to redeem shares at the NAV it published. When does it happen? When the fund is mismanaged or is a scam. This happened, for example, to the fund Madoff was managing. This is generally a sign of a Ponzi scheme or embezzlement. How can you ensure the funds you invest in are not affected by this? You'll have to read the fund reports, check the independent auditors' reports and check for clues. Generally, this is the job of the SEC - that's what they do as regulators. But for smaller funds, and private (i.e.: not public) investment companies, SEC may not be posing too much regulations.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6fe7136d0ad975b808acb88e334ef023",
"text": "The company that runs the fund (Vanguard) on their website has the information on the general breakdown of their investments of that fund. They tell you that as of July 31st 2016 it is 8.7% emerging markets. They even specifically list the 7000+ companies they have purchased stocks in. Of course the actual investment and percentages could [change every day]. Vanguard may publish on this Site, in the fund's holdings on the webpages, a detailed list of the securities (aggregated by issuer for money market funds) held in a Vanguard fund (portfolio holdings) as of the most recent calendar-quarter-end, 30 days after the end of the calendar quarter, except for Vanguard Market Neutral Fund (60 calendar days after the end of the calendar quarter), Vanguard index funds (15 calendar days after the end of the month), and Vanguard Money Market Funds (within five [5] business days after the last business day of the preceding month). Except with respect to Vanguard Money Market Funds, Vanguard may exclude any portion of these portfolio holdings from publication on this Site when deemed in the best interest of the fund.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e6ff181f6984f73fd45717d9330d42c4",
"text": "Mutual funds don't work like stocks in that way. The price of a mutual fund is set at the end of each day and doesn't fluctuate during the day. So no matter when you put in your order, it will be filled at the end of the day at whatever the closing price is for that day. Here is some good information on that There is no continuous pricing of fund shares throughout the trading day. When an investor places an order to buy or sell a fund's shares, the order is executed based on the NAV calculated at the end of that trading day, regardless of what time during the day the order was placed. On the other hand, if the investor were to check the price of his or her fund shares halfway through the business day, the price quoted would be the previous day's NAV because that was the last time the fund calculated and reported the value. -http://www.finweb.com/investing/how-mutual-funds-are-priced.html",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "402212bfb569a8f87f74352254c9928e",
"text": "Yahoo's primary business isn't providing mutual fund performance data. They aim to be convenient, but often leave something to be desired in terms of completeness. Try Morningstar instead. Their mission is investment research. Here's a link to Morningstar's data for the fund you specified. If you scroll down, you'll see:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ede31fcc47e5b8ff627c7d2387e5796",
"text": "Why is that? With all the successful investors (including myself on a not-infrequent basis) going for individual companies directly, wouldn't it make more sense to suggest that new investors learn how to analyse companies and then make their best guess after taking into account those factors? I have a different perspective here than the other answers. I recently started investing in a Roth IRA for retirement. I do not have interest in micromanaging individual company research (I don't find this enjoyable at all) but I know I want to save for retirement. Could I learn all the details? Probably, as an engineer/software person I suspect I could. But I really don't want to. But here's the thing: For anyone else in a similar situation to me, the net return on investing into a mutual fund type arrangement (even if it returns only 4%) is still likely considerably higher than the return on trying to invest in stocks (which likely results in $0 invested, and a return of 0%). I suspect the overwhelming majority of people in the world are more similar to me than you - in that they have minimal interest in spending hours managing their money. For us, mutual funds or ETFs are perfect for this.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f9c71289d37594b5040af9865061a3a",
"text": "\"You can infer some of the answers to your questions from the BATS exchange's market data page and its associated help page. (I'm pretty sure a page like this exists on each stock exchange's website; BATS just happens to be the one I'm used to looking at.) The Matched Volume section refers to all trades on a given date that took place on \"\"lit\"\" exchanges; that is, where a public protected US stock exchange's matching engine helped a buyer and a seller find each other. Because there are exactly 11 such exchanges in existence, it's easy to show 100% of the matched volume broken down into 11 rows. The FINRA & TRF Volume section refers to all trades on a given date that took place on \"\"non-lit\"\" exchanges. These types of trades include dark pool volume and any other trade that is not required to take place in public but is required to be reported (the R in TRF) to FINRA. There are three venues via which these trades may be reported to FINRA -- NASDAQ's, NYSE's, and FINRA's own ADF. They're all operated under the purview of FINRA, so the fact that they're \"\"located at\"\" NASDAQ or NYSE is a red herring. (For example, from the volume data it's clear that the NASDAQ facility does not only handle NASDAQ-listed (Tape C) securities, nor does the NYSE facility only handle NYSE-listed (Tape A) securities or anything like that.) The number of institutions reporting to each of the TRFs is large -- many more than the 11 public exchanges -- so the TRF data is not broken down further. (Also I think the whole point of the TRFs is to report in secret.) I don't know enough details to say why the NASDTRF has always handled more reporting volume than the other two facilities. Of course, since we can't see inside the TRF reporting anyway, it's sort of a moot point.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7dc0c905c71416bca38ebeb58f9d7f7c",
"text": "You can find this in the annual report. Preferred value is not the same as common value.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6c1812f3fbceba34e9a196440b30e9e3",
"text": "Mutual funds don't have intraday prices. They have net asset values which are calculated periodically (daily or weekly or any other period depending on the fund).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d22e351c9ec928739d7ed725da136615",
"text": "How is it possible that a publicly traded investment company's net asset value per share is higher than their share price? Wouldn't you (in theory) be able to buy the company and liquidate it to make a profit of (NAV/share - price/share)*number of shares, ignoring transaction costs and such? I realize that since part of their portfolio is in private equity, NAV is hard to calculate and hard to liquidate as well, but it doesn't really seem to make sense to me. Would love some input. The company I'm talking about in this instance is 180 Degree Capital Corp, but this isn't the first time I've seen this.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20eaa2ce1822366372a8b6126a2f940c",
"text": "There is a survivorship bias in the mutual fund industry. It's not about individual stocks in which those funds invest. Rather, it's in which funds and fund companies/families are still around. The underperforming funds get closed or merged into other funds. Thus they are no longer reported, since they no longer exist. This makes a single company's mutual funds appear to have a better history, on average, than they actually did. Similarly, fund companies that underperform, will go out of business. This could make the mutual fund industry's overall history appear to be better than it actually was. Most companies don't do this to deliberately game the numbers. It's rational on the part of fund companies to close underperforming funds. When a fund has a below average history, investors will likely not invest in it, and will remove their existing money. The fund will shrink while the overhead remains the same, making the fund unprofitable for the company to run.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b0513ea719821872a14f80eda6c8c71",
"text": "ACWI refers to a fund that tracks the MSCI All Country World Index, which is A market capitalization weighted index designed to provide a broad measure of equity-market performance throughout the world. The MSCI ACWI is maintained by Morgan Stanley Capital International, and is comprised of stocks from both developed and emerging markets. The ex-US in the name implies exactly what it sounds; this fund probably invests in stock markets (or stock market indexes) of the countries in the index, except the US. Brd Mkt refers to a Broad Market index, which, in the US, means that the fund attempts to track the performance of a wide swath of the US stock market (wider than just the S&P 500, for example). The Dow Jones U.S. Total Stock Market Index, the Wilshire 5000 index, the Russell 2000 index, the MSCI US Broad Market Index, and the CRSP US Total Market Index are all examples of such an index. This could also refer to a fund similar to the one above in that it tracks a broad swath of the several stock markets across the world. I spoke with BNY Mellon about the rest, and they told me this: EB - Employee Benefit (a bank collective fund for ERISA qualified assets) DL - Daily Liquid (provides for daily trading of fund shares) SL - Securities Lending (fund engages in the BNY Mellon securities lending program) Non-SL - Non-Securities Lending (fund does not engage in the BNY Mellon securities lending program) I'll add more detail. EB (Employee Benefit) refers to plans that fall under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which are a set a laws that govern employee pensions and retirement plans. This is simply BNY Mellon's designation for funds that are offered through 401(k)'s and other retirement vehicles. As I said before, DL refers to Daily Liquidity, which means that you can buy into and sell out of the fund on a daily basis. There may be fees for this in your plan, however. SL (Securities Lending) often refers to institutional funds that loan out their long positions to investment banks or brokers so that the clients of those banks/brokerages can sell the shares short. This SeekingAlpha article has a good explanation of how this procedure works in practice for ETF's, and the procedure is identical for mutual funds: An exchange-traded fund lends out shares of its holdings to another party and charges a rental fee. Running a securities-lending program is another way for an ETF provider to wring more return out of a fund's holdings. Revenue from these programs is used to offset a fund's expenses, which allows the provider to charge a lower expense ratio and/or tighten the performance gap between an ETF and its benchmark.",
"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": "c8e6b1e733931958f9180e8ad4a2b7d7",
"text": "No, they do not. Stock funds and bonds funds collect income dividends in different ways. Stock funds collect dividends (as well as any capital gains that are realized) from the underlying stocks and incorporates these into the funds’ net asset value, or daily share price. That’s why a stock fund’s share price drops when the fund makes a distribution – the distribution comes out of the fund’s total net assets. With bond funds, the internal accounting is different: Dividends accrue daily, and are then paid out to shareholders every month or quarter. Bond funds collect the income from the underlying bonds and keep it in a separate internal “bucket.” A bond fund calculates a daily accrual rate for the shares outstanding, and shareholders only earn income for the days they actually hold the fund. For example, if you buy a bond fund two days before the fund’s month-end distribution, you would only receive two days’ worth of income that month. On the other hand, if you sell a fund part-way through the month, you will still receive a partial distribution at the end of the month, pro-rated for the days you actually held the fund. Source Also via bogleheads: Most Vanguard bond funds accrue interest to the share holders daily. Here is a typical statement from a prospectus: Each Fund distributes to shareholders virtually all of its net income (interest less expenses) as well as any net capital gains realized from the sale of its holdings. The Fund’s income dividends accrue daily and are distributed monthly. The term accrue used in this sense means that the income dividends are credited to your account each day, just like interest in a savings account that accrues daily. Since the money set aside for your dividends is both an asset of the fund and a liability, it does not affect the calculated net asset value. When the fund distributes the income dividends at the end of the month, the net asset value does not change as both the assets and liabilities decrease by exactly the same amount. [Note that if you sell all of your bond fund shares in the middle of the month, you will receive as proceeds the value of your shares (calculated as number of shares times net asset value) plus a separate distribution of the accrued income dividends.]",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6db8ff167a2027d4fa6c4eb9c132fc41",
"text": "\"I think the key concept here is future value. The NAV is essentially a book-keeping exercise- you add up all the assets and remove all the liabilities. For a public company this is spelled out in the balance sheet, and is generally listed at the bottom. I pulled a recent one from Cisco Systems (because I used to work there and know the numbers ;-) and you can see it here: roughly $56 billion... https://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=CSCO+Balance+Sheet&annual Another way to think about it: In theory (and we know about this, right?) the NAV is what you would get if you liquidated the company instantaneously. A definition I like to use for market cap is \"\"the current assets, plus the perceived present value of all future earnings for the company\"\"... so let's dissect that a little. The term \"\"present value\"\" is really important, because a million dollars today is worth more than a million dollars next year. A company expected to make a lot of money soon will be worth more (i.e. a higher market cap) than a company expected to make the same amount of money, but later. The \"\"all future earnings\"\" part is exactly what it sounds like. So again, following our cisco example, the current market cap is ~142 billion, which means that \"\"the market\"\" thinks they will earn about $85 billion over the life of the company (in present day dollars).\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
e1a658c076a759a175e31d6296a8b701
|
Are AAA private-sector corporate bonds safer than government bonds?
|
[
{
"docid": "8af2a460f6795b5e0792d0fc200b1b3c",
"text": "\"If you are afraid of your government defaulting, then you also have reason to fear that your country's so-called \"\"AAA\"\" corporate bonds might not be a safe investment. When governments default, they often do things like: In these scenarios, it is not predictable whether government bonds will suffer more or less than any particular corporate bonds. You might want to diversify into precious metals, foreign currencies, and/or foreign securities. For the most security, you might want to choose investment vehicles that your government would have a hard time confiscating. Of course, you will face currency fluctuation risks if you do so.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e72a9e53a04c6d504a9d521f8f8eb891",
"text": "Haven't there been examples of governments defaulting, delaying payment and imposing haircuts on investors? Greece and Argentina come to mind. Quite a few Govt have defaulted in the past or were very of default or crisis. Most 3rd world countries or developing countries have under gone stress at some point. Greece was amongst the first example of Developed country going bankrupt. am I not better off if the fund invests solely in AAA corporate bonds, avoiding government bonds? Well that depends. Corporate bonds are not safer than Government Bonds. There have been instances of Corporate bonds not giving the required returns.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "ce9537c51f2349ef3b2921eeeec8a658",
"text": "It's all about risk. These guidelines were all developed based on the risk characteristics of the various asset categories. Bonds are ultra-low-risk, large caps are low-risk (you don't see most big stocks like Coca-Cola going anywhere soon), foreign stocks are medium-risk (subject to additional political risk and currency risk, especially so in developing markets) and small-caps are higher risk (more to gain, but more likely to go out of business). Moreover, the risks of different asset classes tend to balance each other out some. When stocks fall, bonds typically rise (the recent credit crunch being a notable but temporary exception) as people flock to safety or as the Fed adjusts interest rates. When stocks soar, bonds don't look as attractive, and interest rates may rise (a bummer when you already own the bonds). Is the US economy stumbling with the dollar in the dumps, while the rest of the world passes us by? Your foreign holdings will be worth more in dollar terms. If you'd like to work alternative asset classes (real estate, gold and other commodities, etc) into your mix, consider their risk characteristics, and what will make them go up and down. A good asset allocation should limit the amount of 'down' that can happen all at once; the more conservative the allocation needs to be, the less 'down' is possible (at the expense of the 'up'). .... As for what risks you are willing to take, that will depend on your position in life, and what risks you are presently are exposed to (including: your job, how stable your company is and whether it could fold or do layoffs in a recession like this one, whether you're married, whether you have kids, where you live). For instance, if you're a realtor by trade, you should probably avoid investing too much in real estate or it'll be a double-whammy if the market crashes. A good financial advisor can discuss these matters with you in detail.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "4fb93947461cf2614b37f4ea50bbec9b",
"text": "Googling vanguard target asset allocation led me to this page on the Bogleheads wiki which has detailed breakdowns of the Target Retirement funds; that page in turn has a link to this Vanguard PDF which goes into a good level of detail on the construction of these funds' portfolios. I excerpt: (To the question of why so much weight in equities:) In our view, two important considerations justify an expectation of an equity risk premium. The first is the historical record: In the past, and in many countries, stock market investors have been rewarded with such a premium. ... Historically, bond returns have lagged equity returns by about 5–6 percentage points, annualized—amounting to an enormous return differential in most circumstances over longer time periods. Consequently, retirement savers investing only in “safe” assets must dramatically increase their savings rates to compensate for the lower expected returns those investments offer. ... The second strategic principle underlying our glidepath construction—that younger investors are better able to withstand risk—recognizes that an individual’s total net worth consists of both their current financial holdings and their future work earnings. For younger individuals, the majority of their ultimate retirement wealth is in the form of what they will earn in the future, or their “human capital.” Therefore, a large commitment to stocks in a younger person’s portfolio may be appropriate to balance and diversify risk exposure to work-related earnings (To the question of how the exact allocations were decided:) As part of the process of evaluating and identifying an appropriate glide path given this theoretical framework, we ran various financial simulations using the Vanguard Capital Markets Model. We examined different risk-reward scenarios and the potential implications of different glide paths and TDF approaches. The PDF is highly readable, I would say, and includes references to quant articles, for those that like that sort of thing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b4ae774d48fa6d2cae21d71ed5c702bf",
"text": "\"A (very) simplified bond-pricing equation goes thus: Fair_Price: {Face_Value * (1 + Interest - Expected_Market_Return) ^ (Years_To_Maturity)} * P(Company_Will_Default_Before_Maturity) To reiterate, that is a very simplified model. But it allows us to demonstrate the 3 key factors that drive \"\"Fair\"\" Value: The interest relative to the current market rate. If your AAA bond yields 1%, but an equally-good AAA bond currently sells at 3% in the market, then the \"\"Equivalent\"\" value is the face value minus 2% (1% - 3%) for every year to maturity. Years to maturity. Because 1) is multiplied for every year to maturity, longer-dated bonds are more sensitive to changes in market rates. If your bond yields 2% less than market but matures in a year, then it's worth $98, but if it matures in 56 years, then it's only worth 0.98^56 = $32. Conversely, if your bond yields more than the market rate, then its' price will be greater than face value. The company might default on the debt. If a Bond has a \"\"Fair\"\" Value of $100, but you think there's a 50% chance that the company will default, then it's only worth $50. In fact, it can be worth even less because getting paid on a defaulted bond can often take time and/or money and/or lawyers. In your case, because your bond matures in 56 years but yields ~5% (well above the current market rate), for it to be below Face value implies a strong probability of default, or a strong belief that market returns will be above 5% over the next 56 years.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8723a73705f4f18937f82286dc564b0c",
"text": "\"In one personal finance book I read that if a company is located in a country with credit rating X it can't have credit rating better (lower - i.e. further from AAA level) than X. This is simply wrong. Real world evidence proves it wrong. Automatic Data Processing (ADP), Exxon Mobile (XOM), Johnson & Johnson (JNJ), and Microsoft (MSFT) all have a triple-A rating today, even though the United States doesn't. Toyota (TM) remained triple-A for many years even after Japanese debt was downgraded. The explanation was the following: country has rating X because risk of doing business with it is X and so risk of doing business with any company located in that country automatically can't be better than X. When reading financial literature, you should always be critical. Let's evaluate this statement. First off, a credit rating is not the \"\"risk of doing business.\"\" That is way too generic. Specifically, a credit rating attempts to define an individual or company's ability to repay it's obligations. Buying treasuries constitutes as doing business with the gov't, but you can argue that buying stamps at USPS is also doing business with the gov't, and a credit rating won't affect the latter too much. So a credit rating reflects the ability of an entity to repay it's obligations. What does the ability of a government to repay have to do with the ability of companies in that country to repay? Not much. Certainly, if a company keeps it's surplus cash all in treasuries, then downgrading the government will affect the company, but in general, the credit rating of a company determines the company's ability to pay.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b3c5a01d83e67af59154d0c9831dd8c2",
"text": "The 1-yr bond has a higher interest rate, but it's only guaranteed for a year. This means it is subject to reinvestment risk. Suppose you're investing in 1981. Which sounds better? I've not looked up the precise interest rates but I'm guessing the former option leaves you with more money in 1991. It should be no surprise that investors were willing to pay more for it++, even if they couldn't have been totally sure in advance. :) (++ Remember, a bond is like a coupon for a certain percentage off of future-money. If the coupon offers you fewer percent off, you're paying more present-money for each dollar of future-money you buy.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "03a783452b4908e9fcc071843916546c",
"text": "Depending on the specific bond, here is the official info. http://www.wilmingtontrust.com/gmbondholders/index.html Bottom line, it won't be determined for a while yet, as the filing with the Bankruptcy Court still has lots of blanks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a7f7c889fb5ccc28ffc0f60fc7415e04",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-08/california-once-compared-to-greece-now-trading-better-than-aaa) reduced by 65%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Seven years ago, California was &quot;The next Greece.&quot; Today, the state&#039;s bonds are trading better than AAA. As the Golden State benefits from record-breaking stock prices, Silicon Valley&#039;s boom and a resurgent real estate market, demand for tax-exempt debt in the state with the highest top income tax rate in the U.S. is &quot;Insatiable,&quot; said Nicholos Venditti, a portfolio manager for Thornburg Investment Management. > An investor Tuesday bought about $1.1 million of state general obligation bonds maturing in six years at a yield of 1.33 percent, or 4.3 basis points below AAA rated bonds with the same maturity. > If the market turns and spreads widen, investors holding California bonds may be &quot;Hit disproportionately hard,&quot; Venditti said. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6swqdv/california_once_compared_to_greece_is_now_trading/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~188113 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **bond**^#1 **California**^#2 **Venditti**^#3 **State**^#4 **investor**^#5\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e8f31ae619f44b477771b8292959a8fc",
"text": "Corporate bonds have gotten very complicated in the last 20 years to the point where individual investors are at significant disadvantages when lending money. Subordinated debentures, covenants, long maturities with short call features, opaque credit analysis, etc. Interest rates are so low now that investors (individual & professionals) are forced further out the risk & maturity spectrum for yield. It's a very crowded and busy street.....stay out of the traffic. Really you are better off owning a low cost bond fund that emulates the Barclays Corp/Gov index, or similar. That said, junk bonds may be useful to you if you can tolerate losing money when companies default....you've got to look in the mirror. Choose a fund that is diverse, Treasuries, agencies, corps both high and low.....and don't go for the highest yield.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "48c01e8025f37a2255ffd3c048d8b06a",
"text": "Perhaps something else comes with the bond so it is a convertible security. Buffett's Negative-Interest Issues Sell Well from 2002 would be an example from more than a decade ago: Warren E. Buffett's new negative-interest bonds sold rapidly yesterday, even after the size of the offering was increased to $400 million from $250 million, with a possible offering of another $100 million to cover overallotments. The new Berkshire Hathaway securities, which were underwritten by Goldman, Sachs at the suggestion of Mr. Buffett, Berkshire's chairman and chief executive, pay 3 percent annual interest. But they are coupled with five-year warrants to buy Berkshire stock at $89,585, a 15 percent premium to Berkshire's stock price Tuesday of $77,900. To maintain the warrant, an investor is required to pay 3.75 percent each year. That provides a net negative rate of 0.75 percent.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b346ac30ad1dc6e6710e573670fca002",
"text": "Gundlach shared a chart that showed how investors in European “junk” bonds are willing to accept the same no-default return as they are for U.S. Treasury bonds. In other words, the yield on European “junk” bonds is about the same—between 2 percent and 3 percent—as the yield on U.S. Treasuries, even though the risk profile of the two could not be more different. Sounds like a strong indicator to me. How might this play out in the US?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "068cb721b9e627d262e7902c1f09804a",
"text": "There are PABs (Private Activity Bonds) for the smaller market issues, but you basically need a local government to act as the conduit issuer. There are a whole host of other requirements but it is a way to potentially get tax-exempt rates or get access to the taxables market.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "04d940078dcec99600dfe5f9d54d4f39",
"text": "\"In some respects the analysis for this question is similar to comparing a \"\"safe\"\" return on a government bond vs. holding the stock market. Typically, the stock market's expected return will be higher -- i.e., there's a positive equity risk premium -- vs. a government bond (assuming it's held to maturity). There's no guarantee that the stock market will outperform, although the probability of outperformance rises (some analysts argue) the longer the holding period for equities beyond, say, 10 years. That's why there's generally a positive equity risk premium, otherwise no one (or relatively few investors) would hold equities.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d2a34b7c6b54f5691f7195098b23dde",
"text": "\"That depends on how you're investing in them. Trading bonds is (arguably) riskier than trading stocks (because it has a lot of the same risks associated with stocks plus interest rate and inflation risk). That's true whether it's a recession or not. Holding bonds to maturity may or may not be recession-proof (or, perhaps more accurately, \"\"low risk\"\" as argued by @DepressedDaniel), depending on what kind of bonds they are. If you own bonds in stable governments (e.g. U.S. or German bonds or bonds in certain states or municipalities) or highly stable corporations, there's a very low risk of default even in a recession. (You didn't see companies like Microsoft, Google, or Apple going under during the 2008 crash). That's absolutely not the case for all kinds of bonds, though, especially if you're concerned about systemic risk. Just because a bond looks risk-free doesn't mean that it actually is - look how many AAA-rated securities went under during the 2008 recession. And many companies (CIT, Lehman Brothers) went bankrupt outright. To assess your exposure to risk, you have to look at a lot of factors, such as the credit-worthiness of the business, how \"\"recession-proof\"\" their product is, what kind of security or insurance you're being offered, etc. You can't even assume that bond insurance is an absolute guarantee against systemic risk - that's what got AIG into trouble, in fact. They were writing Credit Default Swaps (CDS), which are analogous to insurance on loans - basically, the seller of the CDS \"\"insures\"\" the debt (promises some kind of payment if a particular borrower defaults). When the entire credit market seized up, people naturally started asking AIG to make good on their agreement and compensate them for the loans that went bad; unfortunately, AIG didn't have the money and couldn't borrow it themselves (hence the government bailout). To address the whole issue of a company going bankrupt: it's not necessarily the case that your bonds would be completely worthless (so I disagree with the people who implied that this would be the case). They'd probably be worth a lot less than you paid for them originally, though (possibly as bad as pennies on the dollar depending on how much under water the company was). Also, depending on how long it takes to work out a deal that everyone could agree to, my understanding is that it could take a long time before you see any of your money. I think it's also possible that you'll get some of the money as equity (rather than cash) - in fact, that's how the U.S. government ended up owning a lot of Chrysler (they were Chrysler's largest lender when they went bankrupt, so the government ended up getting a lot of equity in the business as part of the settlement). Incidentally, there is a market for securities in bankrupt companies for people that don't have time to wait for the bankruptcy settlement. Naturally, people who buy securities that are in that much trouble generally expect a steep discount. To summarize:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a0aaed5c4ffa9f934b6c66ed1b44415a",
"text": "The only issue I have is with 4). *Caveat emptor* always applies, and even if you accept the notion that S&P was *criminally* misrepresenting bond quality, Fannie/Freddie still must do their own due diligence, and so I don't think they are off the hook here. At worst, the execs running Fannie/Freddie are also guilty of criminal collusion; at best, they are guilty of massive incompetence.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
61fd41e3fad501517c5b2d088f6cd046
|
How can I avoid international wire fees or currency transfer fees?
|
[
{
"docid": "3ce355acb135be6179a11107e4bd2226",
"text": "Be aware that ATM withdrawals often generate hidden fees, which are not obviously declared. Many banks operate e.g. with a currency exchange fee, giving you an exchange rate some 1-2% lower than actually applicable. If you withdraw larger amounts, such a currency exchange fee easily adds up to what you would have paid for a wire transfer, where you would get a better exchange rate. Although it's probably much hassle for you to change banks, another option may be to find a bank which operates both in France and the US. Banks with different national branches often offer cheap and fast wire transfers between same-bank accounts in different countries. E.g. Citibank used to offer such services, but I am not sure if they still serve private customers in France.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "733bc88f2f6532e046b59200081edaab",
"text": "I faced something similar for travel or work reasons, and as for me I preferred wire transfer over credit card withdrawals because my bank has huge fees. My thoughts so far are: the fee can vary a lot for credit card. As for me, I can expect 5% fees on foreign withdrawals. But I considered changing bank and I think a Gold (or premium) card might be a good idea as well. The idea is you pay a big subscription (100 euros or so) but have no fee. The total of withdrawal fees could easily (if you stay long abroad) reach this amount. There are also banks like HSBC that offer low fees on withdrawals abroad, you can ask them. The problem is that you cannot really withdraw huge amounts to lower the fee (since you carry this cash in the street). for wire transfers the total fee is usually $50 or more (I had a fee from distant bank, a fee for change and a fee in my home bank). But the amount is unlimited (or high enough to be of little matter) and I needed to do this once per year or so. So I guess it could be interesting if you have enough savings to only transfer money every couple of months or so. I think Western Union is also involved this profitable business. I never used it because the fees are pretty high, but maybe it is useful for not too big amounts frequently transfered. Actually, have you considered a loan? It's a very random idea but maybe you can use a loan as a swap and then transfer money when you have enough to reimburse it all. But the question is very interesting, I think the business is pretty huge due to globalization. It is expensive because some people can make a lot of money out of it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5eef390d48857296621a5fd38aab8005",
"text": "Several possibilities come to mind: Several online currency-exchange brokers (such as xe.com and HiFx) offer very good exchange rates and no wire transfer fees (beyond what your own bank might charge you). Get French and American accounts at banks that are part of the Global ATM alliance: BNP Paribas in France and Bank of America in the USA. This will eliminate the ATM fee. Get an account at a bank that has branches in both countries. I've used HSBC for this purpose.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e53fd9523e727727b8cc719c89d51ff5",
"text": "One way is to wire transfer large amounts. If you transfer $5,000 at one go, that $50 fee works out to 1%, same as the $5 on a $500 ATM withdrawal (and ATM fees, hidden and explicit, tend to be higher than $5). The downside is exchange rate risk (taking more money at one go exposes you to that day's rate, good or bad, vs taking it in multiple chunks). If you're American, you also have to report large transfers and foreign balances on your taxes. Shopping around for a good home bank (with low wire & foreign ATM fees), is quite important.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d49a2b24ef46673bb8ce23721a8baed",
"text": "I did some empirical research, comparing the exchange rates for wire transfers vs. the exchange rates for ATM withdrawals. With my bank, wire transfers typically take a 4% float off the exchange rate. ATM withdrawals seem to take just over 2%. And ATM withdrawals don't have a wire transfer fee, as long as I'm withdrawing from a branch of the same bank (overseas). The only problem with ATM withdrawals is the daily limit. As far as I can see, Tor's answer above has it completely backwards, at least with my bank, ATM withdrawals are a much better value. Do the research yourself...call the bank you're going to transfer from and find out what their current exchange rate is. Compare it to the current spot rate (e.g. XE.com) to determine how much of a cut the bank is taking. Then, if you can, withdraw some cash from the foreign location with your ATM card and see how much of the original currency is deducted from your account. In this way you can empirically discover for yourself the better rate.",
"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": "760bb7064f6c23da8d27ebfbb4b7786f",
"text": "Check global ATM alliance they are banks that use reciprocal benefits on each other in other countries without fees. For example the in the USA Bank of America and In France it is BNP Paribas. Both are banks in this alliance. I use this option between the United States and the Caribbean my banks of choice are Bank of America in the US and in the Caribbean I use Scotia Bankand since I have accounts in both weekends I can use both ATM cards on any of these two banks without any processing fees!!!! You should check the global ATM alliance to see if it is an option that you could use.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f86d9531054d39e2a41f39f593c483d",
"text": "Depending on your income/savings level and who you work for (if you work for a big company check with an HSBC Premier advisor, they may waive the requirements), you may qualify for an HSBC Premier account, which can allow you to open accounts in different countries and transfer money between them without a fee. You can also get a Premier account without meeting the requirements if you are willing to pay a monthly fee, but I doubt that will be worth it in the long run for what you need (worth doing the math though if you travel frequently). NOTE: There may be similar offerings from other banks, but this is just the only one I'm aware of.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "72b452624646db70ff1533aa27000710",
"text": "I haven't seen this answer, and I do not know the legality of it, as it could raise red flags as to money laundering, but about the only way to get around the exchange rate spreads and fees is to enter into transactions with a private acquaintance who has Euros and needs Dollars. The problem here is that you are taking on the settlement risk in the sense that you have to trust that they will deposit the euros into your French account when you deposit dollars into their US account. If you work this out with a relative or very close friend, then the risk should be minimal, however a more casual acquaintance may be more apt to walk away from the transaction and disappear with your Euros and your Dollars. Really the only other option would be to be compensated for services rendered in Euros, but that would have tax implications and the fees of an international tax attorney would probably outstrip any savings from Forex spreads and fees not paid.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4bb4d41c48db1ec43b5a542e87f30065",
"text": "I think the one single answer is that the answer depends on the two countries involved and their banks' practices. To find that answer, you need to ask other expats from your country living in France and ask them for their experience. Note that most expats do not know what fees they are paying. For example, in the Philippines, the lowest fee charged still involves waiting 30 days to get your money. Specifically, I opened a US dollar savings account with the minimum of US $500 required (other rules are involved for opening a bank account), deposited a personal check drawn on my US bank account (no fee charged), and waited 30 calendar days to withdraw USD bills. The Philippines bank did not have a branch in the US, but had financial arrangements with US banks. After getting USD dollars in my hand, I walked to a nearby exchange business store (which usually offered a better daily rate than a bank, but a rate between the banks' buy and sell rates) and exchange the dollars for pesos. Note that years ago, banks did not give USD bills, when dollars were scarce in the Philippines. However, this process does not work in Thailand, due to bank rules against private individuals opening a USD account, with exceptions. And there are still fees involved. March 2017",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "43a9b92312ba34413f5070c89cd8da50",
"text": "I live in europe but have been paid in usd for the last few years and the best strategy I've found is to average in and average out. i.e. if you are going in August then buy some Euro every few weeks until you go. At least this way you mitigate the risk involved somewhat.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb7552c1ff46cd7722042c55aa395f87",
"text": "RoyalBank provides a no fee transfer service (no fee in the sense that there is no per transfer fee aside from the spread). There is monthly fee if you keep less than 1500 or so on the american side. http://www.rbcroyalbank.com/usbanking/cross-border-transfer.html",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c98cf6419843e739fcdc244c80134fbc",
"text": "A 2.5% fee is standard, and you're not likely to avoid a transaction fee when withdrawing cash from an ATM. You'd do better to get foreign currency before leaving the US, or to use a credit card abroad. Capital One has a credit card with no fee on foreign-currency purchases, for example. Another option is to open a bank account in the foreign currency, if you go to a particular country often enough to make it worthwhile.",
"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": "eb9a03241f0728bbb281cd981a8ef674",
"text": "Depending on how tech savvy your client is you could potentially use bitcoin. There is some take of indian regulators stopping bitcoin exchanges, meaning it might be hard to get your money out in your local country but the lack of fees to transfer and not getting killed on the exchange rate every time has a huge impact, especially if your individual transaction sizes are not huge.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a4ea222c46b78da5d98cec42d6f91562",
"text": "I use XE.com for almost the same purpose. They have free transfer options, such as ACH withdrawals and deposits. I normally do a online bill payment through my international bank to XE, and have them deposit it in the US via ACH. It takes 1-3 business days, and there's no fee beyond their small percentage (about 1.25%) on top of the exchange rate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5e8494e54f4125111114c7361174730d",
"text": "\"Am I wrong? Yes. The exchanges are most definitely not \"\"good ole boys clubs\"\". They provide a service (a huge, liquid and very fast market), and they want to be paid for it. Additionally, since direct participants in their system can cause serious and expensive disruptions, they allow only organizations that know what they're doing and can pay for any damages the cause. Is there a way to invest without an intermediary? Certainly, but if you have to ask this question, it's the last thing you should do. Typically such offers are only superior to people who have large investments sums and know what they're doing - as an inexperienced investor, chances are that you'll end up losing everything to some fraudster. Honestly, large exchanges have become so cheap (e.g. XETRA costs 2.52 EUR + 0.0504% per trade) that if you're actually investing, then exchange fees are completely irrelevant. The only exception may be if you want to use a dollar-cost averaging strategy and don't have a lot of cash every month - fixed fees can be significant then. Many banks offer investments plans that cover this case.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b4b4bff9088e5f343db874e4d24389cb",
"text": "If you’re concerned about transferring USD, I can’t really help you there. But if you’re looking to transfer wealth, I believe that’s where something like Bitcoin could help you. In fact a small or nonexistent processing fee is one of Bitcoin’s biggest strengths as a currency. Off the top of my head, I believe BitPay has services that would suit your needs. And if you’re worried about the volatility of Bitcoin, you can always convert it straight to USD just so you can avoid service fees!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b6f497d0d1f37a618b3d6ef7938703e3",
"text": "Wire transfers are the best method. Costs can vary from $10 to $100 or more, depending on the banks and countries involved. There's rarely any saving using the same bank, although HSBC may have reduced charges if you have Premier accounts in both countries (for a one-off transaction, it may not be worth the effort to open an account). However, that cost is insignificant compared to your possible losses on the currency exchange. Assuming your money is currently in Hong Kong Dollars (HKD), it will need to be converted to US Dollars (USD). One place where it could be converted is at your Hong Kong bank. You'll get their retail rate. Make sure you are aware of the rate they will use, and any fees, in advance. Expect to pay around 2-3% from the mid-market rate (the rate you see quoted online, which doesn't fluctuate much for HKD-USD as the currencies are linked). Another place where the currency could be converted is at your US bank. You really don't get any control over that if it arrives as HKD and is then automatically converted into your USD. The rate and fees could be quite poor, especially if it is a minor US bank that has to deal with anther bank for foreign currency. For amounts of this size, it's worthwhile using a specialist currency conversion company instead. Currency Fair in Ireland is one. It's a peer-to-peer exchange that is generally the best deal (at least for the currency pairs I use). You wire the money to them, do the exchange on their site at a rate that is much closer to 0.5% from the midrate, then the money is transferred out by wire for a few dollars. Adds a few days to the process, but will possibly save you close to US$1000. Another established option is Currency Online in New Zealand. There are probably also specialist currency exchange companies in Hong Kong. The basic rule is, don't let the banks exchange currencies at rates that suit them, use a third party that offers a better rate and lower fees.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "73d2f348f3576d5ac88d7a304f9538a9",
"text": "You want to bank with HSBC: From: http://www.offshore.hsbc.com/1/2/international/foreign-exchange-currency/foreign-exchange/faqs HSBC Bank International does not charge ‘commission’, therefore offering 0% commission on foreign currency exchange transactions",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7957baed2fcd5a97163f83bb26a8c990",
"text": "It really depends on the amount of money - I currently have to pay my mortgage in the UK from the US until my house there is sold and my wife sends money from her (US) Paypal account to my UK Paypal account. As personal payments these don't attract the sort of fees you see for ebay payments et al. Compared to the fee-o-rama that a wire transfer turns into (I tried once from BofA to HSBC UK), it is noticeably cheaper for the amount of money we're sending. That said, a lot of the currency transfer services have support for monthly payments and you might get a decent exchange rate and fewer (or no) fees that way.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6a078d5ad94146882425b26d8951d861",
"text": "I have recently started using Transferwise to transfer money between the U.K. and The Netherlands. Transferwise has lower fees than other companies. They use a pseudo-peer-to-peer money transfer system. When person A transfers £ to €, and person B transfers € to £, they effectively cancel these two agains teach other, which significantly lowers exchange fees for both A and B. I am not affiliated with Transferwise other than as a customer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c3afb4be6ac9ba07245eba110446a4a3",
"text": "Check with stock brokers. Some of them will offer ILS->USD conversion at a very beneficial rate (very close to the official), without any commission, and flat-priced wire transfers. For large amounts this is perfect. I know for a fact that Gaon Trade used to do that ($15 for a wire transfer of any amount), but they are now defunct... Check with Meitav (their successor) and others if they still do these things. If you're talking about relatively small amounts (up to several thousands $$$) - you may be better off withdrawing cash or using your credit card in the US. For mid range (up to $50K give or take, depending on your shopping and bargaining skills) banks may be cheaper. A quick note about what jamesqf has mentioned in his answer... You probably don't want to tell your banker that you're moving to the US. Some people reported banks freezing their accounts and demanding US tax info to unfreeze, something that you're not required to provide according to the Israeli law. So just don't tell them. In the US you'll need to report your Israeli bank/trading/pension/educational/savings/insurance accounts on FBAR and FATCA forms when you're doing your taxes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0fa6c81a8ef6708e1285d62e7d01d454",
"text": "\"The \"\"hidden\"\" fees in any transfer are usually: Foreign exchange transfer services are usually the cheapest option for sending money abroad when a conversion is involved. They tend to offer ways to get the money to or from them cheaply or for free and they typically offer low or no fees plus much better exchange rates than the alternatives. My preferred foreign exchange service is XE Trade. It looks like they support CAD to ZAR transfers so you might check them out. In my experience, they have not set a minimum on the amount I send although it does impact the exchange rate they will offer. The rate is still better than other alternatives available to me though. Note that for large enough transfers, the exchange rate difference will dominate all other costs. For example, if you transfer $10,000 and you pay $100 for the transfer plus $50 in wire fees ($150 in fees) but get a 2% better exchange rate than a \"\"free\"\" service, you would save $50 by choosing the non free service.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d42df4b19921edac9589e2d0d8ad984a",
"text": "\"The FTB, as any government agency, is understaffed and underpaid. Even if someone took a glance and it wasn't just an automated letter - consider the situation: you filed as a LLC and then amended to file as a partnership. Unless someone really pays attention - the obvious assumption would be that you had a limited partnership. Yes, you'll need to call them and work with them on fixing this. They do have all the statements you've attached. However, there's a lot of automation and very little attention to details when it comes to matching errors, so don't get surprised if no-one even looked at these statements. Next time your elected government officials talk about \"\"small government\"\" and \"\"cutting government expenses\"\" - you can remind yourself how it looks in action with this experience.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
0503aa6062daf98175e5279580ecb31b
|
Do I not have a credit score?
|
[
{
"docid": "a076691090c6252f90551775a973c8fa",
"text": "Generally, if you have a loan, you have a credit score. But since you have never had a loan before, then it is likely that you do not have a credit score. You should not be worried if you aren't planning on applying for credit and/or loans. If you are wanting to purchase a house, car, or even just having a credit card, you should work on obtaining a secure loan so then you can establish history. Most of the time you have to pay to view your credit score. By law, you can obtain a free copy of your credit report, which it sounds like you have at annualcreditreport.com, which only shows your payment history, but in order to view your credit score, you generally have to pay for it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "daa5dd379131b614b18d527b58726143",
"text": "\"You can't get your credit score for free, just the report with the information the score is based on. If you got credit reports through annualcreditreport.com, the Score tab would typically contain an advertisement for purchasing your score. If you have an ad-blocker enabled, that might be blocked, explaining the blank page. Try turning off any browser extensions that alter how pages are shown. The accounts page/tab/section should show something like \"\"0 open accounts\"\" or similar, to indicate that it is loading data. Your lack of credit history probably does mean you don't have a credit score, so it's probably not worth paying anything to find that out. The focus should be on the accuracy of the underlying report, since you can do something about that. Should I be worried? I'd say no on that. You'll have an easier time getting credit (and better terms) in the future if you start now with some account, even if it's a secured credit card you don't use much, because the age of the oldest and average accounts are factors in credit scoring models.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "426732136eca3b2ab7cf31da061c990a",
"text": "I'm the contrarian in the crowd. I think credit scores and debt are the closest thing to evil incarnate. You're in good company. The absence of a credit score simply means the agencies have insufficient data in their behavioral model to determine how profitable your business would be to the bank. The higher your score, the more likely the bank is to make a profit from your loan. IMHO, you're better off building up cash and investment reserves than a credit history. With sufficient reserves, you will be able to shop around for a bank that will give you a good rate, if you ever do need a loan. You'll be surprised at how quickly you get in a position where you don't need a loan if you save and invest wisely. I used to have a (high) credit score, and I was miserable about it because there were always bills due. I gave up debt 14 years ago, paid the last debt 7 years ago, and have never. been happier. Raising kids without debt (or credit score) is much more fun than with debt.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "99203c88c1c3e174e639b20cbb55e3be",
"text": "If credit scoring works in the UK like it does in the US, then I think the fact that you own+use a credit card and pay off your everyday expenses will give you perfectly good credit. Just keep doing what you're doing. I have seen people in the United States with very high credit scores based solely upon owning & occasionally using a credit card, paid in full and on time every month.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "db6ab0b8e2dee288c1b67cff6ff26972",
"text": "Don't do debt. After a few years (I forget how many) the bad history will have rolled off, but by then you will probably have no desire to go back into debt again. If you do want to build up a credit score, then at that point it's essentially the same as starting from scratch. However, from personal experience, once you've lived debt free for a few years you never want to get back on the debt wheel again. A credit score is the output of a behavioral model that indicates the chances that a bank will earn money from your business. Do things that earn the banks money and you will have a high credit score.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "37e08839cdf11b0ddd69897437b1b0ad",
"text": "Something I'd like to plant firmly into your mind - If you're able to save up enough money to buy the things you want outright, credit will be of little use to you. Many people find once they've accumulated very good credit scores by use of good financial habits, that they rarely end up using credit, and get little out of having a 'great' credit score compared to an 'average' credit score. Of course, a lot of that would depend on your financial situation, but it's something to keep in mind. As stated by others, and documented widely online, you don't need to make payments on a loan or carry a card balance to build your credit history. Check your credit on a popular site, such as Credit Karma (No affiliation). There, you'll see a detailed breakdown of the different areas of your credit profile that matter; things like: The best thing I could recommend is get a credit line or credit card, and use it responsibly. Carrying a balance will waste money on interest, much like the car payment. Just having it and not over-using it (Or not using it at all) will 'build' your credit history. Of course, some institutions may close your account after X number of years of inactivity. With this in mind, I'd say it's safe to pay off the car loan. Read your agreement and make sure there aren't early termination / early payment fees for this. Edit: There have been notes in the comments section's of question/answer's here about concerns with getting apartment. My two cents here: Most apartments I've seen check your credit for negative marks. Having no credit history, and thus never missing a payment or having a judgement made against you, will likely be enough to get you into most normal-quality apartments, assuming the rest of your application / profile is in order, like: - Good references, if asked for them - At least 2.5x rent payment in gross income etc, things like that. If they really think you're a risk, they may ask for a larger deposit (Though I'm sure in some areas there may be restrictions on whether they can do this, or how much they can do it) and still let you rent there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e0b9a2e9015aeb08e040b219618558b",
"text": "In the US, money talks and bullshit walks. You can skip any credit history requirement if you demonstrate your ability to pay in a very obvious way. Credit history is just a standardized way of weeding out people that cannot reliably pay, instead of having to listen to an individual's excuses about how the bank overdrafted their account five times while they were waiting for their friend to pay them back for bubble gum. If you can show up with a wad of cash, you can get the car, or the apartment, or the bank account without the troubles of everyone else. But you can begin building credit with a secured credit card pretty easily. This will be useful for things like utilities and sometimes jobs. Also, banks won't be opposed to giving you credit if you have a lot of money in an account with them. You should be able to maintain an exemption from all socioeconomic problems in the United States, solely due to your experience with money and assets.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7dcbbcc78bd1561999720f4fd276ad02",
"text": "Yeah I have credit cards now but his credit line got me jumped up from maybe a 200 to a 650 in a few months or a year or so. My bad I figured I posted it in the wrong sub! So if he cancels it, will this cause me to lose points? Considering the credit line is about 20K?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c35962088635faf13f84983276ec6936",
"text": "I haven't had a credit card in fifteen years. I use nothing but my debit card. (I find the whole idea of credit on a micro scale loathsome.) I have yet to encounter a single problem doing so, other than a lower than usual credit score for not keeping 23(!!!) revolving lines of credit open, or that's the number CreditKarma tells me I need in order to be an optimal consumer. In an nutshell, no, you don't NEED one. There are reasons to have them, but no.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ef8580168b4556ec04919cec08a719dc",
"text": "\"Different states have different laws, check your local laws concerning credit. Some states even guarantee you to get one free credit report per year. If you recently apply for an apartment, a mortgage or denied a credit card or loan, you can usually get a free copy from whomever you authorized to pull your credit report. Sign up credit monitoring service, there are quite a few of these. Most credit card companies offer such service, Amex, Chase, Citibank, etc. It' costs around $10-$20 per month. If you sign up a service and pull your own credit report, it's considered a \"\"soft\"\" pull which won't affect your score negatively.\"",
"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": "f0b07b64c082a6a9a6aad727d821d2a4",
"text": "For instance and to give a comparison to the US - in Austria, almost everybody gets a credit card (without a credit history (e.g. a young person) / with a bad credit history & with a good credit history). The credit history is in the USA much more important than in Austria. In future, the way to assess a credit history will change due to analysis of social networks for instance. This can be considered in addition to traditional scoring procedures. Is your credit history/score like a criminal record? Nope. I mean is it always with you? Not really cause a criminal record will be retained on a central storage (to state it abstract) and a credit history can be calculated by private companies. Also, are there other ways to get credit cards besides with a bank? That depends on the country. In Austria, yes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b96ae9015f0cd88dd0ad3d5b544622b9",
"text": "Do you have the option of paying cash for the phone? To answer your question though: Essentially, you have to use credit RESPONSIBLY. That doesn't mean go get a slew of loans and pay them off. As Ratish said, a credit card is a good start. I basically buy everything with a card and then pay it off every month when the bill comes out. I actually have two and I alternate but that's getting nitpicky. It should be noted that simply getting a card won't help your score. In fact, it may go down initially as the inquiry and new account opening may have a negative effect. The positive effect will happen as you develop good payment behavior over time. One big thing you can do, in your case, is always pay your mobile bill on time. Having a good payment history with them will go a long way to prove you are responsible.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a137feafa12e8c55808779a1912728fd",
"text": "\"It's probably important to understand what a credit score is. A credit score is your history of accruing debt and paying it back. It is supplemented by your age, time at current residence, time at previous residences, time at your job, etc. A person with zero debt history can still have a decent score - provided they are well established, a little older and have a good job. The top scores are reserved for those that manage what creditors consider an \"\"appropriate\"\" amount of debt and are well established. In other words, you're good with money and likely have long term roots in the community. After all, creditors don't normally like being the first one you try out... Being young and having recently moved you are basically a \"\"flight risk\"\". Meaning someone who is more likely to just pick up and move when the debt becomes too much. So, you have a couple options. The first is to simply wait. Keep going to work, keep living where you are, etc. As you establish yourself you become less of a risk. The second is to start incurring debt. Personally, I am not a fan of this one. Some people do well by getting a small credit card, using some portion of it each month and paying it off immediately. Others don't know how to control that very well and end up having a few months where they roll balances over etc which becomes a trap that costs them far more than before. If I were in your position, I'd likely do one of two things. Either buy the phone outright and sign up for a regular mobile plan OR take the cheaper phone for a couple years.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a2bca858601b7bc24a317dbaf20d6a38",
"text": "\"You have a lack of credit history. Lending is still tight since the recession and companies aren't as willing to take a gamble on people with no history. The secured credit card is the most direct route to building credit right now. I don't think you're going to be applicable for a department store card (pointless anyways and encourages wasteful spending) nor the gas card. Gas cards are credit cards, funded through a bank just like any ordinary credit card, only you are limited to gas purchases at a particular retailer. Although gas cards, department store cards and other limited usage types of credit cards have less requirements, in this post-financial crisis economy, credit is still stringent and a \"\"no history\"\" file is too risky for banks to take on. Having multiple hard inquiries won't help either. You do have a full-time job that pays well so the $500 deposit shouldn't be a problem for the secured credit card. After 6 months you'll get it back anyways. Just remember to pay off in full every month. After 6 months you'll be upgraded to a regular credit card and you will have established credit history.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ce31e7752ac62c2cb7cf8c6e0c236329",
"text": "Simply staying out of debt is not a good way of getting a good credit score. My aged aunt has never had a credit card, loan or mortgage, has always paid cash or cheque for everything, never failed to pay her utility bills on time. Her credit score is lousy because she has never had any debts to pay off so there is no credit history data for her. To the credit checking agencies she barely exists. To get a good score (UK) then get a few debts and pay them off on time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9d8a11f7aa80ddcfd0cca4cc69810b00",
"text": "Since we seem to be discussing credit score and credit history interchangeably, if I can add credit report as the third part of the puzzle, I have another point. Your credit score and credit report can be effective tools to notice identity theft or fraud in your name. Keeping track of your report will allow you to not only protect your good name (which is apparently in dispute here) but also those businesses who ultimately end up paying for the stolen goods or services.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bfc9c5ef1521b95b5048561579618633",
"text": "\"Why are banks all of a sudden providing people their credit scores for free? Because it is a really good idea. On an ABC Bank website, it has: \"\"Check your credit score for free\"\" button. You click it. Not only will it come up with a credit score, but it could also trigger a marketing workflow. If it is direct mail, email, or a phone call a banker could contact you for help with a debt product. This marketing could also be targeted, say a person with a high score could be targeted for a mortgage. A person with a low or medium score could be targeted for ways and products to improve their score. Now if you run XYZ bank and not do the same, you are losing a competitive advantage to banks that offer this. Not only will your customers be less happy, but you will lose a great marketing opportunities. Face it, the only people that worry about their credit score are people that are in the market to borrow. Which again, is more information. If you have someone that never checks their credit score, or has their credit frozen, then it is wise not to market to them debt products.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
bdc3c296a8d70c5d8bc44c4347338610
|
Why are banks providing credit scores for free?
|
[
{
"docid": "96c090727adb37c5044a5bd4ccedbe89",
"text": "I think the biggest reason is price; it's a lot cheaper now than it was to offer these. That's because for the most part, when you get a credit score for free, you're not getting a true FICO score. You're getting instead a VantageScore. VantageScore was created by the three credit bureaus, and as such they can offer it without paying Fair Isaac a licensing fee. That makes it a lot cheaper to offer, and while it's not absolutely identical to FICO (or more accurately to any of the FICO provided scores) it's close enough for most peoples' purpose. And of course undoubtedly Fair Isaac has some price pressure on their side now that Vantage is big enough that many people see them as fungible. As such they've had to make it easier, or they'd lose business - no longer being a monopolist. The other relevant piece here is that probably in many of these cases they're really just offering you what Experian would give you directly - so it's just a cross-marketing thing (where Experian, or perhaps another bureau, gets access to you as a customer so they can up-sell you ID theft insurance and whatnot, while the bank gets to offer the free score).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bfc9c5ef1521b95b5048561579618633",
"text": "\"Why are banks all of a sudden providing people their credit scores for free? Because it is a really good idea. On an ABC Bank website, it has: \"\"Check your credit score for free\"\" button. You click it. Not only will it come up with a credit score, but it could also trigger a marketing workflow. If it is direct mail, email, or a phone call a banker could contact you for help with a debt product. This marketing could also be targeted, say a person with a high score could be targeted for a mortgage. A person with a low or medium score could be targeted for ways and products to improve their score. Now if you run XYZ bank and not do the same, you are losing a competitive advantage to banks that offer this. Not only will your customers be less happy, but you will lose a great marketing opportunities. Face it, the only people that worry about their credit score are people that are in the market to borrow. Which again, is more information. If you have someone that never checks their credit score, or has their credit frozen, then it is wise not to market to them debt products.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "09dd4f368fc21a4a56f73613cfb5cc4e",
"text": "Two possible reasons: You can tell which scenario it is based on the credit history they provide you. If you look at the history and they show you your scores for each month, even though you didn't initiate it, then they are auto checking it each month. If the historical dates are only on the dates you clicked on the button, they are only checking when you manually click on it. As for the why they provide it, a few years back it was a desirable feature. Now they all do it just to keep pace with everyone else. Note that most banks only provide a single scoring model from one bureau (but different banks use different bureaus).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9901f99196d92f70749185e61e483610",
"text": "\"It's the inevitable result of the Fair, Isaac Company deciding to sell access to credit scores to the general public: some marketing dude at one of the banks thought, \"\"Wouldn't it be a great idea if we could use 'free' access to FICO scores as a differentiator for our CCs?\"\" And, because most humans play follow the leader, soon enough, other banks were paying FICO a license to present FICO scores to their card holders.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3f7eb3bbd2f494660b6464d792d3b4f",
"text": "\"An alternative take on the \"\"why\"\" is that most people's credit is better than they think, and all of these banks offer credit products. Put a \"\"good credit\"\" badge next to an ad for a shiny new card or auto refi, and it's just good business.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "54a3e172d8094f26bd7c5bf0f788a1de",
"text": "Some credit checks are ignored as part of the scoring process. Some companies will pull your info, to make sure you haven't become a risk. Others will inquire before they send you an offer. Since you didn't initiate the inquiry it can't impact your score.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a978ee57701d65e610c24bfd92a2d801",
"text": "I visited annualcreditreport.com to get my annual credit report. It is only the report, not the score or FICO score. This is the only outlet I know of that allows you to get your report for free, without a bunch of strings attached or crap to sign up for and cancel later. It was very easy. I was wary of putting in my private information, but how else can they possibly pull you up? Read the instructions carefully. You go to each bureau to fetch your report, and they dutifully give you a free report, but they push hard to try and sell you a score or a report service. It is easy to avoid these if you read carefully. Once you get a report, you have print it out or you can't see it again for another year. Each bureau has a different site, with different rules, and different identity checks to get in. Again, read the instructions and it isn't hard. Instead of printing, I just saved the page as HTML. You get one html file and a folder with all the images and other stuff. This suits me but you might like to print. After you get each report, you have to click a link to back to the annualcreditreport.com site. From there you go to the next bureau. Regarding a score. Everybody does it differently. Free Issac does FICO, but anybody who pulls your credit can generate a score however they like, so getting a score isn't anywhere near as important as making sure your report is accurate. You can use credit.com to simulate a score from one of the bureaus (I can't easily see which one at the moment). It is as easy as annualcreditreport.com and I have no issue getting a simulated score and report card.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6abcf621e523ee65aa7dd404b9f5ea6b",
"text": "\"I would say a lot of the answers here aren't quite right. The main issue here is that banking is a highly oligopolous industry - there are few key players (the UK, for example, has only 5 major banks operating under a variety of brands: it's all the same companies underneath) and the market is very, very hard to enter owing to the immense regulatory burden. Because the landscape is so narrow and it's possible to keep close tabs on all your competitors, there's no incentive to spend money on shiny new things to keep up with the competition - the industry is purely reactive. If nobody else has an awesome, feature-filled online portal, there's no need for any one bank to make one. If everybody is reactive, and nobody proactive, then it's a short logical deduction that improvements happen at a glacial pace. Also take into account that when you've got this toxic \"\"bare-minimum\"\" form of competition, the question for these people soon turns to \"\"what can we get away with?\"\" which results in things like subpar online portals with as much information as you like delivered on paper for a hefty charge, and extortionate, price fixed administrative fees. Furthermore your transaction history is super valuable information. There are one or two highly profitable companies who collate international transaction data and whose sole job in life is to restrict access to that information to the highest bidders. Your transaction history is an asset in a multibillion dollar per year industry, and as such it is not surprising that banks don't want to give it out for free.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4c3d9cb853ffbe6903b6a500e7c40e6c",
"text": "\"In the case of Wells Fargo, I believe that free trading is linked to your overall banking relationship with the firm. So if you have a checking account with a balance of $X, or a total relationship with the bank (\"\"relationship\"\" is usually defined as loan balances + deposit balances) over a certain amount, they give you a plum like free stock trades. The theory behind this approach is that banks want to be a one-stop shop for you. The idea is that they can market the banks products to you over a period of years (lowering customer acquisition cost) and offer you a level of convenience that allows them to charge a premium for services. For example, many people will pay a rate or fee premium on a mortgage or car loan so that they can do all of their business in one place. In other cases, free trading is linked to marketing campaigns by funds. Charles Schwab started this with the \"\"no transaction fee\"\" mutual fund store many years ago -- transaction fees are actually paid for by the mutual funds who pay for placement in the program. \"\"Free ETF trade\"\" programs are similar.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a6d66922dcd3d2189c4d20eef7cc9223",
"text": "I've had all my account with the same bank for all my life. Generally, the disadvantage is that if I want some kind of product like a credit extension or a mortgage, I have the one bank to go to and if they don't want to help me I'm out of luck. However, occasionally there are also perks like the bank spontaneously offering you increased credit or even a whole line of credit. They can do this because they have your whole history and trust you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f60f520231c8c33a0095bb8e007d774e",
"text": ">That's one reason why they let you get access to your credit score, to check it the data is correct and make the 'product' (data about you) better. If that were true, checking your credit report regularly would be straight forward and free. However, the credit agencies have turned insuring your credit report is actuate into a revenue stream. You can see raw data that goes into your score once a year, because the agencies are required by law to provide that you. In past the agencies have been criticized for trying to trick people into buying their services when they request their annual free report (see [freecreditreport.com vs annualcreditreport.com](http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2009/02/24/want-to-see-your-credit-report-for-free-freecreditreportcom-vs-annualcreditreportcom/)). If you want to check the accuracy of credit report more than once a year, you have to pay. If you want to know your score, you have to pay, although many credit cards offer this as a perk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "14f6c5ee4bcdb17b63ff8518e5ff0858",
"text": "Banks need to provide a free mechanism to deposit and withdrawal money. Banks are free to charge fees as long as it is well published. If you are not happy with services you can complain to Banking ombudsman.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c0bd03783aee58b3f6f5ef4eb8fa4e86",
"text": "You don't need a credit score. After I paid off my house mortgage many years ago I had this discussion with my mortgage agent (now bank VP). Your credit score is not a measure your ability to repay. It is a behavioral model and a statistical measure of the likelihood that the banks will make money off of you when they give you a loan, and a marketing tool that the banking industry uses to sell you long term and short term debt (mortgages and credit cards). Statistically speaking, people who close out major loans change their behaviors, and the model captures this change in behavior. In my own case, even though I have a credit history and sufficient cash is the bank to buy my next home outright, I have no credit score . What the model says is that people with my behavioral profile are not likely to take a loan, and if they did take one, they would pay it back so quickly that the bank would not even recoup the cost of initiating the loan. In short, people with my profile are bad news for the loans side of the bank. Thanks @quid for suggesting I capture this and post it as an answer",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a4049e1a55337d80619a52145721330",
"text": "> If everyone on average gets say...a ~3% boost on their score, why wouldn't banks just adjust their standards by 3%? Because the score change only affects those who have had delinquent payments (but are current now) on medical debt in the past 7 years. That's not everybody... by a long shot. Also, no lender (except possibly automated consumer debt applications) gives a shit about what your actual score is. Mortgage lenders review each application based on things like debt:income, existing installment payments, and actual credit history (meaning account details and repayment history).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "426732136eca3b2ab7cf31da061c990a",
"text": "I'm the contrarian in the crowd. I think credit scores and debt are the closest thing to evil incarnate. You're in good company. The absence of a credit score simply means the agencies have insufficient data in their behavioral model to determine how profitable your business would be to the bank. The higher your score, the more likely the bank is to make a profit from your loan. IMHO, you're better off building up cash and investment reserves than a credit history. With sufficient reserves, you will be able to shop around for a bank that will give you a good rate, if you ever do need a loan. You'll be surprised at how quickly you get in a position where you don't need a loan if you save and invest wisely. I used to have a (high) credit score, and I was miserable about it because there were always bills due. I gave up debt 14 years ago, paid the last debt 7 years ago, and have never. been happier. Raising kids without debt (or credit score) is much more fun than with debt.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "370cf6f6f40a025e10e27035d077e45b",
"text": "In this example you are providing 4x more collateral than you are borrowing. Credit score shouldn't matter, regardless of how risky a borrower you are. Sure it costs time and money to go to auction, but this can be factored into your interest rate / fees. I don't see how the bank can lose.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "adca14a92701ca524c4940159076e9c8",
"text": "Check with your bank. As of January, 2015, the following banks and credit unions are offering free credit-scores: Announced, in the pipeline: Source: Banks to offer FICO credit scores for free Personal Experience: I've been receiving free FICO score from my credit union for more than 6 months now. Advice: Most people have multiple bank/credit-union accounts. The FICO score will be the same whoever offers it. If none of your financial institutions offer you a free credit-score then you may opt for free services like creditkarma.com or other paid services. None of them are the widely used FICO scores, but they can be a good gauge of your credit standing. Please note that a credit-score is number summarizing your credit-report and should not be confused. In the news:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3947df28145e5a9a6a9d373f1b1e549c",
"text": "The article states their reasons pretty clearly, and indicates that some people won't qualify under the new requirements that would have previously, they're not courting people with bad credit, they're just looking beyond credit score at other factors. They aren't opening floodgates for anyone with a pulse to get a car loan, just shifting things a bit to cast a slightly wider net. This is not new in the world of secured debt, the FHA has methodology for establishing a non-traditional credit report based on things like rental history, utility payments, auto-insurance payments, a person can't be declined an FHA loan for lack for lack of traditional credit history. I look beyond credit score as a landlord, a tenant with poor credit but a stellar rental history is more appealing than someone with great credit but a bad rental history. Vehicles and housing are very important to people, so they are likely to prioritize them above credit card payments or hospital bills. Time will tell, but it seems like a solid move in my view, they can refine their model over time and likely find a solid customer base among those who wouldn't qualify on credit score alone.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ef8580168b4556ec04919cec08a719dc",
"text": "\"Different states have different laws, check your local laws concerning credit. Some states even guarantee you to get one free credit report per year. If you recently apply for an apartment, a mortgage or denied a credit card or loan, you can usually get a free copy from whomever you authorized to pull your credit report. Sign up credit monitoring service, there are quite a few of these. Most credit card companies offer such service, Amex, Chase, Citibank, etc. It' costs around $10-$20 per month. If you sign up a service and pull your own credit report, it's considered a \"\"soft\"\" pull which won't affect your score negatively.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fa00c48c5a6314308e6ce2b33c45cf86",
"text": "I get my credit scores from all three bureaus for free - no gimmick. I use a combination of banks that offer this service to get my scores. I wrote about this sometime back in my blog. For credit report, the only place to go is AnnualCreditReport.com. I space it out so that I get one every 4 months since there is a once a year restriction per bureau.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ff16203f44564de2a3da46c35c5a4aae
|
Should I keep most of my banking, credit, and investment accounts at the same bank?
|
[
{
"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": "2b82377ee959826a6acda05cd29755c8",
"text": "\"For personal accounts, I can't imagine that this is too much of a problem. The only concern that I can think of (for American banks) is that FDIC only insures you up to $100,000 if the bank were to go belly-up. If you're getting over that amount of money, you may want to \"\"diversify\"\" a little more.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b380b00b07239459c50359b0c5c4661",
"text": "Here's my answer for what it's worth:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a6d66922dcd3d2189c4d20eef7cc9223",
"text": "I've had all my account with the same bank for all my life. Generally, the disadvantage is that if I want some kind of product like a credit extension or a mortgage, I have the one bank to go to and if they don't want to help me I'm out of luck. However, occasionally there are also perks like the bank spontaneously offering you increased credit or even a whole line of credit. They can do this because they have your whole history and trust you.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "aaa8aad4c12291860d68cfacd8f7b6ed",
"text": "I found out there is something called CDARS that allows a person to open a multi-million dollar certificate of deposit account with a single financial institution, who provides FDIC coverage for the entire account. This financial institution spreads the person's money across multiple banks, so that each bank holds less than $250K and can provide the standard FDIC coverage. The account holder doesn't have to worry about any of those details as the main financial institution handles everything. From the account holder's perspective, he/she just has a single account with the main financial institution.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6167f63bc9252ad2217dda31cefa0496",
"text": "\"I separate them out, simply because they're for different purposes, with different goals and time-frames, and combining them may mask hidden problems in either the retirement account or the regular account. Consider an example: A young investor has been working on their retirement planning for a few years now, and has a modest amount of retirement savings (say $15,000) allocated carefully according to one of the usually recommended schemes. A majority exposure to large cap U.S. stocks, with smaller exposures to small cap, international and bond markets. Years before however, they mad an essentially emotional investment in a struggling manufacturer of niche personal computers, which then enjoyed something of a renaissance and a staggering growth in shareholder value. Lets say their current holdings in this company now represent $50,000. Combining them, their portfolio is dominated by large cap U.S. equities to such an extent that the only way to rebalance their portfolio is to pour money into bonds and the international market for years on end. This utterly changes the risk profile of their retirement account. At the same time, if we switch the account balances, the investor might be reassured that their asset allocation is fine and diversified, even though the assets they have access to before retirement are entirely in a single risky stock. In neither case is the investor well served by combining their funds when figuring out their allocation - especially as the \"\"goal\"\" allocations may very well be different.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e73248f402ffb618c4323fbc23863fcc",
"text": "If one has established a liquid emergency fund of 3 to 6 months income as suggested in several places here as well as being recommended by many financial planners then a savings account is a great place to keep that money. All things being equal between the savings and checking account the limited transfers should be a non issue since ideally you won't be using that money and if you need to in an emergency you could move a whole months worth of expenses to checking in one transfer. The savings account gives you a place to keep the emergency fund segregated from your normal funds. Out of sight, out of mind as it were. A savings account also gives you a place to stash funds intended for short term goals away from normal use funds. One such example I can use is that I am purchasing several plane tickets for various family members to come visit for Christmas. I have those funds set aside in a savings account so they don't interfere with my budgeting of my normal living expenses. While these are just examples and your situation may vary they are both examples of where a savings account would be useful even if it is identical to a checking account. Edit: using other types of accounts can also accomplish the same thing. Since we are using the assumption that the checking and savings accounts are identical the benefit of using a savings account is that it is usually inherently linked to the associated checking account without any additional effort on the part of the account holder. Any other account type would require additional effort, however minor, on the part of the account holder to link them in such a way that would make transfers between accounts as easy as possible.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "13b2a8802ba6665a9c292cdf441ffed6",
"text": "The reason I don't know of any banks who would offer this to you (even if you held the investment account with their bank) is that there is no upside to the bank. It is a good idea for you, but what would they have to gain from this arrangement? The reason banks require a down payment is underwriting quality. If you can afford a significant down payment, they know that there is a significantly lower chance that you will default. However, if you were to provide an investment account as collateral, you would receive all the upside, and any downside would reduce their collateral as a percent of the amount loaned. This sort of idea could potentially work along the lines of a margin call (ie you have to provide additional capital if your asset value drops), but this would have the effective of leveraging the bank's risk, when their objective is to lower their risk through requiring a down payment. I don't see a reason why the bank would take on the risk that you would need to provide additional capital down the road with no upside for them. Additionally, many banks have backed away from the kinds of zero-down-payment and negative-amortization-ARM loans that got them (or the people they sold them to) in trouble over the last few years in an effort to reduce how much risk they take on. I think that in theory, you'd have to offer a lot more benefit to the bank, and that in practice it's probably a non-starter right now.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f0f94cad109154d5343f3c209527606",
"text": "Many brokerage accounts for trading stocks are covered under SIPC insurance, which is up to $500,000 You can also have multiple checking and savings accounts with the $250,000 balance split up. You can also check your bank's capital ratio on the FDIC website, somewhere. The FDIC won't move on them unless it falls under 3% and even then FDIC will force them into receivership and sell them to a bigger bank before they go bust and experience losses of customer deposits. This is what mostly happened when hundreds of banks failed during the crisis from 2008-2010. There were very isolated events where customers actually lost their cash balances, and that was mostly because those customers had completely uninsured accounts. As that was the most extreme moment in US and global financial history, you should be able to judge risk with the aforementioned information in mind. You can stay in a cash balance easily and be fully insured.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a04a2460032d58b91cec4215efa7c3c6",
"text": "\"There are two issues. The first is that you can manage all of your family's money. The second issue arises if you now \"\"own\"\" all of your family's money. As far as entities go, it is best to keep money or assets in as many different hands as possible. Right now, if someone sued you and won, they could take away not only your money, but your parents' and brother's money, under your name. Also, there are gift, estate and inheritance tax consequences to your parents and brother handing all their money to you. You should have three or four separate \"\"piles\"\" of money, one for yourself, one for your brother and one for each of your parents, or at least both of them as a couple. If someone sued one parent, the other parent, your brother and you are protected. You can have all these piles of money under your management. That is, your parents and brother should each maintain separate brokerage accounts from yours, and then give you the authorization to trade (but not withdraw from) their accounts. This could all be at the same brokerage house, to make the reporting and other logistics relatively easy.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f47bdeb2d0972bb69521a13551d181af",
"text": "\"You don't state where you are, so any answers to this will by necessity be very general in nature. How many bank accounts should I have and what kinds You should have one transaction account and one savings account. You can get by with just a single transaction account, but I really don't recommend that. These are referred to with different names in different jurisdictions, but the basic idea is that you have one account where money is going in and out (the transaction account), and one where money goes in and stays (the savings account). You can then later on, as you discover various needs, build on top of that basic foundation. For example, I have separate accounts for each source of money that comes into my personal finances, which makes things much easier when I sit down to fill out the tax forms up to almost a year and a half later, but also adds a bit of complexity. For me, that simplicity at tax time is worth the additional complexity; for someone just starting out, it might not be. (And of course, it is completely unnecessary if you have only one source of taxable income and no other specific reason to separate income streams.) how much (percentage-wise) of my income should I put into each one? With a single transaction account, your entire income will be going into that account. Having a single account to pay money into will also make life easier for your employer. You will then have to work out a budget that says how much you plan to spend on food, shelter, savings, and so on. how do I portion them out into budgets and savings? If you have no idea where to start, but have an appropriate financial history (as opposed to just now moving into a household of your own), bring out some old account statements and categorize each line item in a way that makes sense to you. Don't be too specific; four or five categories will probably be plenty. These are categories like \"\"living expenses\"\" (rent, electricity, utilities, ...), \"\"food and eating out\"\" (everything you put in your mouth), \"\"savings\"\" (don't forget to subtract what you take out of savings), and so on. This will be your initial budget. If you have no financial history, you are probably quite young and just moving out from living with your parents. Ask them how much might be reasonable in your area to spend on basic food, a place to live, and so on. Use those numbers as a starting point for a budget of your own, but don't take them as absolute truths. Always have a \"\"miscellaneous expenses\"\" or \"\"other\"\" line in your budget. There will always be expenses that you didn't plan for, and/or which don't neatly fall into any other category. Allocate a reasonable sum of money to this category. This should be where you take money from during a normal month when you overshoot in some budget category; your savings should be a last resort, not something you tap into on a regular basis. (If you find yourself needing to tap into your savings on a regular basis, adjust your budget accordingly.) Figure out based on your projected expenses and income how much you can reasonably set aside and not touch. It's impossible for us to say exactly how much this will be. Some people have trouble setting aside 5% of their income on a regular basis without touching it; others easily manage to save over 50% of their income. Don't worry if this turns out a small amount at first. Get in touch with your bank and set up an automatic transfer from your transaction account to the savings account, set to recur each and every time you get paid (you may want to allow a day or two of margin to ensure that the money has arrived in your account before it gets taken out), of the amount you determined that you can save on a regular basis. Then, try to forget that this money ever makes it into your finances. This is often referred to as the \"\"pay yourself first\"\" principle. You won't hit your budget exactly every month. Nobody does. In fact, it's more likely that no month will have you hit the budget exactly. Try to stay under your budgeted expenses, and when you get your next pay, unless you have a large bill coming up soon, transfer whatever remains into your savings account. Spend some time at the end of each month looking back at how well you managed to match your budget, and make any necessary adjustments. If you do this regularly, it won't take very long, and it will greatly increase the value of the budget you have made. Should I use credit cards for spending to reap benefits? Only if you would have made those purchases anyway, and have the money on hand to pay the bill in full when it comes due. Using credit cards to pay for things is a great convenience in many cases. Using credit cards to pay for things that you couldn't pay for using cash instead, is a recipe for financial disaster. People have also mentioned investment accounts, brokerage accounts, etc. This is good to have in mind, but in my opinion, the exact \"\"savings vehicle\"\" (type of place where you put the money) is a lot less important than getting into the habit of saving regularly and not touching that money. That is why I recommend just a savings account: if you miscalculate, forgot a large bill coming up, or for any other (good!) reason need access to the money, it won't be at a time when the investment has dropped 15% in value and you face a large penalty for withdrawing from your retirement savings. Once you have a good understanding of how much you are able to save reliably, you can divert a portion of that into other savings vehicles, including retirement savings. In fact, at that point, you probably should. Also, I suggest making a list of every single bill you pay regularly, its amount, when you paid it last time, and when you expect the next one to be due. Some bills are easy to predict (\"\"$234 rent is due the 1st of every month\"\"), and some are more difficult (\"\"the electricity bill is due on the 15th of the month after I use the electricity, but the amount due varies greatly from month to month\"\"). This isn't to know exactly how much you will have to pay, but to ensure that you aren't surprised by a bill that you didn't expect.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f5fb93b7a5cd0209d2b227983b37eb21",
"text": "Most people carry a diversity of stock, bond, and commodities in their portfolio. The ratio and types of these investments should be based on your goals and risk tolerance. I personally choose to manage mine through mutual funds which combine the three, but ETFs are also becoming popular. As for where you keep your portfolio, it depends on what you're investing for. If you're investing for retirement you are definitely best to keep as much of your investment as possible in 401k or IRAs (preferably Roth IRAs). Many advisers suggest contributing as much to your 401k as your company matches, then the rest to IRA, and if you over contribute for the IRA back to the 401k. You may choose to skip the 401k if you are not comfortable with the choices your company offers in it (such as only investing in company stock). If you are investing for a point closer than retirement and you still want the risk (and reward potential) of stock I would suggest investing in low tax mutual funds, or eating the tax and investing in regular mutual funds. If you are going to take money out before retirement the penalties of a 401k or IRA make it not worth doing. Technically a savings account isn't investing, but rather a place to store money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "28d8fb25f927be0346124fa6b356d346",
"text": "You could conceivably open a few accounts. For example, a bank account and a credit card account. Then the accounts will be older when evaluated for credit when you return. This would look better than opening fresh accounts later. But don't expect a big difference in score. And you'll be stuck with those accounts in the future, otherwise you lose the benefit. I wouldn't worry about maintaining balances now. You can wait until you come back. Occasional purchases may be helpful. What they really want to see is a regular and sustained use of accounts without missing payments or overextending. But if you're not going to be here, you can't really do that. Note that good credit scores are based on seven years of data, preferably a lot of it. Opening a few accounts can't substitute for that, even if you put balances on them. If you're not here, you won't be paying rent or utilities. You won't have a proven payment history on the most common accounts. If money were no object, you could do something like purchase a house or condo that you could rent out, utilities included. That would build up a payment history. But if money were no object, you probably wouldn't be worried about your credit score. It's more practical to just live normally and be sure that you always live within your means so that you don't experience negative credit events. You might think about why you want a good credit score. Is it to borrow a lot of money? You might be able to spend money to achieve that. Is it to save money on future borrowing? If it costs money now, how much will you save total? Opening accounts now that you won't really use until you return is about the only thing that you can do that won't cost you money. Perhaps put a balance on the bank account--at least you'll get that money back some day. Maintaining a balance on the credit cards would cost you money in interest charges, and you don't really benefit from an improved credit score until you use your credit. So the interest fees aren't really buying you anything.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7d5505b6c56edc9dc1592bdd431592f7",
"text": "You can keep your Mutual Funds. You have to communicate your new status to fund house. The SIP can continue. Please note you have to convert the savings account to NRO account. Most banks would keep the account number same, else you have to revise SIP debit to new NRO account. From a tax point of view, it would be similar to resident status. Right now short term gains are taxed. There are quite a few other things you may need to do. Although dated, this is a good article. PS: Once you become resident alien in US for tax purposes, you are liable for taxes on global income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "04fc25149b5028e4a34d26e562cedb73",
"text": "\"I have a similar situation -- five different accounts between me and my wife. Just as you and @Alex B describe, I maintain my asset allocation across the combination of all accounts. I also maintain a spreadsheet to track the targets, deviations from the targets, amounts required to get back in balance, and overall performance. I (mostly) don't use mutual funds. I have selected, for each category, 1 or 2 ETFs. Choosing index ETFs with low expense ratios and a brokerage with cheap or free trades keeps expenses low. (My broker offers free ETF trades if you buy off their list as long as you aren't short-term trading; this is great for rebalancing for free 2 or 3 times a year.) Using ETFs also solves the minimum balance problem -- but watch out for commissions. If you pay $10 to buy $500 worth of an ETF, that's an immediate 2% loss; trade a couple of times a year and that ETF has to gain 5% just to break even. One issue that comes up is managing cash and avoiding transaction fees. Say your IRA has all the growth stock funds and your Roth has the bonds. Stocks do well and bonds do poorly, so you sell off some stocks, which creates a bunch of cash in your IRA. Now you want to buy some bonds but you don't have enough cash in your Roth, so you buy the bonds in your IRA. Not a problem at first but if you don't manage it you can end up with small amounts of various funds spread across all of your accounts. If you're not careful you can end up paying two commissions (in two different accounts) to sell off / purchase enough of a category to get back to your targets. Another problem I had is that only one account (401k) is receiving deposits on a regular basis, and that's all going into an S&P 500 index fund. This makes it so that my allocation is off by a fair amount every quarter or so -- too much in large cap equities, not enough of everything else. My solution to this going forward is to \"\"over-rebalance\"\" a couple of times a year: sell enough SPY from my other accounts so that I'm under-allocated in large caps by the amount I expect to add to my 401k over the next 3 months. (So that in six months at my next rebalancing I'm only 3 months over-allocated to large caps -- plus or minus whatever gains/losses there are.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "2227a351ed40c57f447a08a9c43166a7",
"text": "Yes, it's a good idea to have a separate business account for your business because it makes accounting and bookkeeping that much easier. You can open a business checking account and there will be various options for types of accounts and fees. You may or may not want an overdraft account, for example, or a separate business credit card just so you can more easily separate those expenses from your personal cards. When I started my business, I opened a business checking account and met with my banker every year just to show them how the business was doing and to keep the relationship going. Eventually, when I wanted to establish a business line of credit, it was easier to set up because I they were already familiar with my business, its revenue, and needs for a line of credit. You can set up a solo 401k with your bank, too, and they'll be very happy to do so, but I recommend shopping around for options. I've found that the dedicated investment firms (Schwab, Fidelity, etc.) tend to have better options, fees, and features for investment accounts. Just because a specific bank handles your checking account doesn't mean you need to use that bank for everything. Lastly, I use completely different banks for my personal life and for my business. Maybe I'm paranoid, but I just don't want all my finances in the same place for both privacy reasons and to avoid having all my eggs in the same basket. Just something to consider -- I don't really have a completely sane reason for using completely different banks, but it helps me sleep.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f0042193f945e999cc51ee7b75a7469d",
"text": "They might not have to open accounts at 12 bank because the coverage does allow multiple accounts at one institution if the accounts are joint accounts. It also treats retirement accounts a separate account. The bigger issue is that most millionaires don't have all their money siting in the bank. They invest in stocks, bonds, government bonds, international funds, and their own companies. Most of these carry risk, but they are diversified. They also can afford advisers to help them manage and protect their assets.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a92d69a63d8683745d8154be66e811f5",
"text": "Most countries tax income in its various ways, but not moving money. If this is a movement of already owned money, it is not tax-relevant. If it is a payment for services done, it is income, and it is the recipient's duty to pay taxes on it. Note that transferring large amounts of money (10k+) between countries can trigger a review, which - worst case - results in questions where it came from. The point of that is solely to verify it was legally earned money (not drug money or such). There is nothing to worry about if the money was legally earned.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f19a209e163a9e338e9df29b45d1f32c
|
Insurance broker - Online vs. physical location?
|
[
{
"docid": "fa2988eabe7f775dbbabdcf23c5e69e3",
"text": "\"Traditional insurance agent guy here. There is no right answer in my opinion because your individual needs cannot be generalized. There are a variety of factors that influence the price charged to you including but not limited to your past claims history, geographic location, credit profile, and the carrier's book of business itself. This is just a small sampling, in reality their pricing calculations may be far more complicated. The point is there is no one-size-fits all carrier. My agency works with 15 different carriers. Sometimes we can offer the best combination of coverage and cost to a prospective client that beats their existing coverage; other times we are nowhere close to being competitive. The most important thing you can do is find a person/site/company you can trust and one that does not take advantage of you. Insurance policies are complex and \"\"getting the best deal\"\" may oftentimes mean lessening coverage without realizing it. So I would recommend using whatever service channel (online, phone, local agent) that's most convenient and consultative for you. And otherwise, shop around once every year or two to make sure you're still getting the most for your money.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "beed71391be81e99b6336575872a510f",
"text": "Magazines like SmartMoney often have an annual issue that reviews brokers. One broker may have a wider variety of no-fee mutual funds, and if that's your priority, then the stock commissions may be a moot issue for you. In general, you can't go wrong with a Fidelity or Schwab, and to choose investments within the accounts with an eye toward low expenses.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fb1125139fc50ffaa344b886c0656aaa",
"text": "\"But you aren't driving between your two jobs, you're driving for your job. The better analogy would be \"\"If I didn't buy commercial insurance, but was hiring myself out to do deliveried then my personal insurance better cover me if I hit someone between deliveries\"\" It doesn't work that way. There is a reason commercial insurance costs a lot more - when your job is to drive, your risk profile increases significantly. There are specific clauses in personal insurance that they aren't going to cover you if something happens while you are using your car for commercial purposes.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "60875b339c77510ae0299dc38f34c543",
"text": "you are on the right track. 7/66 will be legally necessary (most likely), and CFP is pretty much a professional necessity at this point. insurance license isn't a bad idea, but i would need to know the full scope of services offered to give you more info. as far as resources go, watch bloomberg in the morning and a bit before you hit the hay for futures and international movement. their website is pretty solid to check on throughout the day, too. beyond that, it's kind of all preference as to what sources you use. i'd recommend staying away from very obviously biased outlets. but there will be professional sources that are availed to you once you're up and running - your dad might have some subscriptions he can give to you. i check on the Atlantic, fivethirtyeight, and the economist regularly for context, as well. on a personal note, i would encourage you to really weigh your options before committing to taking on the practice. i am a professional (hold 7/63/66/9/10 and CFP) and can tell you that, in my opinion, it is very exhausting and largely unrewarding working with clients. i won't go into a pessimistic diatribe here, as i don't want to discourage you from doing something you want. but be really sure - unless you're an analyst, this sort of work experience does not lend itself to changing careers or type of work you do.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d821d27f91a569b9b6f29f00b54431f",
"text": "Former software developer at an insurance company here (not State Farm though). All of the above answers are accurate and address how the business analysts come up with factors on which to rate your quote. I wanted to chime in on the software side here; specifically, what goes into actually crunching those numbers to produce an end result. In my experience, business analysts provide the site developers with a spreadsheet of base rates and factors, which get imported into a database. When you calculate a quote, the site starts by taking your data, and finding the appropriate base rate to start with (usually based on vehicle type, quote type (personal/commercial/etc.) and garaging zip code for the US). The appropriate factors are then also pulled, and are typically either multiplicative or additive relative to the base rate. The most 'creative' operation I've seen other than add/multiply was a linear interpolation to get some kind of gradient value, usually based on the amount of coverage you selected. At this point, you could have upwards of twenty rating factors affecting your base rate: marriage status, MVR reports, SR-22; basically, anything you might've filled into your application. In the case of MVR reports specifically, we'd usually verify your input against an MVR providing service to check that you didn't omit any violations, but we wouldn't penalize for lying about it...we didn't get that creative :) Then we'd apply any fees and discounts before spitting out the final number. With all that said, these algorithms that companies apply to calculate quotes are confidential as far as I'm aware, insofar as they don't publish those steps anywhere for the public to access. The type of algorithm used could even vary based on the state you live in, or really just when the site code is arbitrarily updated to use a new rating system. Underwriters and agents might have access to company-specific rating tables, so they might have more insight at the company level. In short, if there's an equation out there being used to calculate your rate, it's probably a huge string of multiplications with some base rate additions and linear interpolations peppered in, based on factors (and base rates) that aren't readily publicized. Your best bet is to not go through the site at all and talk to a State Farm agent about agency-specific practices if you're really curious about the numbers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c63128c5b3cf8b867f2169768f02a9a2",
"text": "Banking vs. speculating isn't a relevant dichotomy here. If my broker-dealer goes belly-up, I'm covered for up to $500K to replace the cash and securities I had on deposit with them. If he was doing forex investing, he fell into one of the few areas which is not covered by SIPC deposit insurance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c1c1437ed0dd486a5e53b6e385afb39",
"text": "A protection similar to FDIC for banks is provided to brokerage accounts' owners by SIPC. Neither FDIC nor SIPC provide protection or insurance against identity thefts or frauds, only bank/brokerage failures. Your investment losses are obviously not insured either. For fraud liability check your bank/brokerage policies, you can get insurance for identity theft from your insurance provider (its an optional coverage with many home-owner/renter insurance policies).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca022b509f9fed0e4309d84860e1671f",
"text": "In these days, the trip is the last preference for the people to visit various places internationally. The human beings additionally visit various places of interest for commercial enterprise, satisfaction, and different matters. In the prevailing marketplace, there are masses of travel agents available and pick the precise one which suits their wishes and necessities of the business travel. The Complete travel brokers Inc is the separate one for the handing over the best carrier to the company organization. The tour agents are the professionally one that offers the tour consulting career in a really perfect manner.",
"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": ""
},
{
"docid": "6bd83f933a663f9f1897b1a8b0197fb4",
"text": "There seems to be a contradiction here: Home warranties not worth paper they're written on and: What struck us is that the HWC [...] immediately had the unit replaced. There is a huge difference when you buy the insurance yourself and when a bank forces you to buy one. Because in the latter case, the insurance is not for you, it's for the bank to protect their collateral (which is your asset as well). It becomes obvious when a claim comes up, because the insurer is not negotiating with you, it's negotiating with another large financial institution. And as far as the stereotype of banks being ruthless behemoths goes, in this case you happen to benefit from being on the behemoth's side and the insurer simply can't brush off a bank as much as it can brush off a person like you. As you've put it, a house in Phoenix without AC is not worth much, so the bank could not let that happen. Because in case of another foreclosure they would have to fix the AC anyway.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e5211b469edeb470c91b8271c090ca9",
"text": "\"TDAmeritrade, an online stock broker, provides banking services within their brokerage accounts. The service offers all of what you are looking for. HOWEVER, this service is only available for free with their \"\"Apex\"\" qualification. Here is a tariff of their fees and services.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "174df252db3033dd38bbf830ef5356d5",
"text": "Tell your broker. You can usually opt to have certain positions be FIFO and others LIFO. Definitely possible with Interactive Brokers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa1fd4c1ea9ab614af95103a1847a75c",
"text": "Disclosure: I am working for an aggregation startup business called Brokerchooser, that is matching the needs of clients to the right online broker. FxPro and similar brokers are rather CFD/FX brokers. If you want to trade stocks you have to find a broker who is registered member of an exchange like LSE. Long list: http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/traders-and-brokers/membership/member-firm-directory/member-firm-directory-search.html From the brokers we have tested at Brokerchooser.com I would suggest:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "77e655ae1c86c992ba418ffc070b4510",
"text": "I use two different brokerages, both well-known. I got a bit spooked during the financial crisis and didn't want to have all my eggs in one basket. The SIPC limits weren't so much a factor. At the time, I was more worried about the hassle of dealing with a Lehman-style meltdown. If one were to fail, the misery of waiting and filing and dealing with SIPC claims would be mitigated by having half of my money in another brokerage. In hindsight, I was perhaps a bit too paranoid. Dealing with two separate brokerages is not much of an inconvenience, though, and it's interesting to see how their web interfaces are slightly different and some things are easier to do with one vs the other. Overall, they're really similar and I can't say there's much advantage (other than my tin-foil hat tendencies) to splitting it up like that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fa80e2066fab165e86db3de8af6d86ac",
"text": "Does such insurance make any sense or is it just wasting money for passengers? As with most insurance, it depends. If you just look at the probability of a payout, the cost of the insurance, and the payout amount, then statistically it will always be better to avoid buying insurance. This is because there is a certain amount of overhead in an insurance company, like the commissions and salaries you mentioned. The goal when buying insurance should be to avoid a cost that you cannot afford or is inconvenient to be able to afford. For example, if your family would be devastated financially by your death then it would make sense for you to buy some sort of life insurance. Whether or not this particular insurance makes sense for you depends on your financial situation and risk tolerance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c16feacf5f4d1e6d957730d1bd4acfe6",
"text": "Sample Numbers: Owe $100k on house. House (after 'crash') valued at: $50K. Reason for consternation: What rational person pays $100k for property that is only worth half that amount? True Story: My neighbor paid almost $250K (a quarter-of-a-million dollars - think about that..) for a house that when he walked (ran!) away from it was sold by the bank for $88K. Unless he declares bankruptcy (and forgoes all his other assets, including retirement savings) he still owes the bank the difference. And even with bankruptcy, he may still owe the bank - this should cause anyone to be a bit concerned about being up-side down in a mortgage loan.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
4dfec0ece798e4ba530730d4ec23c57d
|
Receive money from US Client to Myself in India by selling services
|
[
{
"docid": "d268171091dd171b468c547cc8453f33",
"text": "You can receive funds from US Client as an individual. There is no legal requirement for you to have a company. If the transactions are large say more than 20 lacs in a year, its advisable to open a Private Ltd. Although its simple opening & Registering a company [A CA or a Laywer would get one at a nominal price of Rs 5000] you can do yourself. Whatever be the case, its advisable to have seperate accounts for this business / professional service transactions. Maintain proper records of the funds received. There are certain benefits you can claim, a CA can help you. Paying taxes in Advance is your responsibility and hence make sure you keep paying every quarter as advance tax. Related questions Indian citizen working from India as freelancer for U.S.-based company. How to report the income & pay tax in India? Freelancer in India working for Swiss Company Freelancing to UK company from India How do I account for money paid to colleagues out of my professional income?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eb9a03241f0728bbb281cd981a8ef674",
"text": "Depending on how tech savvy your client is you could potentially use bitcoin. There is some take of indian regulators stopping bitcoin exchanges, meaning it might be hard to get your money out in your local country but the lack of fees to transfer and not getting killed on the exchange rate every time has a huge impact, especially if your individual transaction sizes are not huge.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "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": "b5c208aa15db85fd959b6995ab8b9298",
"text": "In short getting funds converted outside of the Banking channel is illegal in India as Foreign Exchange is still regulated. If you show only a credit from your friend's NRE account to your NRO account [note it can't be your NRE account], it would be treated as GIFT and taxed accordingly, else you would have to show it as loan and pay back. You may show the payback in USD. But then there is a limit of Fx every individual can get converted/repatriate out of India and there is a purpose of remittance, all these complicate this further.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e4e0889cafa3e615afc8b6cef174d5a",
"text": "We have a house here in India worth Rs. 2 Crores. We want to sell it and take money with us. Selling the house in India will attract Capital Gains Tax. Essentially the price at which you sell the property less of the property was purchased [or deemed value when inherited by you]. The difference is Capital Gains. You have to pay tax on this gains. This is currently at 10% without Indexation and 20% with Indexation. Please note if you hold these funds for more than an year, you would additionally be liable for Wealth tax at 1% above Rs 50 lacs. Can I gift this whole amount to my US Citizen Daughter or what is the maximum limit of Gift amount What will be the tax liability on me and on my Daughter in case of Gift Whether I have to show it in my Income Tax Return or in my Daughter's Tax Return. What US Income Tax Laws says. What will be the procedure to send money as Gift to my Daughter. Assuming you are still Indian citizen when to gift the funds; From Indian tax point of you there is no tax to you. As you daughter is US citizen, there is no gift tax to her. There is no limit in India or US. So you can effectively gift the entire amount without any taxes. If you transfer this after you become a US Resident [for tax purposes], then there is a limit of USD 14,000/- per year per recipient. Effective you can gift your daughter and son-in-law 14,000/- ea and your husband can do the same. Net 14,000 * 4 USD per year. Beyond this you either pay tax or declare this and deduct it from life time estate quota. Again there is no tax for your daughter. What are the routes to take money from India to US Will the money will go directly from my Bank Act.to my Daughter's Bank Account. Will there will be wire transfer from bank to bank Can I send money through other money sender Certified Companies also. The best way is via Bank to Bank transfer. A CA Certificate is required to certify that taxes have been paid on this funds being transferred. Under the liberalized remittance scheme in India, there is a limit of USD 1 Million per year for moving funds outside of India. So you can move around Rs 6-7 Crore a year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ffdf27fb9f7077c4a6d7ea0ba512f87f",
"text": "Three ideas: PayPal is probably the best/cheapest way to transfer small/medium amounts of money overseas.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1598456c94f3904695b01ae594b63c36",
"text": "I was wondering if I could make part of the payment here in USD legally? Although not directly illegal ... From an India tax and FMEA point of view this would be a bit complicated. A NRI Seller cannot repatriate the proceeds from sale of house unless he had purchased this from NRE account and repatriation is only possible for original purchase amount. For the gains Seller has to apply for repatriation of funds. A NRI Seller has to pay taxes on gains and this transaction should not look like facilitating a tax fraud in case NRI Seller does not pay his taxes. As a Buyer if you make the purchase from your NRE account [i.e. Move US funds into India into NRE Account], it will ease you ability to repatriate funds in future. Depending on the property value and PAN card availability of seller, you have to deduct 1% to 30.12% tax from the value and deposit this with Income Tax India. PS: It is recommended that you consult a Professional CA to help you with modalities.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b2575d1033e052c22614deb65dd7b7e",
"text": "\"Paypal linked with my bank account. 1.Can I use my Saving bank account to receive payments from my clients? Or is it necessary to open a current account? Yes you can get funds into your savings account. However it is advisable to keep a seperate account as it would help with your IT Returns. 2.I will be paying a certain % as commission on every sales to a couple of sales guys (who are not my employees but only working on commission). Can I show this as an expense in my IT returns? As you are earning as freelancer, you are eligible for certain deductions like Phone calls, Laptop, other hardware, payments to partners. It is important that you maintain a book of records. An accountant for a small fee of Rs 5 K should be able to help you. In the Returns you have to show Net income after all these deductions, there is no place to enter expenses. 3.Since I will be receiving all the payments in Euros so am I falling under a category of \"\"Exporter of services\"\"? The work you are doing can be Free Lancing. 4.Do I need an Import Export Code (IEC) for smoothly running this small business? You can run this without one as Free lancing. IEC would be when you grow big and are looking for various benefits under tax and pay different taxes and are incorporated as a company.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cbafbb6336133afb605c82d75fbac651",
"text": "You can use xoom.com or western union. They are both pretty much the same, as they do not charge any fees but take a cut of 0.7-0.8% on every dollar. However, there is a minimum and maximum limit of sending money. If you want to transfer more, you can wire money in through a financial institution such as Wells Fargo or Chase bank or look to see if there is a State bank of India around you. I am quite sure that they charge $15 plus 0.20-0.30% on every dollar( The last time I used it). Hope this helps.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a854018240159da1d1efd29a2f1ce651",
"text": "Can I Send the money back to my personal account of my mother/father in India? Why not? A huge number of Indians working in US are sending money to their parents. There may be multiple reasons like paying a mortgage/loan or sister's wedding or any personal reasons. Usually, there may be a reason column when you send money through any Remittance company. Do I need to pay any tax here in US or my parents back in India? Parents are direct dependents in India. So you can share your money with your dependents. Your parents have to pay tax for whatever they are earning in India based on the tax slab and age they fit in. So you can even give them the power of Attorney to control your properties in India.",
"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": "2a432a7a2c8065d96fa3c96b471e089f",
"text": "Taxes Yes. You haven't indicated why the transfer is being made. If it is without any reason, it would attract a Gift Tax. legal liability It would definitely be investigated to see if Money Laundering or any other illegal activities is happening. If things are in order you have nothing to worry. charges Normally none. Your Bank can confirm better. friend of mine Are you sure he is a friend and this is not some kind of scam ... it typically starts of with you will get huge money and then calls like its stuck with RBI you need to paysome one to fast track or any such stories to get money out of you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a2835b6174f6b3e73ae2a2cdda2658eb",
"text": "Quite a few stock broker in India offer to trade in US markets via tie-up brokers in US. As an Indian citizen, there are limits as to how much FX you can buy, generally very large, should be an issue. The profits will be taxed in US as well as India [you can claim relief under DTAA]",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "41ee3561cef74975b242ec5e0bf15f49",
"text": "Online money transfer facility from Axis Remit is a quick and easy way to transfer money from USA to India. AxisRemit is Axis Bank's flagship inward remittance service enables you to transfer money to your beneficiaries through the most efficient channels like online money transfer, exchange houses and money transfer operators.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd864938cafd56ba9cfef21a0f8c5626",
"text": "Can I Send the money back to my personal account of my mother/father in India? Yes you can. Do I need to pay any tax here in US or my parents back in India? There is no tax in India to your parents as it's treated as gift and is tax free between close relatives. In US you would need to pay gift tax if amount is more than USD 16000 a year. See other questions on this site for gift tax rules in US.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "66521d7eba2dc3e6c79b450fbe8663f4",
"text": "Any such amount has to be reported by Skrill and the Bank to RBI. As long as your earnings are legitimate and you are paying the taxes you shouldn't be worried. If its for services rendered, you would have a contract and / or invoice ... ie some paper work. It is important to keep the paper work in order.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "970bf827c2ba21f4e4be22f0c766713e",
"text": "As the college education is very costly, I want to send USD 25,000 to him as a gift. What is the procedure and what Indian and American tax laws are involved ? This transaction will be treated as gift. As per Indian law you can transfer unlimited amount to your close relative [son-in-law/grandchildren/daughter/etc]. In US the gift tax is on donor, as you are no US citizen you are not bound by this. As your son-in-law/grandchildren are US citizens, there is no tax to them. Your son-in-law may still need to declare this in Form 3250 or such relevant returns. Under the Liberalized remittance scheme [Refer Q3], you can transfer upto USD 250,000 per year. There maybe some forms that you need to fill. Ask your Bank. If the amount is more than USD 25,000 a CA certificate along with 15CA, 15CB need to be filled. Essentially the CA certifies that taxes on the funds being transferred have already been paid to Govt of India. Can I send money to him directly or to his father who is submitting tax returns in USA? This does not make any difference in India. Someone else may answer this question if it makes a difference in US.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f8d154b3e613f588dfd9c043ea84818a
|
Can a merchant charge you more in the US if you want to use a credit card?
|
[
{
"docid": "f49afe59c2066b628a48a29923719045",
"text": "\"This isn't so much a legal issue, the prohibition on giving discounts was written into the merchant agreements that most of the major credit card companies enforced on businesses that accepted their credit cards. That is, until the recent Financial Reform Bill (2010) passed Congress. It changes everything. (The logic on this is a little convoluted, so read carefully) Credit card companies can no longer prohibit merchants from requiring a minimum purchase amount to use a credit card. Meaning: That if merchants want to, they can now stop taking credit cards for a $4 latte. Credit card companies can no longer prohibit merchants from giving discounts for cash. Here is an article with a lot more detail: Financial Reform Bill Good News for Credit Card Holders Here is a link to the actual bill details and content: HR 4173 - Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act Here is the relevant part: This subsection is supposed to take affect \"\"at the end of the 12-month period beginning on the date of the enactment of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010.\"\" In other words, July 21st, 2011.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a2432ced7c1711f5e0e728728c592a5c",
"text": "I'm not sure about the laws in specific states. However it's part of their merchant agreement that they can not charge a fee for a customer paying with credit card. It's also against merchant agreements to require a minimum purchase to use a credit card, although this is less commonly enforced. Apparently (http://fso.cpasitesolutions.com/premium/le/06_le_ic/fg/fg-merchants.html) merchants can offer a cash discount. Offering payment by credit card, though practically a requirement in todays retail environment, is a privilege for the merchant. It's a way of making buying convenient for the customer. As a result, penalizing the customer in any way is not just against their agreement, but rather disingenuous as well. edit: here's a bit more information about what they can and can't do. Amex prohibits discrimination, so if a merchant can't do something to a Visa/MC customer they can't do it to an Amex customer either. http://fso.cpasitesolutions.com/premium/le/06_le_ic/fg/fg-merchants.html",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "478adaae85ab5fdaad5bde665aeb4c65",
"text": "The minimum amount is set by the merchant services provider based on the kind of business, its location and the history. It mostly has nothing to do with you personally. However, the minimum amount differs based on the kind of credit cards being used. For example, foreign credit cards will require signatures on much lower amounts than domestic. In my local Safeway (NoCal analog of Ralph's) the limit for domestic credit cards is set at $50. If your credit limit is $5000, you might think that its a 1% of your limit. But if your limit is $50000 or $500 - it will still be $50. You cannot deduce anything about a specific person's credit situation based on whether or not they are required to sign the receipt. It has no affect on the decision.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb5d9d9e02c33392ccae4b67b32b3344",
"text": "Those extra treat points have to come from somewhere, and they come from American Express charging merchants a higher percentage than Visa or Mastercard. So it's less attractive for those merchants to accept it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "58798764a5f701a63768787f72841c06",
"text": "Chip and Pin cards are popular in Europe, however in the US we don't have them. Visa/MC and Amex can issue chip and pin cards but no merchants or machines are set up here to take them. Only certain countries in Europe use them and since you could possibly have a US visitor or a non-chip and pin person using your machine or eating at your restaurant they usually allow you to sign or just omit the pin if the card doesn't have a chip. It is definitely less secure, but the entire credit card industry in the US is running right now without it, so I don't think the major credit card companies care too much (they just pass the fraud on to the merchants anyway).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "336b97b24895254218c39d45f15f8b28",
"text": "\"in theory, yes. in practice, no. largely because merchants pay a fee to process credit card transactions which normally exceeds the cash back you can get. i tried this with square, since their vendor fee was 2.75%, and i got 5% back on restaurants. however, even though i registered with square as a restaurant, transactions were categorized as \"\"other services\"\" or something, so i only got 1% back and lost 1.75% net. moreover, if you did find a card/processor combination that left you with a net gain, they would eventually catch on and charge you with some sort of fraud. i wasn't worried about it with the square experiment because it was only 1$, but if you tried to do this with large sums, a human would catch you. and if it was enough money to matter, there would be a lawsuit. if you were really unlucky, you might get charged with some terrorism crap like \"\"structuring\"\" deposits.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b4da24f321fb782c3eadaf9e189c1c90",
"text": "Is my understanding okay ? If so, it seems to me that this system is rather error prone. By that I mean I could easily forget to make a wire some day and be charged interests while I actually have more than enough money on the check account to pay the debt. Which is where the credit card company can add fees so you pay more and they make more money. Don't forget that in the credit case, you are borrowing money rather than using your own. Another thing that bothers me is that the credit card apparently has a rather low credit limit. If I wanted to buy something that costs $2500 but only have a credit limit of $1500, can I make a preemptive wire from my check account to the VISA account to avoid facing the limit ? If so, what is the point for the customer of having two accounts (and two cards for that matter...) ? If you were the credit card company, do you believe people should be given large limits first? There are prepaid credit cards where you could put a dollar amount on and it would reject if the balance gets low enough. Iridium Prepaid MasterCard would be an example here that I received one last year as I was involved in the floods in my area and needed access to government assistance which was given this way. Part of the point of building up a credit history is that this is part of how one can get the credit limits increased on cards so that one can have a higher limit after demonstrating that they will pay it back and otherwise the system could be abused. There may be a risk that if you prepay onto a credit card and then want to take back the money that there may be fees involved in the transaction. Generally, with credit cards the company makes money on the fees involved for transactions which may come from merchants or yourself as a cash advance on a credit card will be charged interest right away while if you buy merchandise in a store there may not be the interest charged right away.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f905cfa8cad48d9933b67a3b1b01235e",
"text": "The location that you are purchasing from is not really relevant. If you use either a Visa or MasterCard to make a payment in a foreign currency of any kind then your payment will automatically use Visa/MasterCard's FX platform. Whilst fees can vary between issuers, the fee is generally fixed at 2.5%. There are occasionally credit card issuers who have special deals to remove these fees, but they tend to come and go and availability will depend on your country of residence. The only real way to avoid the fee is to get access to a debit or credit card denominated in the currency you wish to use for your purchase. This is often achievable for USD or EUR, but much harder for smaller currencies. You would have to try contacting a bank in that country to see if they would open an account for you or attempting to purchase a pre-paid credit card online.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd4e136401631719b477bcecbdb36789",
"text": "\"Yes and No. There's always a \"\"fee\"\". The difference in credit vs debit usually determines how much that fee is and how it's paid. Each vendor who accepts the major credit card is under contract to pay for equipment and meet certain standards. The same is true for debt card transactions. How much the \"\"fee\"\" is can vary based on the contract the vendor has with MasterCard/Visa/AMEX. But in general most debt transactions go back to the bank who distributed the card.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ee7fd69c667fbb6297c8f12bac30e9e",
"text": "Probably not. I say probably because your credit card's terms of service may treat certain purchases (I'm thinking buying traveler's checks off-hand) as cash advances. See also this question.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3c553a96ad85be276c9f6d08f0d6e555",
"text": "\"This might not be the answer you are looking for, but the alternative to \"\"don't patronize these merchants\"\" is this: DO patronize these merchants, and pay cash. Credit cards are convenient. (I use a credit card often.) However, there is no denying that they cost the merchants an incredible amount in fees, and that our entire economy is paying for these fees. The price of everything is more than it needs to be because of these fees. Yes, you get some money back with your rewards card, but the money you get back comes directly from the store you made the purchase with, and the reward is paid for by increasing the price of everything you buy. In addition, those among us that do not have the credit score necessary to obtain a rewards card are paying the same higher price for goods as the rest of us, but don't get the cash back reward. Honestly, it seems quite fair to me that only the people charging purchases to a credit card should have to pay the extra fee that goes along with that payment processing. If a store chooses to do that, I pay cash instead, and I am grateful for the discount.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "efcfcb17879092bd1510185b489e5620",
"text": "No. You will need to call your credit card issuer and ask for a credit limit increase. If you plan to pay off your card then I see no problem in this. You could also ask the seller if they will put $1000 on your card, and $500 in cash. (Ask for a cash discount too.) Found some anecdotes! http://ask.metafilter.com/143018/Can-I-prepay-my-credit-card-and-use-it-like-a-debit-card-to-help-me-spend-more-responsibly#2047093 http://ficoforums.myfico.com/t5/Credit-Cards/Can-I-prepay-to-increase-limit/m-p/670376#M214222",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed92a26567b09642092447d525ece178",
"text": "Yes, they're referring to the credit card dispute (chargeback) process. In the case of dispute, credit card company will refund/freeze your charge so you don't have to pay until the dispute is resolved (or at all, if resolved in your favor). If the dispute is resolved in your favor, your credit card company will charge back the merchant's service provider which in turn will charge back (if it can) the merchant itself. So the one taking the most risk in this scenario is the merchant provider, this is why merchants that are high risk pay significantly higher fees or get dropped.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "afad993777d3ac29eaac2caca85e5dbc",
"text": "The funny thing is that mom & pop type establishments usually prefer cash due to the merchant charges they have to pay to the credit card companies. Some of these are percentage-based & others are fixed like a per-transaction charge. In the long run, accepting 10k USD wouldn't be enough. They would lose more than that in people who don't have a card on them vs accepting both cash and cards.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b7deb81ad4a582eb5faa70ec1ea7087",
"text": "\"I don't know, but I can guess. You'll notice the Elite card has higher rewards. A card might want to convince merchants that they represent high end buyers, and use that to negotiate higher merchant discounts. Issuing bank: \"\"Our 10 million card holders are sophisticated and have lots of discretionary income. If you don't agree to this rate, we'll terminate the contract and they will take their business elsewhere.\"\" Merchant: \"\"But it's twice the rate of everyone else! I'm sure these customers have other means of payment, and besides, how many of those card holders are actually using it?\"\" Issuing bank: \"\"Our cardholders signal their interest in the benefits of cardholding by paying us an annual fee. If they didn't want one, they'd stop paying right? They clearly know they have one and our records indicate they use them regularly. We're pretty sure if you don't wise up they'll shop at your biggest competitor, another client of ours. pause Frankly, they already do.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b0288ad4861488073b702208da13fa2b",
"text": "ACH, Paypal, Amazon Pay are all other options that can be used. ACH is cheapest for the merchant but it is a bit of a pain for the customer to setup (aka adds friction to our sales process, which is *very* bad). Paypal and Amazon Pay both cost a bit more than regular credit cards for the merchant. Google Wallet is free but not available unless you are a sole proprietor or an individual, which is is useless for businesses. So yeah, other options are either difficult or more expensive.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b3224957bda477a4f0c3ac37ecb8585b",
"text": "An advantage of using a major credit card is that they act as a buffer and source of recourse between you and the merchant. Cheated and the store won’t answer you letters? Call Visa (or more accuratly, call the number on the back of the card). (That is, #2 on this answer, which you can also reference for a whole list of benefits.)",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
8162ed8e96a5ccc9e6b65d4fe940d46f
|
How do you invest in real estate without using money?
|
[
{
"docid": "6b34f6fbabd9543cde3cfab87b7ebd92",
"text": "I know this is broad, but this isn't a scam -- it's a workshop/educational thing about teaching people of investing in the real estate market, and how to profit The scam is that the free or cheap class doesn't give you enough info to make money; so they sell you a more advanced and expensive class that gets you almost enough info; but the goal of the 2nd class is to get you to pay for the specialized seminar and coaching sessions that either fail to materialize or are so basic they aren't worth the money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f6bdba3040528635a47946d6d4f18927",
"text": "Sounds like the seminar is about using OPM (other people's money), which means you're going to have to find not just real estate, but investors. Those investors are going to need a business plan, contracts, and a lot of work from you to provide as much equity as possible before the property is sold. If you're serious about Real Estate, I suggest finding the most successful broker/agent you can, buying them a beer, glass of wine, or cup of coffee, and picking their brain about it. It'll be cheaper then a scam seminar.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "bc51b36b9bf082a42f9d53d5552018d3",
"text": "They're probably talking about flipping houses. The conventional wisdom when flipping is to purchase the property with a mortgage or other loan on day-0. Do the work to rehabilitate it. Get it listed for re-sale promptly (this step has varying strategies) with a profitable price but one that will make it move. Have the house sold on or before the first payment would be due. This is anywhere from 30 to 60 days. The flipper then never has to make a payment on the mortgage or loan, the costs of rehabilitating the home are recovered promptly (potentially before any loan, credit card payments, or invoices are due), and there is a profit. This also assumes that either a 100% loan or some other mechanism is used to address closing costs and fees. This model fits the premise of the infomercial in that you make money investing in real estate but never have to tie up any of your own money in the process.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3845ca2df40e79a492d61a73cbf2c174",
"text": "I've been to one of these seminars: a) you can get a loan of up to $700,000 from the company and only have to pay a fixed amount for the use of money, but you have to pay the loan off in nine months. Or b) you can just invest say $50,000 and you'll get a return of say 4%. But what the company does is take all of the investor's money and use that to fund the loans (putting none of the company’s money at risk), and that fixed amout sounds reasonable until you realize that it's only for a part of the year so the real APY is actually much higher than the conventional lending rate; or the rate they are paying the investors.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "983de4d284b10120ef321f3cfd394987",
"text": "There is (almost) always money involved somewhere, but it doesn't have to come from you. It can be investors, credit cards, or even seller-financing (I've done all 3). Examples: If you can find partners with the money to make the deals happen, then your job is to put the deal together. Find the properties, negotiate the price, even get the property under contract (all without any obligation or cost on your part... yes it absolutely can be done). Then your partners will fund the deal if it's good enough and their terms are met, etc. In some areas you can put a property on a credit card. If you find a house say for $25,000 that will rent for $300/month, and you can put it on a credit card (especially at zero percent for a year or something similar), then you can generate cashflow as a landlord without putting up any cash of your own on the purchase. Of course there are many risks associated with landlording and i could tell you horror stories... but we're not addressing that here. You can negotiate a sale with an owner who agrees to finance the entire purchase for you. I once purchased 3 properties at once this way from a seller who financed the entire sale, all closing costs, everything, this way. Of course they needed a lot of repair and such so I had to fund that another way, but at least the purchase itself cost me no money out of pocket. So these infomercials/courses are not inherently scams in the sense that what they are teaching is (usually... I'm sure there are exceptions) true. However they generally give you enough information to get into trouble, and not out. But that's what true learning is... it's getting into trouble and finding a way out that doesn't kill you. =) That's called experience, and you can't buy that for any price.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "62434a140f0cfd64e57c57b6ba1b6a0a",
"text": "\"I have a friend who had went on a seminar with FortuneBuilders (the company that has Than Merrill as CEO). He told me that one of the things taught in that seminar was how to find funding for the property that you want to flip. One of the things he mentioned was that there are so-called \"\"hard money\"\" lenders who are willing to lend you the money for the property in exchange for getting their name on the property title. Last time I checked it looked like here in Florida we had at least Bridgewell Capital and Fairview Commercial Lending that were in that business. These hard money lenders get their investment back when the house is sold. So there is some underlying expectation that the house can be sold with some profit (to reimburse both the lender and you for your work). That friend of mine did tell me that he had flipped a house once but that he did not receive the funding to that from a lender but from an in-law, however it was through a similar arrangement.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "897b1fcdfb82e4434aab17ca5ed7baa9",
"text": "You can increase your monthly cash flow in two ways: It's really that simple. I'd even argue that to a certain extent, decreasing expenses can be more cash-positive than increasing income by the same amount if you're spending post-tax money because increasing income generally increases your taxes. So if you have a chunk of cash and you want to increase your cash flow, you could decrease debt (like Chris suggested) and it would have the same effect on your monthly cash flow. Or you could invest in something that pays a dividend or pays interest. There are many options other than real estate, including dividend-paying stocks or funds, CDs, bonds, etc. To get started you could open an account with any of the major brokerage firms and get suggestions from their financial professionals, usually for free. They'll help you look at the risk/reward aspects of various investments.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "26756dc751c14860d859dbceebb51ea4",
"text": "\"Living in one unit of a multi-family while renting out the others, although not without its risks, can be a viable (if gradual) way to build wealth. It's been rebranded recently as \"\"house hacking\"\", but the underlying mechanics have been around for many years (many cities in the Northeast in particular remain chock full of neighborhoods of 3-family homes built and used for exactly that purpose for decades, though now frequently sub-divided into condos). It's true you'd need to borrow money, but there are a number of reasons why it's certainly at least worth exploring (which is what you seem to be asking -- should you bother doing the homework -- tl;dr: yes): And yes, you would be relying on tenants to meet your monthly expenses, including a mortgage bill that will arrive whether the other units are vacant or not. But in most markets, rental prices are far less volatile than home prices (from the San Francisco Federal Reserve): The main result from this decomposition is that the behavior of the price-rent ratio for housing mirrors that of the price-dividend ratio for stocks. The majority of the movement of the price-rent ratio comes from future returns, not rental growth rates. (Emphasis added) It's also important to remember that rental income must do more than just cover your mortgage -- there's lots of other expenses associated with a rental property, including insurance, taxes, maintenance, vacancy (an allowance for the periods when the property will be empty in between tenants), reserves for capital improvements, and more. As with any investment, it's all about whether the numbers work. (You mentioned not being interested in the \"\"upkeep work\"\", so that's another 8-10% off the top to pay for a property manager.) If you can find a property at an attractive price, secure financing on attractive terms, and can be reasonably confident that it will rent in the ballpark of 1.5-2% of the purchase price, then it might be a fine choice for you, assuming you are willing and able to handle the work of being a landlord -- something worth at least as much of your research time as the investment itself. It sounds like you're still a ways away from having enough for even an FHA down payment, which gives you a great opportunity to find and talk with some local folks who already manage rental properties in your area (for example, you might look for a local chapter of the national Real Estate Investment Association), to get a sense of what's really involved.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e469606ed367da67077be8954d5324b4",
"text": "\"If you're looking for a well-rounded view into what it's like to actually own/manage real-estate investments, plus how you can scale things up & keep the management workload relatively low, have a look at the Bigger Pockets community. There are blogs, podcasts, & interviews there from both full-time & part-time real estate investors. It's been a great resource for me in my investments. More generally, your goal of \"\"retiring\"\" within 20 years is very attainable even without getting extravagant investment returns. A very underrated determinant in how quickly you build wealth is how much of your income you are contributing to investments. Have a look at this article: The Shockingly Simple Math Behind Early Retirement\"",
"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": "83d21d2e798367c62935ef6db0a73341",
"text": "\"I would not advise buying a home because you think you will make money. (1) Return on Investment If you have $290K, have you asked yourself how much your investment would grow if you invested it in other ways. At 2% growth re-invested, your money would grow to $307K (or 17K) after 4 years. $290,000 * 1.02 = $295,800 * 1.02 = $301,716 * 1.02 = $307,750 (2) Homeowner Experience Without the experience of owning your own home, it's hard to know relate to complaints and expectations that your tenants might have. It's hard to know to anticipate problems and repairs and costs due to home ownership. Homeowners have many decisions to make regarding upkeep of a home. The costs are difficult to predict if you have no experience to draw upon. (3) Managing Rental Property: It's a \"\"job\"\". You either take on this responsibility, or you subcontract it to someone else who you pay to manage the property and contracts! Is this something you are passionate about doing? If you need to travel back to the home, it's clear across country. It's not close enough to visit.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2672f85e33b709f4dbbffabf875d2251",
"text": "I strongly recommend you to invest in either stocks or bonds. Both markets have very strict regulations, and usually follow international standards of governance. Plus, they are closely supervised by local governments, since they look to serve the interests of capital holders in order to attract foreign investment. Real estate investment is not all risky, but regulations tend to be very localized. There are federal, state/county laws and byelaws, the last usually being the most significant in terms of costs (city taxes) and zoning. So if they ever change, that could ruin your investment. Keeping up with them would be hard work, because of language, legal and distance issues (visiting notary's office to sign papers, for example). Another thing to consider is, specially on rural distant areas, the risk of forgers taking your land. In poorer countries you could also face the problem of land invasion, both urban and rural. Solution for that depends on a harsh (fast) or socially populist (slow) local government. Small businesses are out of question for you, frankly. The list of risks (cash stealing, accounting misleading, etc.) is such that you will lose money. Even if you ran the business in your hometown it would not be easy right?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "128c7a9ef781afd62670cc4785cb768f",
"text": "You will make very little cash in real estate. Don't think of it like a money farm, unless if you have the capital to forgo the loan. The rent will pay the equity towards owning the place which at any point you can sell into cash. But you won't get lots of spending cash upfront, it takes a while to build. Source: have a good friend who does this- the second he gets any capital he instantly buys and manages a new property. Poorest rich guy I know",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b5b135e0def60d33f061580f500ad79c",
"text": "Probably the easiest way to invest in hotel rooms in the U.S. is to invest in a Real Estate Investment Trust, or REIT. REITs are securities that invest in real estate and trade like a stock. There are different REITs that invest in different things: some own office buildings, some residential rentals, some hold mortgages, and some are diversified in lots of different types of real estate. There are also REITs that are exclusively invested in hotels. REITs are required to pay out at least 90% of their profits as dividends, and there are tax advantages to investing in REITs. You can search for a REIT on REIT.com's Searchable Directory. You can select a type (Lodging/Resorts), a stock exchange (NYSE), investment sector (equity), and a listing status (public), and you'll see lots of investments for you to consider.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a7bcd917fe07b351cca0a1b88d3050c8",
"text": "\"I have money to invest. Where should I put it? Anyone who answers with \"\"Give it to me, I'll invest it for you, don't worry.\"\" needs to be avoided. If your financial advisor gives you this line or equivalent, fire him/her and find another. Before you think about where you should put your money, learn about investing. Take courses, read books, consume blogs and videos on investing in stocks, businesses, real estate, and precious metals. Learn what the risks and rewards are for each, and make an informed decision based on what you learned. Find differing opinions on each type of investment and come to your own conclusions for each. I for example, do not understand stocks, and so do not seriously work the stock market. Mutual funds make money for the folks selling them whether or not the price goes up or down. You assume all the risk while the mutual fund advisor gets the reward. If you find a mutual fund advisor who cannot recommend the purchase of a product he doesn't sell, he's not an advisor, he's a salesman. Investing in business requires you either to intimately understand businesses and how to fund them, or to hire someone who can make an objective evaluation for you. Again this requires training. I have no such training, and avoid investing in businesses. Investing in real estate also requires you to know what to look for in a property that produces cash flow or capital gains. I took a course, read some books, gained experience and have a knowledgeable team at my disposal so my wins are greater than my losses. Do not be fooled by people telling you that higher risk means higher reward. Risks that you understand and have a detailed plan to mitigate are not risks. It is possible to have higher reward without increasing risk. Again, do your own research. The richest people in the world do not own mutual funds or IRAs or RRSPs or TFSAs, they do their own research and invest in the things I mentioned above.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d98a1a97eb6179caef1f1e5c9c6958c7",
"text": "\"Not at all impossible. What you need is Fundamental Analysis and Relationship with your investment. If you are just buying shares - not sure you can have those. I will provide examples from my personal experience: My mother has barely high school education. When she saw house and land prices in Bulgaria, she thought it's impossibly cheap. We lived on rent in Israel, our horrible apartment was worth $1M and it was horrible. We could never imagine buying it because we were middle class at best. My mother insisted that we all sell whatever we have and buy land and houses in Bulgaria. One house, for example, went from $20k to EUR150k between 2001 and 2007. But we knew Bulgaria, we knew how to buy, we knew lawyers, we knew builders. The company I currently work for. When I joined, share prices were around 240 (2006). They are now (2015) at 1500. I didn't buy because I was repaying mortgage (at 5%). I am very sorry I didn't. Everybody knew 240 is not a real share price for our company - an established (+30 years) software company with piles of cash. We were not a hot startup, outsiders didn't invest. Many developers and finance people WHO WORK IN THE COMPANY made a fortune. Again: relationship, knowledge! I bought a house in the UK in 2012 - everyone knew house prices were about to go up. I was lucky I had a friend who was a surveyor, he told me: \"\"buy now or lose money\"\". I bought a little house for 200k, it is now worth 260k. Not double, but pretty good money! My point is: take your investment personally. Don't just dump money into something. Once you are an insider, your risk will be almost mitigated and you could buy where you see an opportunity and sell when you feel you are near the maximal real worth of your investment. It's not hard to analyse, it's hard to make a commitment.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f84220fd43bec9562e69e878985ace2e",
"text": "Insurance - get estimate from an insurance agent who works with policies for commercial real estate. See comments below regarding incorporation. Taxes - if this was basic income for a simple LLC, estimating 25-40% and adjusting over time might work. Rental property is a whole different prospect. Financial experts who specialize in rental properties would be a good source of advice, and worth the cost. See below regarding incorporating. Real estate appreciation - not something you can count on for developed property. Appreciation used to be almost guaranteed to at least keep up with inflation. Now property values are not even guaranteed to go up. Never have been but the general rule was improved real estate in good repair appreciated in price. Even if property values increase over time, rental properties depreciate. In fact, for rental properties, you can claim a certain rate of depreciation over time as an expense on taxes. This depreciation could mean selling for less than you paid for the property after a number of years, and owing capital gains taxes, since you would owe the difference between the depreciated value and the sale price. Related to taxes are local codes. Some areas require you to have a property management license to handle buildings with more than a certain number of units. If you are going to own rental properties, you should protect your private financial life by incorporating. Form a company. The company will own the property and hire any maintenance people or property managers or security staff or any similar employment activities. The company takes out the insurance and pays taxes. The company can pay you a salary. So, bottom line, you can have the company pay all the expenses and take all the risks. Then, assuming there's any money left after expenses, the company can pay you a manager's salary. That way if the worst happens and a tenant breaks their hip in the shower and sues you for ONE MILLION DOLLARS and wins, the company folds and you walk away. You might even consider two companies. One to own the property and lease it to a property management company. The property management company can then go bankrupt in case of some sort of liability issue, in which case you still keep the property, form a new management company, repaint and rename the property and move on. TL;DR: Get insurance advice from insurance agent before you buy. Same for taxes from an accountant. Get trained as a property manager if your local codes require it (might be a good idea anyway). Incorporate and have the company take all the risks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af1e7f772ced48852837068b40ff5770",
"text": "Investments earn income relative to the principal amounts invested. If you do not have much to invest, then the only way to 'get rich' by investing is to take gambles. And those gambles are more likely to fail than succeed. The simplest way for someone without a high amount of 'capital' [funds available to invest] to build wealth, is to work more, and invest in yourself. Go to school, but only for proven career paths. Take self-study courses. Learn and expand your career opportunities. Only once you are stable financially, have minimal debt [or, understand and respect the debt you plan to pay down slowly, which some people choose to do with school and house debt], and are able to begin contributing regularly to investment plans, can you put your financial focus on investing. Until then, any investment gains would pale in comparison to gains from building your career.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4ac2c64ce70259bde39978411a151518",
"text": "\"with 150K € to invest to \"\"become a landlord\"\" you have several options: Pay for 100% of one property, and you then will make a significant percentage of the monthly rent as profit each month. That profit can be used to invest in other things, or to save to buy additional properties. At the end of the 21 years in your example, you can sell the flat for return of principal minus selling expenses, or even better make a profit because the property went up in value. Pay 20% down on 5 flats, and then make a much a smaller profit per flat each month due to the mortgage payment for each one. At the end of the 21 years sell the flats. Assuming that a significant portion of the mortgage is paid off each flat will sell for more than the mortgage balance. Thus you will have 5 nice large profits when you sell. something in between 1 and 5 flats. Each has different risks and expenses. With 5 rental properties you are more likely to use a management company, which will add to your monthly cost.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a146fdf08da2e1eb362314864ea79faf",
"text": "All of this makes perfect sense and I can definitely see the logic behind it. But I don't think Hedge Funds are the way to go. The real money lies in real estate, more specifically land-banking. The problem, though, is that a lot of land-banking investments are really just scams and it's really hard to tell which ones are real and which ones are fake.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca7300a7b550cedad2605527efee2d1f",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-markets-oil/oil-ends-on-a-low-after-halving-in-2014-as-opec-stands-aside-idUSKBN0K905620141231) reduced by 76%. (I'm a bot) ***** > NEW YORK - Oil prices fell on Wednesday to a 5-1/2-year low and ended with their second-biggest annual decline ever, down by half since June under pressure from a global glut of crude. > Weekly U.S. data showed crude oil stockpiles fell more than expected, but inventories at the oil hub at Cushing, Oklahoma, grew, keeping prices depressed. > Oil prices have collapsed this year as the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries opted to maintain the same level of output despite a global glut caused by expanding U.S. shale output and diminished demand growth from China. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/759rn2/the_triggering_factor_for_the_oil_price_drop_in/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~224918 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **Oil**^#1 **Price**^#2 **U.S.**^#3 **crude**^#4 **low**^#5\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
8d167916e9d27fefa7329470279f6053
|
What is a maximum amount that I can wire transfer out of US?
|
[
{
"docid": "d1adeee13e441c082a60e0b3e7fcad84",
"text": "Chase has a limit of $500,000 per day. A banker should be able to help you determine any immediate tax liabilities that will arise as a direct result of the transaction. You may wish to consult with a tax professional about any indirect implications the transfer may have. This transaction will be reported to the government but assuming that you are not involved in any illegitimate activities the likelihood of the US government taking any action on the notice is incredibly low. I have heard of 7 and 14 day holds being placed on out of character transfers but if you are buying property you should work with your bank to help facilitate. Bankers understand the business and can help you avoid any appearances of impropriety that the government flags. Should your account be flagged, I would retain a lawyer immediately. If you feel you have a reason to be concerned, then I would contact a lawyer in the US and Thailand before initiating the transfer. As they say an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "810283b04e2c4022c9af2143b19e0c86",
"text": "The limit, if any, would be established by your financial institutions. You would need to contact both your sending and receiving bank to ascertain any limitation they impose on wire transfers. Generally, taxes aren't imposed on transference of funds between accounts you own, but I'm not familiar with tax in Thailand and I could be wrong on that half of the question.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "208437e9b3c9d9f5f24f75c994df7c54",
"text": "I can clear the Thailand side for you. These are the sale tax in Thailand: Don't forget to ask your bank in Thailand to issue an (FTFs). This document shows the money originated from abroad (before in came to your Thai account) from outside of Thailand. The land office will ask for the (FTFs).",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d81d671b0862c112b56f9571e6a57717",
"text": "\"If the amount is large, \"\"wire transfer\"\" is usually the cheapest option. Mane banks have online option for it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fda178639a225301e4fd912273f847bb",
"text": "Most definitely all wire transfer above a significant amount would be flagged as a suspicious transaction. Nevertheless, as long you provide the Final beneficiary information (name and account number), the bank will process the remittance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5b9b2e9c08ae7722a8693d06c547ed4d",
"text": "\"The US Customs and Border Protection website states that there is no limit to the amount of currency that can be brought into or taken out of the US. There is no limit on the amount of money that can be taken out of or brought into the United States. However, if a person or persons traveling together and filing a joint declaration (CBP Form 6059-B) have $10,000 or more in currency or negotiable monetary instruments, they must fill out a \"\"Report of International Transportation of Currency and Monetary Instruments\"\" FinCEN 105 (former CF 4790). The CBP site also notes that failure to declare currency and monetary instruments in excess of $10,000 may result in its seizure. Further, the site states that the requirement to report currency on a FinCEN 105 does not apply to imports of gold bullion. However, the legal website The Law Dictionary includes details of how money laundering laws may come into play here : As part of the War on Terror and the War on Drugs, U.S. law enforcement agencies have significantly increased their vigilance over money laundering. To this effect, travelers who carry large amounts of cash without supporting documentation of its legitimate source may be subject to secondary inspections and seizure of funds. In some cases, law enforcement may confiscate cash in excess of $10,000 until supporting documents are produced. So far, I have described the \"\"official\"\" position. However, reading between the lines, I think it is fair to say that in the current climate if you show up at an entry point with a suitcase full of a large amount of cash you would face considerable scrutiny, regardless of any supporting documentation you may present. If you fail to present supporting documentation, then I think your cash would certainly be seized. If you are a US resident, then you would be given the opportunity to obtain satisfactory documentation. If you did present documentation, then I think your cash would be held for as long as it would take to verify the validity of the documentation. Failure to present valid documentation would result in money laundering charges being brought against you and the matter would rest before the courts. If you are not a US resident, then failing to produce supporting documentation would mean your cash being seized and entry into the US would almost certainly be denied. You would then have to deal with the situation from outside of the US. If you did produce supporting documentation, then again I suspect the cash would be held for as long as it takes to verify the validity of the documentation. Whether or not you were allowed to enter the US would depend on what other documentation you possess.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a2c39b55120ad4bbc45e75f660b117d0",
"text": "Just a regular bank transfer. Call your US bank and ask for wire transfer instructions. I've transferred money like that from US to Europe and back a few times. Usually fees were in low two digits ($15-$30), but depending on your bank account a sending and receiving side may charge a fee.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ffcfab4133c06e206a3cc6af7ff4b0b7",
"text": "How much amount can we transfer from India to the USA? Is the limit per year? As I understand your father in law is Indian Citizen and his tax paid earnings need to be transferred outside of India. Under the Liberalized Remittance Scheme by RBI, one can transfer upto 2,50,000 USD. Please check with your Bank for the exact paperwork. A form 15CA and 15CB [by CA] are required to establish taxes have been paid. What documents we have to present to the bank? See above. Should money be transferred to company's account(Indian Company) to USA company? or can be transferred to my husband's account. Transfer of funds by a Indian Company to US Company has some restrictions. Please check with CA for details. If you father in law has sold the Indian Company and paid the taxes in India; he can transfer the proceeds to his son in US as per the Liberalized Remittance Scheme. Can they just gift the whole amount to my husband? What will be the tax implication on my husband's part in USA and on my father in law in India. The whole amount can be gifted by your father in law to your husband [his son]. There is no tax implication in India as being an Indian resident, gift between close relatives is tax free. There is no tax implication to your husband as he is a US Citizen and as per gift tax the person giving the gift should be paying the applicable taxes. Since the person gifting is not US Citizen; this is not applicable.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "384e8f4f9cfd57bcd1d185a8fbc1a6dc",
"text": "Wire transfers normally run through either the Fedwire system or the Clearing House Interbank Payments System (CHIPS). The process generally works like this: You approach a bank or other financial institution and ask to transfer money. You give the bank a certain code, either an international bank account number or one of several other standards, which informs the bank where to send the money. The bank sends a message through a system like Fedwire to the receiving bank, along with settlement instructions. This is where the process can get a bit tricky. For the wire transfer to work, the banks must have reciprocal accounts with each other, or the sending bank must send the money to a bank that does have such an account with the receiver. If the sending bank sends the money to a third-party bank, the transaction is settled between them, and the money is then sent to the receiving bank from the third-party bank. This last transaction may be a wire transfer, ACH transfer, etc. The Federal Reserve fits into this because many banks hold accounts for this purpose with the Federal Reserve. This allows them to use the Fed as the third-party bank referred to above. Interestingly enough, this is one of the significant ways in which the Fed makes a profit, because it, along with every other bank and routing agent in the process, collects a miniscule fee on this process. You'll often find sources that state that Fedwire is only for transferring large transactions; while this is technically correct, it's important to understand that financial institutions don't settle every wire transfer or payment immediately. Although the orders are put in immediately, the financial institutions settle their transactions in bulk at the end of the business day, and even then they normally only settle the difference. So, if Chase owes Bank of America $1M, and Bank of America owes Chase $750K, they don't send these as two transactions; Chase simply credits BAC $250K. You didn't specifically ask about ACH transfers, which as littleadv pointed out, are different from wire transfers, but since ACH transfers can often form a part of the whole process, I'll explain that process too. ACH is a payment processing system that works through the Federal Reserve system, among others. The Federal Reserve (through the Fedline and FedACH systems) is by far the largest payment processor. The physical cash itself isn't transferred; in simple terms, the money is transferred through the ACH system between the accounts each bank maintains at the Federal Reserve. Here is a simple example of how the process works (I'm summarizing the example from Wikipedia). Let's say that Bob has an account with Chase and wants to get his paycheck from his employer, Stack Exchange, directly deposited into this account. Assume that Stack Exchange uses Bank of America as their bank. Bob, the receiver, fills out a direct deposit authorization form and gives it to his employer, called the originator. Once the originator has the authorization, they create an entry with an Originating Depository Financial Institution, which acts as a middleman between a payment processor (like the Federal Reserve) and the originator. The ODFI ensures that the transaction complies with the relevant regulations. In this example, Bank of America is the ODFI. Bank of America (the ODFI) converts the transaction request into an ACH entry and submits it, through an ACH operator, to the Receiving Depository Financial Institution (RDFI), which in this case is Chase bank. Chase credits (deposits) the paycheck in Bob's account. The Federal Reserve fits into all of this in several ways. Through systems like Fedline and FedACH, the Fed acts as an ACH operator, and the banks themselves also maintain accounts at the Federal Reserve, so it's the institution that actually performs the settling of accounts between banks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5957d17f3237d596fda562a4340cfe5c",
"text": "I don't know how fast are wire transfers between bank accounts in the US, but here in Europe we can have them in under an hour usually for an extra fee (during bank working hours) - so you could take a laptop with Internet connection to the transaction, make a wire transfer and wait that hour drinking coffee for the transfer to arrive before handing the keys and papers and the buyer driving away.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b693a50f0b041a503eb337fccc719e76",
"text": "\"In Frank Abagnale's book \"\"Art of the Steal\"\" the author talks about how to set up a bank account for safe wire transfers. He recommends setting up an account at your regular bank and specifying that money can be transferred into that account from another bank, and out to your regular account only. You are then free to give the necessary transfer information to whomever you want, knowing full well they can't take money out. This guy should know what he's talking about since he's an ex-confidence man legitimately working as an American security consultant.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "880e242b835fc149307678468ee21539",
"text": "The experience I have with wire transfers is from Australia to the US. These transfers can take up to 5 business dates (i.e. a whole week including the non-business days of the weekend). I would have thought intra-European transfers would be quicker, given how behind most US (regional) banks are in their electronic transfers. However, I don't think you should be worried just yet.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "956ddecfc0653002284ed107b47600ee",
"text": "Don't all of the major bitcoin processors limit the risk to basically zero for the large multinationals that choose to accept bitcoin? I haven't been involved recently, but I know when bitpay and coinbase were starting, whatever bitcoin you received was automatically transferred to USD at the current rate, unless you opted out and chose to keep the bitcoin.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d494f736c2fe7c90d149b3ec3bbbcc0f",
"text": "There are several ways to minimize the international wire transfer fees: Transfer less frequently and larger amounts. The fees are usually flat, so transferring larger amounts lowers the fee percentage. 3% is a lot. In big banks, receiving is usually ~$15. If you transfer $1000 at a time, its 1.5%, if you transfer $10000 - it's much less, accordingly. If you have the time - have them send you checks (in US dollars) instead of wire transferring. It will be on hold for some time (up to a couple of weeks maybe), but will be totally free for you. I know that many banks have either free send and/or receive. I know that ETrade provides this service for free. My credit union provides if for free based on the relationship level, I have a mortgage with them now, so I don't pay any fees at all, including for wire transfer. Consider other options, like Western Union. Those may cost more for the sender (not necessarily though), but will be free for the receiver. You can get the money in cash, or checks, which you can just deposit on your regular bank account. For smaller amounts, it should be much cheaper than wire transfer, for example - sending $500 to India costs $10, while wire transfer is $30.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "76def0924a473ee8754ddbcfa1ab06b3",
"text": "If possible, I would open a Canadian bank account with a bank such as TD Canada Trust. You can then have your payments wired into that account without incurring costs on receipt. They also allow access to their US ATM network via TD Bank without additional costs. So you could use the American Affiliate to pull the funds out via a US teller while only bearing the cost of currency conversion. If that option can't work then the best route would be to choose a US bank account that doesn't charge for incoming wire transfers and request that the money be wired to your account (you'll still get charged the conversion rate when the wire is in CAD and the account is in USD).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9954f866b7befe7818a4e0c81b3be08e",
"text": "I am a non-resident alien transferring a limited amount ( in dollars post tax) to India every couple of months. Assuming you are transferring this into an NRE account in India or atleast NRO account in India. As a NRI, by regulations one should not hold normal Savings account. This has to be converted into NRO. I put that money as a fixed deposit in a bank (which gives 6-7 percent annual return) Assuming you have FCNR deposits. Also assuming that you are declaring the taxes in your US Tax returns and paying tax accordingly. There is no tax in India on FCNR. If this was in ordinary FD or in NRO account, you are declaring and paying taxes in India as well as in US. What is the max limit on transferring money back from India to USA? If you have transferred this into NRE account, there is no limit. Other account there is a limit. Read more at Liberalized Remittance Scheme and here. What are the legitimate ways to transfer the money? From India point of view, this has to be Bank to Bank transfers. You can't carry cash [Indian Rupees] outside of India beyond Rs 25000 [or 15000?]. You can't hold excess of USD 250 without valid purpose. Western Union is not authorized to transfer funds out of India. Will there be any tax levied? No assuming you are already paying taxes on the Interest in US and depending on the type of account in India.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "33da7c09e1a08fdf982f837b5ce5fe70",
"text": "Most Banks allow to make an international transfer. As the amounts is very small, there is no paperwork required. Have your dad walk into any Bank and request for a transfer. He should be knowing your Bank's SWIFT BIC, Name and Address and account number. Edit: Under the liberalised remittance scheme, any individual can transfer upto 1 million USD or eq. A CA certificate is required. Please get in touch with your bank in India for exact steps",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d08a71e70cc24b74d048f9240257fd4",
"text": "I don't believe there is any particular structural or financial reason that outgoing wire transfers cost so much in Canada, their costs are no higher than other countries (and lower than many). Wires seem to be an area where the Canadian banks have decided people don't comparison shop, so it's not a competitive advantage to offer a better price. The rates you quoted are on the low side: $80 for a largish international wire is not unusual, and HSBC charges up to $150! There are several alternative ways to transfer money domestically in Canada. If the recipient banks at the same bank, it's possible to go into a branch and transfer money directly from your own account to their account (I've never been charged for this). The transfer is immediate. But it couldn't be done online, last time I checked. For transfers where you don't know the recipients bank account, you can pay online with Interac E-Transfers, offered by most Canadian banks. It's basically e-mailing money. It usually costs $1 to $1.50 per transfer, and has limits on how much you can send per day/week. Each of the banks also have a bill-pay service, but unlike similar services in the US (where they mail a paper check if the recipient isn't on their system), each Canadian bank has a limited number of possible payees (mostly utilities, governments, major stores).",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
0f1ba3f3c8ef67683cb3872527a2c991
|
How does remittance work? How does it differ from direct money transfer?
|
[
{
"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": "592c4f7af5ca9919a189b5bcb67d9cdf",
"text": "If you are a citizen of India and working in Germany, then you are most likely an NRI (NonResident Indian). If so, you are not entitled to hold an ordinary Indian bank account, and all such existing accounts must be converted to NRO (NonResident Ordinary) accounts. If your Indian bank knows about NRO accounts, then it will be eager to assist you in the process of converting your existing accounts to NRO accounts most likely it also offers a money remittance scheme (names like Remit2India or Money2India) which will take Euros from your EU bank account and deposit INR into your NRO account. Or, you can create an NRE (NonResident External) account to receive remittances from outside India. The difference is that interest earned in an NRO account is taxable income to you in India (and subject to TDS, tax deduction at source) while interest earned in an NRE account is not taxable in India. The remittance process takes a while to set up, but once in place, most remittances take 5 to 6 business days to complete.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "83db28a9e6fe549899d04d893da03274",
"text": "Is the balance (in dollars, say) automatically converted to rupees when I try to: You can't transact on this account like you do on savings account. So there is NO ATM/Debit Card/Net Banking. You have to walk-in to the Branch and withdraw in local currency or in travel cards as required. Am I correct in understanding that a resident foreign currency account cannot have deposits made into it in rupees, say if someone wants to transfer money to me using IMPS? Deposits are restricted. See RBI circular",
"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": "d2bea84814f1e59730a85ae11c389f75",
"text": "\"The applicants go through the same process as for any other loan. The only difference is that the \"\"bank\"\" is people like me, perhaps 200 of us on a note. We kick in $25 or so on each note and get the opportunity to ask the applicant questions. The investors pay a small percentage as fees to have professionals rate the notes. The worse the credit, the higher the interest rates the note holder recieves. Of course if the person stops paying, we receive nothing. Calculated risk. I invest in high risk notes sometimes depending on what it's for and have several in my portfolio. It's literally microlending. I can afford to lose $25 on a risky loan or two for a 19% profit because the rest of my portfolio is diversified into hundreds of 9-11% notes. It works surprisingly well.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f3c1ea4f5c1426fdc9465e1a4779ae16",
"text": "Is it true that my father and I get better exchange rate if he uses citibank than his local bank and my local bank? No. The rates vary from Bank to Bank and some days some bank may give a better rate and there is no Golden rule that One Bank will always give better rate. For the amount specified, your father needs to walk into his Bank, preferably the branch that deals with Forex or the Main Branch in the city. A better rate would be given. So any leading Bank like HDFC, ICICI, SBI, SBH, Axis will be similar. Please note a CA certificate is required to make such remittance outside of India. having my father send me money in USD in India and I get USD here. In that case, my father would have to pay exchange fees Yes this is the only option. You have to convert INR to USD in India. having my father send me money in INR in India and I exchange INR to USD in the US. In this case, exchange fees would be on me INR cannot be sent to US electronically. It will automatically get converted to USD. There is no bank in US that holds an INR account for you to convert amount into USD.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a854018240159da1d1efd29a2f1ce651",
"text": "Can I Send the money back to my personal account of my mother/father in India? Why not? A huge number of Indians working in US are sending money to their parents. There may be multiple reasons like paying a mortgage/loan or sister's wedding or any personal reasons. Usually, there may be a reason column when you send money through any Remittance company. Do I need to pay any tax here in US or my parents back in India? Parents are direct dependents in India. So you can share your money with your dependents. Your parents have to pay tax for whatever they are earning in India based on the tax slab and age they fit in. So you can even give them the power of Attorney to control your properties in India.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1fe0edeb6c6da8ee333bf55a13c5f35a",
"text": "Transferwise is a new peer-to-peer service that's setup to lower fees for international money transfers: https://transferwise.com",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "29891229a6cd740290149c10ec1cbff3",
"text": "\"Perhaps it's the terminology \"\"fee\"\" that makes it a little confusing. I'm not sure whether it's due legislation or if it's tradition but banks and money changers in my country don't charge \"\"fees\"\". Instead they advertise separate prices for buying and selling money. For example they'd normally advertise: USD, we buy: 4.50, we sell: 4.65. It's a business. Just like selling cars or lemonade selling money only makes sense if you sell it at a higher price than what you bought it for. Regardless of what you call it it's the profit margin for the seller.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e0683a8583aa27b8e29bce069b34820",
"text": "It is not ! Of course you can transfer your monies to your account in another country. Its a different story if you were doing it for someone else and if the the money was not legitimate - then it would shade off into money laundering.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7eb30cb6efa624792fd394c546d3bf4d",
"text": "Like for example I use transferwise to send $x to my dad's account in India, would it show my name as the depositor ? That would depend from bank to bank, it may or may not show your name. Would it be considered as income for my dad ? Assuming your parents are Indian Residents for tax purposes. No. It would be considered as Gift. Gifts between father and son are tax free in India and there is no limit. Any special care/precaution to take before using such services ? Not really. Just to be safe, keep a copy of the transfer instruction / details of debit to you account etc, so that if there is enquiry you have all the data handy. Edit: Clarifying the comment, if you are Resident Alien in US for tax purposes, you would be liable to Gift Tax [Not your parents as they are Indian Residents and would follow Indian tax rules]. As per IRS the liability of Gift tax is on Donor subject to limit of $14000 per year per Donee. So you and your wife can gift your father and mother $14000 each. i.e. $56000 each year. Anything more will be taxable or can be reduced from the overall estate limit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d75920d84097b33a1bc7c02b04354336",
"text": "\"At this point, a great deal of the world's wealth exists only in electronic form, and just as you can write a check or pay by debit card and trust the banks will handle it, banks can conduct wire transfers\"\" through higher-level banking networks. In the US, when there is a need to convert physical money to electronic or vice versa, it is typically handled by armored car and armed guard transfer between a bank and the local Federal Reserve Bank office. Physical money is moved around only when necessary, and for as short a distance as possible, to the most secure facilities possible, to minimize risk. I can't vouch for how it's managed elsewhere in the world, where the networks and repository banks may not be as available. I would presume (I would hope!) that the same general concepts and approaches are followed.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9fbd618f21167b6f2ca0204c0cb3d4ed",
"text": "I ended up just trying. I gave A the IBAN of B's account, which I calculated online based on the bank code and account number (because B claimed IBAN won't work, so didn't give it to me), and B's name. A was able to transfer the money apparently without extra difficulties, and it appeared on B's account on the same day. Contrary to some other posts here, IBAN has nothing to do with the Euro zone, nor is it a European system. It started in Europe, but it has been adopted as an ISO standard (link). As usual of course some countries don't see the urgency to follow an international standard :) XE.com has a list of all IBAN countries; quite a few are non-European. Here is even the list formatted specially for the European-or-not discussion: link.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3479398e3403e0aa9df3502fc3b6ac97",
"text": "Generally in International transfers there are 4 Banks involved. Customer's Bank [Customer who initiating the payment], also called Sender Bank. There is Sender's Correspondent Bank. Then there is Beneficiary Bank also called Receiver Bank [Bank where Beneficiary holds account]. There is Receiver's Correspondent Bank. So Person A-> A's Bank -> A's Correspondent bank -> B's Correspondent Bank -> B's Bank -> Person B. Depending on the currency, at times there is only one correspondent Bank. The Chain of Correspondent Bank is common knowledge and quite often if you don't provide all the details; your Bank or other Bank will fill in default details and processes the payments. However it all depends on which bank and whether they are inclined to do so. Some bank specifically insist to use a preferred correspondent bank so if you don't specify any they may return / reject it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d404e48a37707fb85892c3a278a7bd5",
"text": "I can only imagine the regulatory difficulty you're going through, and for that I empathize. First, bankers everywhere mostly do not know if a bank policy is due to regulation or internal rules. Other banks may be more flexible, but only the most reputable should be used. Re Paypal, they first deposit 1 USD and then withdraw it, but things may be different in Cyprus. Also, Paypal now has debit cards, so if Paypal is permitted to issue cards in Russia then it could presumably be used in Cyprus. Again, local regulation notwithstanding. Paypal now has phone support at the very back of their site, so I suggest a call to them. In countries that permit, Western Union can be used to wire money into an account from cash. The Bitcoin route should be used as a last resort. You could wake up tomorrow losting 25% easy. The regulations are a distant second compared to this problem. With all of the above methods, there will be varying delays from days to weeks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "abcb1b0b0dcb18fd1442e0ce54d706b1",
"text": "So your dollar never leaves America until it leaves for an investment - which would be FDI. If you sent the dollar home to Mexico, that’s a remittance current account flow. Then later, you want to use that dollar for a housing investment in Mexico, it’s just domestic investment. If you move to the US, I believe that’s another remittance flow (though it might even be a service flow because the bank is the one moving the dollar!). Then to invest in Mexico you need to go through an FDI channel.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fda178639a225301e4fd912273f847bb",
"text": "Most definitely all wire transfer above a significant amount would be flagged as a suspicious transaction. Nevertheless, as long you provide the Final beneficiary information (name and account number), the bank will process the remittance.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
5d939171426afd5330612a2d8fdfae40
|
How do taxes work with donations made to an individual, e.g. for free software I wrote?
|
[
{
"docid": "159ebc98bb6fd24aa4857ed919b18228",
"text": "Do I report it as income? Is it subject to just the same amount of taxes (~30%) as regular income? Are there any restrictions on how it can be used? It is income. You can deduct the costs of maintaining the web page and producing the software from it (have an accountant do that for you, there are strict rules on how to do that, and you can only deduct up to the income if its a hobby and not a for-profit business), but otherwise it's earned income like any other self employment income. It is reported on your schedule C or on line 21 of your 1040 (miscellaneous income), and you're also liable for self-employment taxes on this income. There are no restrictions, it's your money. Technically, who is the donation even being made to? Me, just because I own the webpage? Yes. This is for the United States, but is there any difference if the donations come from overseas? No, unless you paid foreign taxes on the money (in which case you should fill form 1116 and ask for credit). If you create an official 501(c) organization to which the donations are given, instead of you getting it directly, the tax treatment will be different. But of course, you have to have a real charitable organization for that. To avoid confusion - I'm not a licensed tax professional and this is not a tax advice. If in doubt - talk to a EA/CPA licensed in your State.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "2042d92739538a1ed9f1f714b70657ae",
"text": "In general, all income is taxable, regardless of the source. If you living in the U.S. -- I don't think you said anywhere where you live -- then if you are donating this money to charity, you would have to declare the income, and then declare a deduction for the charitable contribution. At that point the two would cancel out and the net result is that you wouldn't have to pay any tax on the income, but you can't just leave it off your tax return. Well, even if you donated all of it to charity to that you don't have to pay income taxes on it, you would still have to pay social security taxes, and it would still affect your social security benefits when you retire. If you're saying that the organization receiving the money is itself a charity, as opposed to donating the money to some other organization that is a charity, than you usually have to be registered as a charity with the IRS to avoid income taxes. There are still forms to file to report the income, but you wouldn't have to pay taxes. There are some exceptions to the requirement to register, basically if your organization is very small and for certain religious organizations.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f64466e73414eae8039731a97acc605",
"text": "Depending on the size of the donation, you may be able to reduce taxes further by donating appreciated assets, such as stock or fund shares that have gone up a lot. That lets you dodge the capital gains tax on redeeming the shares, and if you're donating to a tax-exempt organization they don't have to pay that tax either. And as @JoeTaxpayer has confirmed, you still get to deduct the current value of the donation, not just the basis value of those shares. So if you're donating anyway, this comes close to being Free Money in exchange for some slightly annoying paperwork. (Yet another benefit of long-term investing!) Of course folks in the top brackets sometimes set up their own tax-exempt foundations so they can decouple taking the tax break from deciding what to do with the donation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "afbca4d29419bb73a19199c8112612b3",
"text": "\"If you are in the US, you legally must file taxes on any income whatsoever. How much you will pay in taxes, if any, will depend on your total taxable income. Now, for small transactions, the payments are often not reported to the IRS so some people do not file or pay. The threshold at which they payer is required to send a 1099 to the IRS is $600. Patreon considers each donation a separate transaction and therefore does not send a 1099 to the IRS unless you make more than $20,000 in a calendar year. If they do not report it, the IRS will not know about it unless they audit you or something. However, you are technically and legally responsible to report income whether the IRS knows about it or not. -------- EDIT ------- Note that the payer files a 1099, not the recipient. In order to report your patreon income you will either use schedule C or add it to the amount on 1040 line 21 (\"\"other income\"\") depending on whether you consider this a business or a hobby. If it's a business and it's a lot of money you should consider sending in quarterly payments using a 1040-ES in order to avoid a penalty for too little withholding.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c498d47cda8499cefa5cdcd535997fdc",
"text": "If I donate $10,000 to charity then I can deduct that $10,000 from my income and not pay income taxes on it. So if I make $50,000 a year then I will only pay income taxes on $40,000 instead of $50,000 since I donated $10,000 to charity. This is what is meant when charity contributions are said to be tax deductible. Don't feel like you have to donate to charity. You owe no one anything. You do more for others by working (assuming you work in the private sector). If you know of someone personally that is in need of aid then you could give them some help directly. I find this more effective then blindly dumping money in a bureaucratic, inefficient charity. I also find there are very few people in need of charity. Personally, I think charity donations are a way for people to feel good about themselves. They rarely care if their donations are effective.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b171a55ca69f689ee46c4199f8dc686",
"text": "If thinking about it like a business you normally only pay taxes on Net income, not gross. So Gross being all the money that comes in. People giving you cash, checks, whatever get deposited into your account. You then pay that out to other people for services, advertisement. At the end of the day what is left would be your 'profit' and you would be expected to pay income tax on that. If you are just an individual and don't have an LLC set up or any business structure you would usually just have an extra page to fill out on your taxes with this info. I think it's a schedule C but not 100%",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9797c3ae43e312e7a4e29c26a0f28f57",
"text": "If i am not wrong, any business activities such should be declared on Year End Tax filing. If your friend is going to own that website either it is commercial or nonprofit, he has to declare in the year end taxation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6c7f3f0533ea364be143008b7a33a693",
"text": "\"This page lays down the requirements for an \"\"unincorporated association\"\" to pay tax (i.e. any group that's not a registered entity). You pay tax is you make money from: it looks like you don't do any of those, so you don't need to file for taxes. There is another exemption that you don't have to file if it is likely that you would owe less than a hundred pounds taxes, which would also probably apply to you. There are many thousands of clubs and societies in the UK that don't need to register for tax purposes, so you are far from alone. It is probably worth creating an actual club (\"\"Captain Insanity Server Club\"\") and keeping records of donations and expenses for the server. There isn't any need to legally incorporate or anything like that, though you might try having a separate bank account for it if you can get a free one, so that if the tax authorities ever audit you personally you can show them that the donations you received weren't income to you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1905f1a693b1c56269cc40d19a4bc954",
"text": "Well, that's probably not even all of it. If that stranger did his taxes properly, then he already paid about a third of it to the government because wherever he got it from it was income for him and thus it must have been taxed. Now, the remainder is in your hands and yes, according to US law it is now your income and so now you too, must pay about a third of it to the government, and yes you are supposed to explain where it came from. Be careful giving it to somebody else or it'll be taxed yet again. disclaimer: I am not a US citizen",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e364e5a4e47e1d529db4f0601030e31",
"text": "I don't understand the logic in the other answer, and I think it doesn't make sense, so here is my take: You pay taxes on income, not on sales price. So if you put X $ of your own money in the account and it becomes X + Y $ in the future, at the moment of liquidation, you will own taxes on the Y $. Never on the X $, as it was your own (already taxed) money to begin with. The difference between long-term and short-term gains just influences the tax rate on Y. If you donate the gain alone (the Y $) to charity, you can deduct Y from your tax base. So adding Y to your tax base and then deducting Y again obviously leaves your tax base at the old value, so you pay no extra taxes. Which seems logical, as you didn't make any money in the process. Aside from extreme cases where the deductible gain is too large a percentage from your income or negative, I don't see why this would ever be different. So you can take your original 100 $ back out and donate all gains, and be fine. Note that potential losses are seen different, as the IRA regulations are not symmetric.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0fb8ad9020bf14fbf901fe9c1f18a4c4",
"text": "\"If you receive a 1099-MISC from YouTube, that tells you what they stated to the IRS and leads into most tax preparation software guided interviews or wizards as a topic for you to enter. Whether or not you have a 1099-MISC, this discussion from the IRS is pertinent to your question. You could probably elect to report the income as a royalty on your copyrighted work of art on Schedule E, but see this note: \"\"In most cases you report royalties in Part I of Schedule E (Form 1040). However, if you ... are in business as a self-employed writer, inventor, artist, etc., report your income and expenses on Schedule C or Schedule C-EZ (Form 1040).\"\" Whether reporting on Schedule E or C is more correct or better for your specific circumstances is beyond the advice you should take from strangers on the internet based on a general question - however, know that there are potentially several paths for you. Note that this is revenue from a business, so if you paid for equipment or services that are 100% dedicated to your YouTubing (PC, webcam, upgraded broadband, video editing software, vehicle miles to a shoot, props, etc.) then these are a combination of depreciable capital investments and expenses you can report against the income, reducing the taxes you may owe. If the equipment/services are used for business and personal use, there are further guidelines from the IRS as to estimating the split. These apply whether you report on Sch. E, Sch. C, or Sch C-EZ. Quote: \"\"Self-Employment Income It is a common misconception that if a taxpayer does not receive a Form 1099-MISC or if the income is under $600 per payer, the income is not taxable. There is no minimum amount that a taxpayer may exclude from gross income. All income earned through the taxpayer’s business, as an independent contractor or from informal side jobs is self-employment income, which is fully taxable and must be reported on Form 1040. Use Form 1040, Schedule C, Profit or Loss from Business, or Form 1040, Schedule C-EZ, Net Profit from Business (Sole Proprietorship) to report income and expenses. Taxpayers will also need to prepare Form 1040 Schedule SE for self-employment taxes if the net profit exceeds $400 for a year. Do not report this income on Form 1040 Line 21 as Other Income. Independent contractors must report all income as taxable, even if it is less than $600. Even if the client does not issue a Form 1099-MISC, the income, whatever the amount, is still reportable by the taxpayer. Fees received for babysitting, housecleaning and lawn cutting are all examples of taxable income, even if each client paid less than $600 for the year. Someone who repairs computers in his or her spare time needs to report all monies earned as self-employment income even if no one person paid more than $600 for repairs.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6182d56afcf0b5a8f2439fa618d15295",
"text": "\"A loan is not a taxable income. Neither is a gift. Loans are repaid with interest. The interest is taxable income to the lender, and may or may not be deductible to the borrower, depending on how the loan proceeds were used. Gifts are taxable to the donor (the person giving the gift) under the gift tax, they're not a taxable income to the recipient. Some gifts are exempt or excluded from gift tax (there's the annual exemption limit, lifetime exclusion which is correlated to the estate tax, various specific purpose gifts or transfers between spouses are exempt in general). If you trade for something of equal value, is that considered income? Yes. Sale proceeds are taxable income, however your basis in the item sold is deductible from it. If you borrow a small amount of money for a short time, is that considered income? See above. Loan proceeds are not income. does the friend have to pay taxes when they get back their $10? No, repayment of the loan is not taxable income. Interest on it is. Do you have to pay taxes if you are paid back in a different format than originally paid? Form of payment doesn't matter. Barter trade doesn't affect the tax liability. The friend sold you lunches and you paid for them. The friend can deduct the cost of the lunches from the proceeds. What's left - is taxable income. Everything is translated to the functional currency at the fair market value at the time of the trade. you are required to pay taxes on the gross amount Very rarely taxes apply to gross income. Definitely not the US Federal Income taxes for individuals. An example of an exception would be the California LLC taxes. The State of California taxes LLCs under its jurisdiction on gross proceeds, regardless of the actual net income. This is very uncommon. However, the IRC (the US Federal Tax Code) is basically \"\"everything is taxable except what's not\"\", and the cost of generating income is one of the \"\"what's not\"\". That is why you can deduct the basis of the asset from your gross proceeds when you sell stuff and only pay taxes on the net difference.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "730bf896fd9945161b247899375340c3",
"text": "I'm a freelance programmer, reverse-engineer, and network engineer. I do quarterly 1099 filings using a cheap local accounting firm. I did them on my own at first; not that hard.. You deduct from sum the percentage for that earning-tier issued by the IRS.. $500.00 for writing algorithms on a timer? Yikes.. I did topcoder once but it didn't pay much then it was only good for portfolio.. No way I would race to do algorithms for third-world-rate capital..",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e67e598dd13f66a0c548992c1a911f47",
"text": "\"BobbyScon's answer really covers this, but perhaps isn't sufficiently explicit. Reason 1 of the quotation is the largest, by far: Get an Immediate Tax Deduction, but Give Later: You get the tax deduction when the foundation is funded, then make your charitable gifts over time. Having a \"\"personal\"\" foundation means that you make donations whenever it is appropriate from a personal finance point of view, but then actually perform the charitable giving in a time that is convenient. So you fund the foundation on Dec. 31, say; that gets the money out of your hands, and out of your taxable income, for the prior tax year. Then you're not required to do anything else with that money until a time and place where it's convenient to you. In many cases, they set it up not as a foundation but as a Donor Advised Fund. These are of late becoming extremely popular among the wealthy, largely the ease of setting them up and the above. The other major advantage of a Donor Advised Fund is simplicity in tax season: you have exactly one charitable donation recipient, with one receipt (or one set of them if you donate over time).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3ea09bc062adfab744eeed0e795442c3",
"text": "According to HMRC's manual BIM42105, you can't deduct expenses of this kind when calculating your profits for corporation tax: No deduction is allowed for expenditure not incurred wholly and exclusively for trade purposes So at the least, the company will have to pay corporation tax on this donation at some point, assuming it ever makes any profits. There's also the risk that HMRC would say that what is really happening is that you are making a personal donation to this person and the company is giving you income to allow you to do it. In that case, you'd be liable to income tax and employees national insurance, and the company liable to employers national insurance. It should then be deductible from corporation tax, though.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "539476fa960d3b8b89cb5c46fb289d6e",
"text": "I would assume that under a certain threshold, HMRC doesn't even want to hear from you, because extracting taxes from you costs them more money than you are going to pay. On the other hand, I cannot find anything written about that subject. I'd suggest to call them at 0300 200 3300 and ask them. Have the annual cost of the server ready, and tell them that you will stop asking for donations if say 6 months of cost is covered. There may be an official threshold that I was unable to find. Obviously if you receive £1000 in donations and spend £100 for the server, they will want tax payment. If its £110 in donations and £100 for the server, they will likely not care. If they tell you to register as self-employed, it's not difficult, just a bit of a pain. In that case you'd have to pay tax on your income (donations) minus cost (cost for the server and any other cost).",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
5c375c5b8a804cbc5f597bdf5065684f
|
Should you co-sign a personal loan for a friend/family member? Why/why not?
|
[
{
"docid": "8be4b8c3196627390ff6bf2365f30916",
"text": "\"My thoughts on loaning money to friends or family are outlined pretty extensively here, but cosigning on a loan is a different matter. It is almost never a good idea to do this (I say \"\"almost\"\" only because I dislike absolutes). Here are the reasons why: Now, all that said, if my sister or parents were dying of cancer and cosigning a loan was the only way to cure them, I might consider cosigning on a loan with them, if that was the only option. But, I would bet that 99.9% of such cases are not so dire, and your would-be co-borrower will survive with out the co-signing.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d76c00feba56517fbd458f3b54de4739",
"text": "\"My personal rule is to not loan money (or co-sign) for any amount that I am not willing to give away. It can go wrong in so many ways, and having a family or friend involved means making a \"\"business\"\" decision is difficult. If a bank won't loan the person the money, why should I? Being a co-signer is the same as borrowing the money in my name and giving it right over to the borrower. There might be great reasons to do it. I would probably sign a loan to keep my family alive or healthy, but no other reason. There are many ways to help without signing a loan. Give a room and a place to live, loan a car. The other thing is if you really truly believe in the borrower, it won't do long term damage to your credit or your financial goals, and you are the only resort; go ahead. I am thinking about helping a teenager afford their first car or student loans.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8c68d17b243300bf223d276fc6c364f4",
"text": "Yes, there are times when co-signing is the right choice. One is when you know more about the person than the loan issuer does. Consider a young person who has just started working in a volatile field, the kind of job where you can be told on Friday that you only get one shift next week but things might pick up the week after, and who makes maybe $12 an hour in that job. You've done the math and with 40 hour weeks they can easily afford the loan. Furthermore, you know this person well and you know that after a few weeks of not enough shifts, they've got the gumption to go out and find a second job or a different job that will give them 40 hours or more a week. And you know that they have some savings they could use to ensure that no payments will be missed even on low-wage weeks. You can cosign for this person, say for a car loan to get them a car they can drive to that job, knowing that they aren't going to walk away and just stop making the payments. The loan issuer doesn't know any of that. Or consider a young person with poor credit but good income who has recently decided to get smart about money, has written out a budget and a plan to rehabilitate their credit, and who you know will work passionately to make every payment and get the credit score up to a place where they can buy a house or whatever their goal is. Again, you can cosign for this person to make that happen, because you know something the lender doesn't. Or consider a middle aged person who's had some very hard knocks: laid off in a plant closing perhaps, marriage failure, lost all their house equity when the market collapsed, that sort of thing. They have a chance to start over again somewhere else and you have a chance to help. Again you know this isn't someone who is going to mismanage their money and walk away from the payments and leave you holding the bag. If you would give the person the money anyway (say, a car for your newly graduated child) then cosigning instead gives them more of a sense of accomplishment, since they paid for it, and gives them a great credit rating too. If you would not give the person the entire loan amount, but would make their payments for many months or even a year (say, your brother's mortgage for the house where he lives with a sick wife and 3 small children), then cosigning is only making official what you would have done anyway. Arrange with the borrower that if they can't make their payments any more, you will backstop them AND the item (car, house, whatever) is going up for sale to cover your losses. If you don't think you could enforce that just from the strength of the relationship, reconsider co-signing. Then sign what you need to sign and step away from it. It's their loan, not yours. You want them to pay it and to manage it and to leave you out of it until it's all paid off and they thank you for your help. If things go south, you will have to pay, and it may take a while for you to sell the item or otherwise stop the paying, so you do need to be very confident that the borrower is going to make every single payment on time. My point is just that you can have that confidence, based on personal knowledge of character, employment situation, savings and other resources, in a way that a lender really cannot.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ea5ed56378c9936a96de6c4b4b832dca",
"text": "Never co-sign a loan for someone, especially family Taking out a loan for yourself is bad enough, but co-signing a loan is just plain stupid. Think about it, if the bank is asking for a co-signer its because they are not very confident that the applicant is going to be paying back the loan. So why would you then step up and say I'll pay back the loan if they don't, make me a co-signer please. Here is a list of things that people never think about when they cosign a loan for somebody. Now if you absolutely must co-sign a loan here is how I would do it. I, the co-signer would be the one who makes the payments to ensure that the loan was paid on time and I would be the one collecting the payment from the person who is getting the loan. Its a very simple way of preventing some of the worst situations that can arise and you should be willing to make the payments anyway after all thats what it means to cosign a loan. Your just turning things around and paying the loan upfront instead of paying after the applicant defaults and ruins every ones credit. (Source: user's own blog post Never co-sign a loan for someone, especially family)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "325b3734841f36f5f68aa1ba1902f580",
"text": "I know this question has a lot of answers already, but I feel the answers are phrased either strongly against, or mildly for, co-signing. What it amounts down to is that this is a personal choice. You cannot receive reliable information as to whether or not co-signing this loan is a good move due to lack of information. The person involved is going to know the person they would be co-signing for, and the people on this site will only have their own personal preferences of experiences to draw from. You know if they are reliable, if they will be able to pay off the loan without need for the banks to come after you. This site can offer general theories, but I think it should be kept in mind that this is wholly a personal decision for the person involved, and them alone to make based on the facts that they know and we do not.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "a83a30574625b35fba23c608b1b6053c",
"text": "I concur with the other answers about not mixing family and money: the one whose loans are paid off second will be taking the credit risk of the other not paying/being able to pay. There may also be tax implications. That said, if you do still want to do this, I think there's a fairly straightforward way to account for the payments. With your scenario, your brother should make you a personal loan at some interest rate inbetween 5% and 10%. That loan would be tracked independently of the actual student loans. Any money that your brother transfers to you to pay off your loans, add to that personal loan, and later on once your loans are paid off you start repaying the loan to him and he uses the proceeds for his own loans. The interest rate will determine how the benefit of paying off the 10% loans is shared: if the rate is set at 10% then your brother will get all the benefit, if 5% you will get all the benefit, and 7.5% would roughly share it out. This means that you can still manage your own student loans separately. Your brother can choose how little or much to commit to the snowball rather than his own loans (of course he should first make the minimum payments on his own loans). Anything he does loan you benefits you both if we ignore the credit and tax issues - he gets more than the 5% interest on his own loans, and you pay less than the 10% interest on your loans. You'll need to track the payments each way on this personal loan and apply interest to it every so often, I'd suggest monthly (beware that the monthly equivalent of 5% annual interest is not 5%/12, because of compounding).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "edba9615a6bb1cd4c4198604e9497c9d",
"text": "If you really want to help your friend buy a house, make a counter-offer to buy the house yourself and lease it to your friend, with the option to buy for original purchase cost, plus all interest paid so far to the bank, plus closing costs and other expenses incurred by you, minus payments made so far by the friend. Otherwise, just no. The other answers already detail why.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f095485f8cb5da37475c27ba9a17d51",
"text": "I say to always say yes when asked to loan money to a friend or family member as long as you have the money to do it with. That is the key: having th emoney to do it with. And - don't expect to get it back ever. If you do, great. When you don't, your expectation was met. Although not often, I've lent money to friends and most of the time have been paid back. $10, $300, more. For the times when I was not, I do remember but I don't hold it against the person. Money is only money, after all. Friends are precious and worthy of your aid, support, and respect. If they weren't, then one must ask if they are really a friend. - I have also had to borrow money once for a non-trivial amount. My family, who can easily afford it, refused but a friend helped me at a critical juncture. I offered to make a contract but my friend said no, pay me back when you can. I have tried to start paying back a couple of times but my friend refused telling me to wait until I was more financially stable. - If I am ever lucky enough to be in the position my friend is in, I will emulate this behavior and do the very same thing - and love doing it all the while.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b1152fdf8f30f8d0a612bb1a60bffda",
"text": "I am sure that laws differ from state to state. My brother and I had to take over my dads finances due to his health. He had a vehicle that had a loan on it. We refinanced the vehicle and it was in our name. One of our family members needed a vehicle and offered to take over the payment. Our attorney advised us to be on the insurance policy with them and make sure if was paid correctly. We are in Indiana. I know it is hard to discuss finances with family members. However, if you co-signed the loan I think it would be wise to either have your name added to the insurance policy or at least have your brother show proof it has been paid. If you are not comfortable with that it may be a good idea to make sure the bank has your correct address and ask if they would notify you if insurance has lapsed. If your on the loan and there is no insurance at the very least if the vehicle was damaged you would still be responsible to pay the loan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "646a544547af13b516d0c897e77d1e74",
"text": "On a personal Loan Yes. On a business loan, it would depend on the Bank and they would like to understand the purpose of the loan and need it to be secured. They may not even grant such kind of business loan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "18f63457e8334538d77a5766629da7ed",
"text": "If this isn't a case where you would be willing to forgive the debt if they can't pay, it's a business transaction, not a friend transaction. Establish exactly what the interest rate will be, what the term of the loan is, whether periodic payments are required, how much is covered by those payments vs. being due at the end of the term as a balloon payment, whether they can make additional payments to reduce the principal early... Get it all in writing and signed by all concerned before any money changes hands. Consider having a lawyer review the language before signing. If the loan is large enough that it might incur gift taxes, then you may want to go the extra distance to make it a real, properly documented, intra-family loan. To do this you must charge (of at least pay taxes on) at least a certain minimal interest rate, and they have to make regular payments (or you can gift them the payments but you still won't up paying tax on the interest income). In this case you definitely want a lawyer to draw up the papers, I think. There are services on the web Antioch specialize in helping to set this up properly, and which offer services such as bookkeeping and monthly billing (aT extra cost) to make it less hassle for the lender. If the loan will be structured as a mortgage on the borrower's house -- making the interest deductible for the borrower in the US -- there are additional forms that need to be filled. The services can help with that too, for appropriate fees. Again, this probably wants experts writing the agreement, to make sure it's properly written for where you and the borrower live. Caveat: all the above is assuming USA. Rules may be very different elsewhere. I've done a formal intractability mortgage -- mostly to avoid gift tax -- and it wasn't too awful a hassle. Your mileage will vary.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "67525a00d56b3e4c7396761c4f96f362",
"text": "Either approach will put a strain on your friendship, unless you are willing to treat it as a gift which may or may not be returned rather than a loan. I agree that paying it direct to the dealer (or giving her a check that is made out to the dealer) avoids the risk of the money getting sidetracked.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3665c97fc6df7c4109dafd1266605341",
"text": "\"Yes. Because you co-signed the loan, you are responsible for the loan just as much as she was. When you co-sign a loan, you are essentially saying \"\"I will pay this loan if the other person can't.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "64fb7a323214f50afbc01fecc4753d61",
"text": "Your first step is to talk to the current lender and ask about refinancing in the other person's name. The lender is free to say no, and if they think the other person is unlikely to pay it back, they won't refinance. If you're in this situation because the other person didn't qualify for a loan in the first place, the lender probably won't change their mind, but it's still worth asking. From the lender's point of view, you'll be selling the other person the car. If they qualify for a loan, it's as simple as getting the loan from a bank, then doing whatever is required by your state to sell a car between either private parties or between relatives (depending on who the other person is). The bank might help you with this, or your state's DMV website. Here are a few options that don't involve changing who is on the loan: Taking out a loan for another person is always a big risk. Banks have entire departments devoted to determining who is a good credit risk, and who isn't, so if a person can't get a loan from a bank, it's usually for a good reason. One good thing about your situation: you actually bought the car, and are the listed owner. Had you co-signed on a loan in the other person's name, you'd owe the money, but wouldn't even have the car's value to fall back on when they stopped paying.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "25c80accc613ec73f5527afe291d030d",
"text": "\"The wording of this question is very confusing because \"\"primary signer\"\" would, in ordinary parlance, mean the person borrowing the money and the co-signer (not consigner) would mean the one who is guaranteeing the repayment of the loan: if the borrower does not pay, the co-signer is liable for making the payments. Whose name is on the title of the car? Who borrowed the money to buy the car? Is the loan in your name and your son co-signed the loan to induce the bank to loan you money to purchase the car, or is it the other way around, that your son borrowed the money and you co-signed the loan in order to induce the bank to loan your son the money? If the car title and the loan are in your name, are you defaulting on the loan and so your son is making the loan payments that should have come from you? Or is it that your son borrowed the money to buy the car, his name is on the title, he is making the payments, and you are no longer interested in backing him up in case he defaults and the bank comes after you for the money?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "532ccb785de284ab88f3b35849ce2e55",
"text": "No. But the scenario is unrealistic. No bank will give the LLC any loan unless the members personally co-sign to guarantee it. In which case, the members become personally liable in addition to the LLC.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "47f824d42ed7ff0928853fa65f72d426",
"text": "\"I am not sure how anyone is answering this unless they know what the loan was for. For instance if it is for a house you can put a lien on the house. If it is for the car in most states you can take over ownership of it. Point being is that you need to go after the asset. If there is no asset you need to go after you \"\"friend\"\". Again we need more specifics to determine the best course of action which could range from you suing and garnishing wages from your friend to going to small claims court. Part of this process is also getting a hold of the lending institution. By letting them know what is going on they may be able to help you - they are good at tracking people down for free. Also the lender may be able to give you options. For example if it is for a car a bank may help you clear this out if you get the car back plus penalty. If a car is not in the red on the loan and it is in good condition the bank turns a profit on the default. If they can recover it for free they will be willing to work with you. I worked in repo when younger and on more than a few occasions we had the cosigner helping. It went down like this... Co-signer gets pissed like you and calls bank, bank works out a plan and tells cosigner to default, cosigner defaults, banks gives cosigner rights to repo vehicle, cosigner helps or actually repos vehicle, bank gets car back, bank inspects car, bank asks cosigner for X amount (sometimes nothing but not usually), cosigner pays X, bank does not hit cosigners credit, bank releases loan and sells car. I am writing this like it is easy but it really requires that asset is still in good condition, that cosigner can get to the asset, and that the \"\"friend\"\" still is around and trusts cosigner. I have seen more than a few cosigners promise to deliver and come up short and couple conspiring with the \"\"friend\"\". I basically think most of the advice you have gotten so far is crap and you haven't provided enough info to give perfect advice. Seeking a lawyer is a joke. Going after a fleeing party could eat up 40-50 billable hours. It isn't like you are suing a business or something. The lawyer could cost as much as repaying the loan - and most lawyers will act like it is a snap of their fingers until they have bled you dry - just really unsound advice. For the most part I would suggest talking to the bank and defaulting but again need 100% of the details. The other part is cosigning the loan. Why the hell would you cosign a loan for a friend? Most parents won't cosign a loan for their own kids. And if you are cosigning a loan, you write up a simple contract and make the non-payment penalties extremely costly for your friend. I have seen simple contracts that include 30% interests rates that were upheld by courts.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "896be0b7de9735410139e90a43cb3306",
"text": "\"As an investment opportunity: NO. As a friendly assist with money you don't mind ever getting back, legal depending on amount. A few years back I was in the housing market myself and researching interest rates and mortgages. For one property I was very interested in, I would need about $4K extra in liquid cash to complete the down-payment. A pair of options I saw were a \"\"combo loan\"\" 15yr 4% interest for the house, 1yr 8% interest for the $4K. Alternately, the \"\"bank of mom and dad\"\" could offer the 4K loan for a much lower rate. The giftable limit where reporting is not required was $12,000 at the time I did the review. IRS requires personal loans to be counted as having interest at the commercial rate. Thus an interest free loan of $10K with commercial interest rate of 1% (for easy math) would be counted as a gift of $10,100 for that calendar year. Disclaimer: Ultimately, I did not use this approach and did not have it subjected to a legal review.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd08117069dd39c471f4e395776830a6",
"text": "You are using interchangeably borrow/loan and gift. They are very different. For the mortgage company, they would prefer that the money from friends and family be a gift. If it is a loan, then you have an obligation to pay it back. If they see money added to your bank accounts in the months just before getting the loan, they will ask for the source of the money. Anything you claim as a gift will be required to be documented by you and the person making the gift. You don't want to lie about it, and have the other person lie about it. They will make you sign documents, if they catch you in a lie you can lose the loan, or be prosecuted for fraud. If the money from friends and family is a loan, the payments for the loan will impact the amount of money you can borrow. From the view of the IRS the gift tax only comes into play if during one calendar year a person makes a gift to somebody else of 14,000 or more. There are two points related to this. It is person-to-person. So if your dad gives you 14K, and your mom gives you 14K, and your dad gives your wife 14k and your mom gives your wife 14K; everything is fine. So two people can give 2 people 56K in one year. Please use separate checks to make it clear to the IRS. If somebody gives a gift above the exclusion limit for the year, they will have to complete IRS form 709. This essentially removes the excess amount from their life time exclusion, in other words from their estate. Nothing to worry about from the IRS. The bank wants to see the documentation. Also you are not a charity, so they can't claim it as a donation. Why do you have 6,000 in cash sitting around. The mortgage company will want an explanation for all large deposits so you better have a good explanation. From the IRS FAQ on Gift Taxes: What can be excluded from gifts? The general rule is that any gift is a taxable gift. However, there are many exceptions to this rule. Generally, the following gifts are not taxable gifts. Number 3 on the list is the one you care about.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "55bfc7c29e7dcdd310cf7e7ef83a0a2a",
"text": "Think about Wall Street. It's the most highly paid occupation in the world and it's nothing but a casino. I don't think the article is saying that success is only luck, or that there aren't successes built far more on genius than luck, but that luck is the main factor in the majority of cases of great wealth.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
8d939a4fd3dacea0b194a2ad918df368
|
What can I replace Microsoft Money with, now that MS has abandoned it?
|
[
{
"docid": "b1030124273a3360c65ff22e029e7470",
"text": "I've been budgeting with MS Money since 2004 and was pretty disappointed to hear it's being discontinued. Budgeting is actually a stress-relieving hobby for me, and I can be a bit of a control-freak when it comes to finances, so I decided to start early looking for a replacement rather than waiting until MS Money can no longer download transactions. Here are the pros and cons of the ones I've tried (updated 10/2010): You Need A Budget Pro (YNAB) - Based on the old envelopes system, YNAB has you allot money from each paycheck to a specific budget category (envelope). It encourages you to live on last money's income, and if you have trouble with overspending, that can be a great plan. Personally, I'm a big believer in the envelope concept, so that's the biggest pro I found. Also, it's a downloaded software, so once I've bought it (for about $50) it's mine, without forced upgrades as far as I've seen. The big con for me was that it does not automatically download transactions. I would have to sign on to each institution's website and manually download to the program. Also, coming from Money, I'm used to having features that YNAB doesn't offer, like the ability to store information about my accounts. Overall, it's forward-thinking and a good budgeting system, but will take some extra time to download transactions and isn't really a comprehensive management tool for all my financial needs. You can try it out with their free trial. Mint - This is a free online program. The free part was a major pro. It also looks pretty, if that's important to you. Updating is automatic, once you've got it all set up, so that's a pro. Mint's budgeting tools are so-so. Basically, you choose a category and tell it your limit. It yells at you (by text or email) when you cross the line, but doesn't seem to offer any other incentive to stay on budget. When I first looked at Mint, it did not connect with my credit union, but it currently connects to all my banks and all but one of my student loan institutions. Another recent improvement is that Mint now allows you to manually add transactions, including pending checks and cash transactions. The cons for me are that it does not give me a good end-of-the-month report, doesn't allow me to enter details of my paychecks, and doesn't give me any cash-flow forecasting. Overall, Mint is a good casual, retrospective, free online tool, but doesn't allow for much planning ahead. Mvelopes - Here's another online option, but this one is subscription-based. Again, we find the old envelopes system, which I think is smart, so that's a pro for me. It's online, so it downloads transactions automatically, but also allows you to manually add transactions, so another pro. The big con on this one is the cost. Depending on how you far ahead you choose to pay (quarterly, yearly or biannually), you're paying $7.60 to $12 per month. They do offer a free trial for 14 days (plus another 14 days offered when you try to cancel). Another con is that they don't provide meaningful reports. Overall, a good concept, but not worth the cost for me. Quicken - I hadn't tried Quicken earlier because they don't offer a free trial, but after the last few fell short, I landed with Quicken 2009. Pro for Quicken, as an MS Money user is that it is remarkably similar in format and options. The registers and reports are nearly identical. One frustration I'd had with Money was that it was ridiculously slow at start-up, and after a year or so of entering data, Quicken is dragging. Con for Quicken, again as an MS Money user, is that it's budgeting is not as detailed as I would like. Also, it does not download transactions smoothly now that my banks all ask security questions as part of sign-in. I have to sign in to my bank's website and manually download. Quicken 2011 is out now, but I haven't tried it yet. Hopefully they've solved the problem of security questions. Quicken 2011 promises an improved cash-flow forecast, which sounds promising, and was a feature of MS Money that I have very much missed. Haven't decided yet if it's worth the $50 to upgrade to 2011.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "afae3b9d38616f166679f52fff990a33",
"text": "I use GnuCash which I really like. However, I've never used any other personal finance software so I can't really compare. Before GnuCash, I used an Excel spreadsheet which works fine for very basic finances. Pros Cons",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0af9b3c8f240944ec3044092773222e2",
"text": "Well, you could replace it with.. itself! Microsoft Money Plus Sunset versions The Microsoft Money Plus Sunset versions are replacements for expired versions of Microsoft Money Essentials, Deluxe, Premium, and Home and Business. They allow existing customers to use MoneyPlus to continue accessing their data. Changes to the new versions include file conversions from older versions of Money, no required activation, no online services and no assisted support. Microsoft Money Plus Sunset is available now. Download at: http://www.microsoft.com/money/sunset.mspx",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2f76a33c873603ac1284ac5b92b49c74",
"text": "How complicated is your budget? We have a fairly in depth excel spreadsheet that does the trick for us. Lots of formulas and whatnot for calculating income, outgo, expected and actual expenses, expenses budgeted over time (i.e. planned expenses that are semi-annual or annual) as well as the necessary emergency funds based on expenses. Took me a few hours to initially create and many tweaks over months to get just right but it's reliable and we know we'll never lose support for it. I'd be willing to share it if desired, I'll just have to remove our personal finance figures from it first.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3c3eea13c7049f014f8e43e188fed63e",
"text": "Current Money users may want to take a look at this: http://sites.google.com/site/pocketsense/home/msmoneyfixp1 Pretty easy (and secure) way to continue getting online data into Money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "94bb2c78e53e724332c56ff22613b9ec",
"text": "www.mint.com is a very good web site that can upload your financial data from your bank and analyze it for you. Security concerns seem to have been addressed reassuringly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d806870dd32858170d30a0ef2ed45e93",
"text": "MoneyDance Is the way to go. I've been using it for years and it works well. It keeps getting better, and best of all, it's completely cross platform! Mac, Windows and linux!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "93651496bbc8ad51ee18fb100f61dfbc",
"text": "I used to use Quicken, but support for that has been suspended in the UK. I had started using Mvelopes, but support for that was suspended as well! What I use now is an IPhone app called IXpenseit to track my spending.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b1bdb3370adf99f1ab0f40a9875ad800",
"text": "I use http://moneydance.com/ it has Mac, Windows and Linux versions and works well for my needs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f0caf721b73d61349849ec09fa64db2f",
"text": "Uh, Quicken is virtually identical to MS Money. If you liked money and don't want to change, use that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0b9356353617057df4141fe06695ce80",
"text": "I use MoneyStrands.com to manage my spending. It's a lot like Mint, but provides support for more banks, and works with most Canadian financial institutions. I can't really compare them fairly though, since I didn't bother with Mint after learning that they don't care about Canadians. If your bank isn't supported by MoneyStrands, or you don't want to trust an online webiste with your account login, you can create accounts for manually uploaded files. It just means you have to log into your bank yourself, download the transactions as QFX, OFX, CSV or other supported formats, and then upload the files to the appropriate account in MoneyStrands. I love the expense tracking and reporting that MoneyStrands offers, but like Mint, their budgeting feature is seriously lacking. Fortunately I don't need to budget month-to-month, I just use it to see how much I spend on various categories, to help create annual budgets and decide how much I can invest or use for a vacation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "908ddb0148c69f91228fd65f0a5dc698",
"text": "I have been using Acemony http://www.mechcad.net/products/acemoney/ for a couple of years now and extremely happy with it. Very simple and intuitive to use. The best part is - life-long free upgrades",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c5acafc129ddd9f53bcfcca2fc88678d",
"text": "If you would like to use linux I suggest you to use KMyMoney http://kmymoney2.sourceforge.net/ It is based on gnucash but it is easier to use IMO",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d2ecc077203c74417c448dd706889ea5",
"text": "hledger is a free software, cross-platform double-entry accounting tool I've been working on for a while. It has command-line and web-based interfaces to your local data, and some other interesting features. There's also ledger (http://wiki.github.com/jwiegley/ledger/) which is command-line only. These are.. different, but worth a look for some folks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a211d40c714cab9225ecbf0b87b5632d",
"text": "I have used Quicken for over 10 years. It has always provided the information I needed and I have always received good support from Intuit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9ebc43ac297c2c5d3bad28059236f170",
"text": "Check the Financial section in this list of Open Source Software",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cdeaaa906e58736739bf21d721baf316",
"text": "I suggest you to test AlauxSoft Accounts and Budget. This software is a money-like. There is a freeware and a shareware (24 EUR). You will find its at http://www.alauxsoft.com Best regards, Michel ALAUX.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "f643e275d94fd71b891a92d9b7dee4e1",
"text": "\"Fair enough. FB extends out quite a bit from its core as billing software, but I don't know if it'd do the kind of inventory management you want. SAP, on the other hand, is as pricey as it is because it's *powerful* and \"\"enterprise ready\"\" ... probably way more than you need (or enough rope to hang yourself with, as they say). I wonder if the best solution might be to hire a competent contractor to fix / upgrade whatever your current system is lacking. I still recommend taking FreshBooks for a test run; it might just do the trick for you. Care to elaborate on why you're looking to replace the 10-year-old custom solution you've got?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "81a0892a695ba40344a68db23cb8c3a6",
"text": "moneydashboard.com claims to be the UK's Mint but I have problem using it with my HSBC account right now. I have contacted their helpdesk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f51522968380e03f0345200ec838358a",
"text": "+1 for YNAB. I used to use MS Money until it was decommissioned. I used that to historically record my spending and investing, and plot my net worth. Whilst YNAB will do that, it is actually geared towards forward planning much more so. In this area, it is fantastic. I like that there are mobile apps for it too.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7d7d86f59b3e8bfb7d7ec6ede9bf566b",
"text": "\"Microsoft still supports XP with security updates for large enterprise companies that are willing to pony up a few million for the support contracts because it's cheaper than upgrading existing infrastructure. I know at least 2 of the banks I've worked with are currently paying for extended XP support (although ironically, my understanding is that they're paying for desktop support so they have more time to migrate business critical legacy apps, rather than anything related to deployed ATM infrastructure) Most ATMs aren't \"\"online\"\" in any form that most people would associate with the internet. AFAIK most of the hacks against ATMs that don't require physical access are for stand-alone or retail based machines (Think of the unbranded ATMs you see in gas stations or stores that only take cash). Although if anyone happens to have details on a Major bank ATM exploit, I'd love to see the details.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ca480847c8abfafbf8136bc97e2d5e0",
"text": "I would investigate mint.com further. Plenty of people have written off using them because Intuit purchased them, but that seems like cutting of your nose to spite your face. I think mint.com is worth it for its Trends functionality alone, not to mention its automatic categorization of your purchases, reminders when bills are due, notifications of increased credit card interest rates, and overdraft notices. I don't think mint.com schedules bills & deposits, but it tracks stocks & mutual fund investments and compares your portfolio returns against Dow Jones, S&P 500, or NASDAQ if you wish. I'm not sure I see the advantage of manual transaction entry, but you can add cash or check transactions manually. As I mentioned earlier, automated categorization is a great feature. In addition, you can tag certain transactions as reimbursable or tax-related. If the primary feature you're interested in is stock quotes, maybe something like Yahoo Finance or Google Finance will be enough.",
"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": "19b43d6dbb8d9a0251a001eba1504725",
"text": "I just switched (from the abandoned, but good MS Money) to Moneydance 2010",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d8685d07b37058fce13d57e112c755d0",
"text": "\"It seems that I recently saw someone post on twitter that Microsoft is making an unsupported \"\"Sunset\"\" edition of Money available. If you're hooked on Money, you might want to investigate that.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "90bdaf31188a53f217525740e8bc02f9",
"text": "Mint can probably do this. They probably have apps now and their online service has had charts for years.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "46bc1213fb52a6c9ecdc1047f6d59daa",
"text": "For double entry bookkeeping, personal or small business, GnuCash is very good. Exists for Mac Os.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3bda3e210ba9b35e0f5b54f23bb862c4",
"text": "I use MoneyStrands (formerly called Expensr), but mostly just to track expenses and look at reports on my spending habits. It has some really pretty charts, with the ability to drill down into categories and sub-categories, or graph monthly spending for any custom date range. It does a half-decent job of auto-categorizing the imported bank transactions, and you can set up additional rules for common vendors, but I still have to do some manual work after each import. It does a good job of integrating my credit cards, bank accounts, and I can even manually add cash transactions. It has some basic budgeting capabilities, but they're not very useful for someone who needs to carefully budget thier monthly spending. Another one I've heard about is mint.com, but it only supports American banks (last I heard, anyway).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "52e161aec330831a69433a984d0b89ae",
"text": "You can try SplashMoney. It works on many platforms, including iPhone, iPod and Mac, but also Palm OS, Android, Blackberry and windows. I've been using it —since more than two years now— with my old Palm OS PDA and it works great. As I work mainly with Linux, I've tested very few times its synchronization with its desktop companion running on windows.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0b092d60a54e06d10a99ba767a2c8ebf",
"text": "I have also tried Mvelopes in the past, and my experiences match yours. I currently use the desktop version of YNAB:You Need a Budget (YNAB 4), and I like it much better. Where we failed after a while with Mvelopes, we are succeeding with YNAB, and have been now for the last 3.5 years. I don't want this to sound like a commercial for YNAB (I will give important caveats about YNAB later), but here is why I believe we have done better now with YNAB than before with Mvelopes. I hope that these reasons will be useful to you when you are evaluating your next options. As you said, we also found Mvelopes' interface to be slow and glitchy. YNAB 4 is a desktop app (with synching capabilities) that we found to be much quicker and easier to work with than Mvelopes' Flash-based interface. (That was 4 years ago; hopefully Mvelopes has redone their interface since then.) We also struggled with Mvelopes' connection with our banks. With YNAB 4, there is no connection to the bank: everything has to be entered manually. I initially thought this might be worse, but for us it has been better. I can either enter transactions as they happen on the mobile app, or I can hold on to receipts and enter them every day or two in the evening, categorizing as I go. We always have an up-to-date picture of our finances, and we don't have to mess with trying to match up downloaded transactions that have been screwed up, duplicated, or are missing. We aren't really using YNAB much differently than we were using Mvelopes, but we have learned a few tricks that I think have contributed to our success. One of the things we do differently is that I don't obsess about the cash accounts too much. Cash accounts, for us, are the hardest to keep track of, because most of our cash transactions don't have a receipt: we are paying a friend or family member for something, or leaving a tip, or something like that which we forget about when it comes time to enter into the software. As a result, the cash account balances get off. I periodically enter a correcting transaction to get the balances right, and have a budget category specifically for this that we have to put money in for these unknown transactions. Fortunately for us, our cash spending is a small percent of our total spending (we usually pay with a credit card) so this bit of untracked spending isn't that big of a concern. With YNAB, the current month's budget is right in front of you as soon as you open up the app, which makes it easy to adjust your budget during the month, if necessary. With Mvelopes (at least how their app worked 4 years ago), the budget was somewhat hidden after you funded your budget categories, and it was a bit of a pain to move money around between categories. The ability to adjust your budget in the middle of the month is crucial; if you don't do that, you'll get frustrated the first time you find that you don't have enough money in a category for something you need. YNAB makes it very easy to move money around inside your budget. That having been said, you need to be aware that the current version of YNAB is not a desktop application but a web-based app. YNAB 4, the old desktop version which we have been using, is officially unsupported as of the end of 2016. However, I see that it is still available for sale, if you are interested in it, the YNAB4 help site is still up, and the mobile app you would need to work with it on your phone (called YNAB Classic) is still in the app store. As I said, the current YNAB is now a web app, complete with automatic downloading of transactions from your bank. I have no experience with it (other than playing around with it a little), and so I can't tell you how quick the interface is or how well the auto-downloading of transactions works. As an alternative, another web-based solution is EveryDollar, from Dave Ramsey's company. (I have never tried it.) The advantage of this one is that it is free if you choose not to link it to your banks; the automatic downloading of transactions is a paid feature. I wrote an answer a couple of years ago in which I describe two different approaches that budgeting software packages tend to take. I'm not familiar with Buxfer, so I don't know which approach it takes, but perhaps that answer will help you evaluate all of your software options. On the behavior side of things, besides the relaxing of the cash accounting I mentioned above, we also involve my wife a little less in the budgeting process than we used to. (This is by her choice!) I am the one who enters all the transactions into the software (she hands me all her receipts), I reconcile the accounts at the end of the month, and I set the budget for the next month. We have been doing this long enough now that she knows what the budget is, and we only need to discuss it if we want to do something different with the budget than we have been doing in the past. She has the YNAB app on her phone and can see where we are at with all of our budget categories.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d89699512eae9345dfa6082afef133e",
"text": "Think about it from a more pragmatic POV -- on what basis would you levy taxes on money that is lost? If your house were robbed, should you have to pay taxes based on the money stolen from you? What if your car breaks down? Income in its simplest form is revenue - cost of goods sold. So if I buy a car for $10,000 and sell it to you for $8,000, I have negative income.",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.