query_id
stringlengths 32
32
| query
stringlengths 6
3.9k
| positive_passages
listlengths 1
21
| negative_passages
listlengths 10
100
| subset
stringclasses 7
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
ccc68931207360295baaa972ac416980
|
What to do if a state and federal refund is denied direct deposit?
|
[
{
"docid": "1619a2901c8114a352d54227320b8370",
"text": "\"It is not allowed to pay refunds to anyone other than the taxpayer. This is due to various tax return fraud schemes that were running around. Banks are required to enforce this. If the direct deposit is denied, a check will be issued. In her name, obviously. What she does with it when she gets it is her business - but I believe that tax refund checks may not be just \"\"endorsed\"\", the bank will likely want to see her when you deposit it to your account, even if it is endorsed. For the same reason.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "364b20bda72056b70460263d8e3e0193",
"text": "Publication 17 Your Income Tax top of page 14 If the direct deposit cannot be done, the IRS will send a check instead. When your girlfriend gets the check, she can endorse it over to you for deposit into your account.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "ca4f820b9bdb5a53b055950641355db2",
"text": "Do not try to deposit piece wise. Either use the system in complete transparence, or do not use it at all. The fear of having your bank account frozen, even if you are in your rights, is justified. In any case, I don't advise you to put in bank before reaching IRS. Also keep all the proof that you indeed contacted them. (Recommended letter and copy of any form you submit to them) Be ready to also give those same documents to your bank to proove your good faith. If they are wrong, you'll be considered in bad faith until you can proove otherwise, without your bank account. Do not trust their good faith, they are not bad people, but very badly organized with too much power, so they put the burden of proof on you just because they can. If it is too burdensome for you then keep cash or go bitcoin. (but the learning curve to keep so much money in bitcoin secure against theft is high) You should declare it in this case anyway, but at least you don't have to fear having your money blocked arbitrarily.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "4726389971e8ff52e63f8ca632c0f16a",
"text": "What I'm reading is that they subtracted the $85 you owe them and they're cutting you a cashier's check for the rest. Ethically speaking, you owed them the money, they subtracted it and made you a check for the rest. Once you cash that check, nobody owes anyone anything in this equation. Sounds like they're in the clear. Legally speaking, I have no idea, since I'm not a lawyer, but even if it was not legal, good luck getting the $85 back without spending far more in retaining a lawyer and fighting it in court. Even fighting it in small claims court will take more of your time than $85 is worth. If it's your time that is the problem, 12 days is not horrible in banking terms. Yes, we're spoiled now by ACH transfers and same day deposit availability, but since you're retired, I'm sure if you think back you'll remember when it used to take two business weeks to clear a check... TLDR; cancel future deposits to that bank, find a new bank, then forget this fiasco and get your revenge by enjoying your life.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd2b03ed3cd4d1e068eb182200ec4848",
"text": "\"What they are doing is wrong. The IRS and the state might not be happy with what they are doing. One thing you can ask for them to do is to give you a credit card for business and travel expenses. You will still have to submit receipts for expenses, but it will also make it clear to the IRS that these checks are not income. Keep the pay stubs for the year, or the pdf files if they don't give you a physical stub. Pay attention to the YTD numbers on each stub to make sure they aren't sneaking in the expenses as income. If they continue to do this, ask about ownership of the items purchased, since you will be paying the tax shouldn't you own it? You can in the future tell them \"\"I was going to buy X like the customer wanted, but I just bought a new washer at home and their wasn't enough room on the credit card. Maybe next month\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b9dca32b8177f2bddd8208506c0d1b84",
"text": "You proceed with a proper legal advice. You should not ignore IRS letters. You should have taken your chances in trying to reach a compromise with them, but that ship has likely sailed already. You might want to consider bankruptcy. Ask your parents for a couple of hundreds of dollars to pay for a legal consultation with a lawyer and a CPA and proceed from there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "072994dbe625e6a32f9f58bd362b5233",
"text": "There is no law requiring someone to return a refused check. You need to clarify whether this payment is to establish a retainer, or to pay for services rendered. Either way you should stop payment on the check and send them a certified letter explaining that you are stopping payment on the check because they refused it. If the payment is to establish a retainer, then the issue is simple: the lawyer requires $10,000 as a retainer before you can engage them and until then you have no relationship with them. If that is the amount they want, then less than that is not accepted. If the payment is for services rendered already and you owe them money, then it is a completely different situation. Refusing partial payment means they are getting ready to sue you. In a collection suit, the larger the amount is, the better. Normally, someone owed money will only refuse a partial payment if they anticipate having to sue the debtor and they want to maximize their leverage in case of a court judgement in their favor. A creditor has the right to refuse a partial payment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e10f9fb1ebe25140c06de0de01657db",
"text": "He has my bank account info, and I just want to know where I stand legally. Legally you can't keep the money. It would either go back to the originator or to Government unclaimed department. I got a bunch of missed calls from an unknown number and a really unprofessional email from a guy who supposedly worked for UNICEF saying I had 4 hours until I am suppose to be visited by police and that there was nowhere I could run to. These are common tactics employed to ensure you take some action and transfer the real money somewhere. Do not succumb to such tactics. The money is still in my account I have not touched it. Advise your Bank immediately that there is this deposit into your account that is not your's. Let the bank take appropriate action. Do not authorize Bank to debit your account. The max you can do is authorize the bank to reverse this transaction. The best is stick to statement that said transaction is not yours and Bank is free to do what is right. There is a small difference and very important. If you authorize bank to debit, you have initiated a payment. So if the original payment were revered by originator bank, you are left short of money. However if your instructions are very clear, that this specific transaction can be reversed, you cannot be additionally debited if this transaction is reversed. He has my bank account info, Depending on how easy / difficult, my suggestion would be monitor this account closely, best is if you can close it out and open a new one.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "73b127d58b51f1016763b2b24a668843",
"text": "\"They're hiding income. The IRS is a likely candidate for who they are hiding it from but not the only option. Another possibility that comes to mind is someone who had a judgment against them--a check made out to \"\"cash\"\" could be handled by someone else and thus not ever appear in their bank accounts.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d75dff954aeb4f366304acd2900b66ae",
"text": "How would I go about this so that I can start using this money? You would open the LLC. The checks were not written out to you, they were written out to the LLC. Only the LLC can endorse them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "923c83903e086d58d9dbb0ef7d9916a7",
"text": "Rent deposit returned to you is not an income. Its your money to begin with. The homeowner is taxed on taking it and can expense the refund, but for you - there's no taxable event. ATM rebate is what it is - rebate. A cash discount over the money paid. Basically - the bank refunded you a fee you paid (ATM rebate is a refund of the ATM fee you paid to a third-party ATM operator). Again - your money. The ATM operator and the bank both have taxable income/deduction, but its not your problem. You - just got your money back. No income, no taxable event. Neither should appear on your tax forms, and similarly nor should credit card points, cash rebates, frequent flyer miles, etc. All are in fact either a refund of your money paid or a merchant discount to you, not an income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "765dc468438264b52683a3b3d7dcbb3e",
"text": "Unfortunately assets placed in a safety deposit box are not covered under the Federal Deposit Insurance Program (FDIC). Unless the bank is found to be negligent in the way it handled or protected your safety deposit box, neither them nor their private insurance company will reimburse you for the loss. Find out if in the duration you had your box with them, they moved, transitioned or merged with another entity. In this specific situation, you may be able to demonstrate negligence on the part of the banks as they have seemingly misplaced your box during their transition phase, and depending upon the value of the items placed in your safety deposit box, you may be entitled to some form of recovery. Some homeowner's insurance policies may also cover the loss, but if you didn't document what you kept in the box, you have difficulty verifying proof of the value. Valuables are often lost but documents can often be reconstructed. You can get stock and bonds by paying a fee for new certificates. For wills and trusts, you can reach out to the lawyer that prepared them for a copy. You should always keep 3 copies of such documents. When you put stuff in the box, always videotape it (photographs can be challenged) but if the video shows it was put in there, although it can still be taken out by you after you turn off the camera, yields more weight in establishing content and potential value. Also know the value of the items and check with your homeowner policy to make sure the default amount covers it, if not then you may need to include a rider to add the difference in value and the video, receipts, appraisals and such will serve you well in the future in such unfortunate circumstances. If the contents of a safety deposit box are lost because you didn't pay the fee, then depending on the state you are in the time frame might vary (3 years on average), but none the less they are sent to the State's unclaimed property/funds department. You can search for these online often times or by contacting the state. It would help for you to find out which scenario you are in, their fault or yours, and proceed accordingly. Good luck.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "66a88f1661186e80991916393fcc3437",
"text": "Something like this sort of thing happened to me but with Chase bank. The county made a mistake on our taxes and forgot to give us the right deductions and we got a whopping high property tax bill. Since we did have an escrow account the bank just paid the taxes and raised our mortgage by a nearly unaffordable 60% or so even though we called the bank and told them not to pay the tax bill as it was being disputed. By the time we got the tax issues sorted out Chase refused to adjust the mortgage. The only way we were able to get out of it was to refinance with another bank and opt out of the escrow account and handle taxes on our own, which fixed the whole problem. It seemed an awful lot like an attempt to force us into a foreclosure. If we didn't have the money to refinance we would have barely been able to afford the mortgage payment. Why they would want to do that I have no idea. It really sucked though.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "28d9aa347dd6586e63001086f0a889da",
"text": "California is very aggressive when it comes to determining residency. While you have a legitimate defense, I suggest talking with a California-licensed CPA or EA practicing in California, which are experienced in dealing with the FTB residency audits.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "49fcb429b4cc17c2db360a6d3770a84a",
"text": "Real world case: IRS: You owe us $x. You didn't report your income from job y. My mother: I didn't work for y. I don't even know who y is. IRS: If the W-2 is wrong, talk to them to get it fixed. My mother: I can't find y. Please give me an address or phone. IRS: We can't. You talk to them and get it fixed. I know this dragged on for more than a year, they never mentioned the final outcome and they're gone now so I can't ask.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
5a4474e7b9c152f03af9ee93c261ad56
|
Should I take contributions out of my Roth IRA to live off of?
|
[
{
"docid": "5a1142ff30560242d9fe0cb9b51e059e",
"text": "Take another job. From a personal finance perspective this is the wrong reason to dip into a retirement account. You will lose so much ground towards actually retiring. Sure you won't be taxed, but you will be missing so much opportunity where that money won't be working for your retirement. The off-topic answer to take to the start-ups stackexchange site is: don't quit your day job until your business plan is written out and you have an idea of where to get your startup capital.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c93bcfadf72babd57eae98f63c332b0a",
"text": "That's up to you, but I wouldn't play around with my retirement money if I was in your situation. Your earning potential during your retirement years will likely be at its nadir. Do you really want to risk being forced to be a Wal-Mart greeter when you are 80? Also, considering your earning potential now is probably at or near the peak, your opportunity cost for each hour of your life is much higher now than it will be later. So ultimately you'd be working a little harder now or a lot harder later for less money.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7845cc0b4cdf7296a0263f061fbd2046",
"text": "It doesn't matter if you aren't maxing out your IRA contributions anyway. If you are maxing out IRA contribution and you still have extra money to deposit then yes you better have all the money inevested, but if you aren't maxing out your contribution then it doesn't really mattter where you stick your emergency savings. But if you fall into money later you will be glad you put your emergency in a roth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d056febf8af3e97adf1ac2c9590b44d",
"text": "Lets imagine two scenarios: 1) You make 10.4k (40% of total income) yearly contributions to a savings account that earns 1% interest for 10 years. In this scenario, you put in 104k and earned 5.89k in interest, for a total of 109.9k. 2) You make the same 10.4k yearly contribution to an index fund that earns 7% on average for 10 years. In this scenario you put in the same 104k, but earned 49.7k in interest*, for a total of 153.7k. The main advantage is option 1) has more liquidity -- you can get the money out faster. Option 2) requires time to divest any stocks / bonds. So you need enough savings to get you through that divestment period. Imagine another two scenarios where you stop earning income: 1-b) You stop working and have only your 109.9k principal amount in a 1% savings account. If you withdraw 15.6k yearly for your current cost of living, you will run through your savings in 7 years. 2-b) You stop working and have only 20k (2 years of savings) in savings that earns 1% with 153.7k in stocks that earns 7%. If you withdraw your cost of living currently at 15.6k, you will run through your investments in 15 years and your savings in 2 years, for a total of 17 years. The two years of income in savings is extremely generous for how long it starts the divestment process. In summary, invest your money. It wasn't specified what currency we are talking about, but you can easily find access to an investment company no matter where you are in the world. Keep a small amount for a rainy day.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "18a41c6e82cb828cc6beeb5ccba6f277",
"text": "\"With a healthy income its quite possible to contribute too much into 401Ks/IRAs. For example, if your retired today and had 3 million or so, how much more would you need? Would an extra million materially change your life? Would it make you happier if you invested that extra in some rental properties or perhaps a business like a sandwich or ice cream shop where you have more direct control? This kind of discussion is possible as you indicate that you have taken care of your life financially. It seems at odds with the negative press describing the woefully condition of the standard person's finances. These articles ignore a very simple fact: its because of bad behavior. You, on the contrary, have behaved well and are in the process of reaping rewards. This is where I feel your \"\"mental gymnastics\"\" originates. Looking to engage in the rental market is no different then buying a franchise. You are opening a business of your own. You'll have to educate yourself and are likely to make a few mistakes that will cause you to write checks to solve. Your goal is to minimize those mistakes. After all, what do you know about the rental home business? I am guessing not much. Educate yourself. Read and spend some money on taking knowledgeable people out for coffee. In the end you should understand that although a poor decision may cost you money you cannot really make a bad decision. Lets say you do buy a rental property, things go south, you sell for a loss, etc.... In the end the \"\"butchers bill\"\" is 50K or so. Will that materially change your life? Probably not. The worst case is perhaps you have to work a year or two beyond the anticipated retirement age to make up that money. No big deal.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "86e0bb3dc4107664219376ebcca5c4d4",
"text": "\"To answer the first part of your question: yes, I've done that! I did even a bit more. I once had a job that I wasn't sure I'd keep and the economy wasn't great either. In case my next employer wouldn't let me contribute to a 401(k) from day one, and because I didn't want to underfund my retirement and be stuck with a higher tax bill - I \"\"front-loaded\"\" my 401(k) contributions to be maxed out before the end of the year. (The contribution limits were lower than $16,500/year back then :-)) As for the reduced cash flow - you need of course a \"\"buffer\"\" account containing several months worth of living expenses to afford maxing out or \"\"front-loading\"\" 401(k) contributions. You should be paying your bills out of such buffer account and not out of each paycheck. As for the reduced cash flow - I think large-scale 401(k)/IRA contributions can crowd out other long-term saving priorities such as saving for a house down payment and the trade-off between them is a real concern. (If they're crowding out basic and discretionary consumer expenses, that's a totally different kind of problem, which you don't seem to have, which is great :-)) So about the trade-off between large-scale 401(k) contributions and saving for the down payment. I'd say maxing out 401(k) can foster the savings culture that will eventually pay its dividends. If, after several years of maxing out your 401(k) you decide that saving for the house is the top priority, you'll see money flow to the money-market account marked for the down payment at a substantial monthly rate, thanks to that savings culture. As for the increasing future earnings - no. Most people I've known for a long time, if they saved 20% when they made $20K/year, they continued to save 20% or more when they later made $100K/year. People who spent the entire paycheck while making $50K/year, always say, if only I got a raise to $60K/year, I'd save a few thousand. But they eventually graduate to $100K/year and still spend the entire paycheck. It's all about your savings culture. On the second part of your question - yes, Roth is a great tool, especially if you believe that the future tax rates will be higher (to fix the long-term budget deficits). So, contributing to 401(k) to maximize the match, then max out Roth, as others suggested, is a great advice. After you've done that, see what else you can do: more 401(k), saving for the house, etc.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e6fe9ae348a26ed418c12d2a37ad8fac",
"text": "You should simply withdraw the excess contributions by April 15. You have until October 15 if you go through the extra step of filing an amended tax return. https://investor.vanguard.com/ira/excess-contribution It unnecessary for you to pay the 6% penalty. You should wait until you can estimate your 2016 accurately before making your 2016 contribution. If your income is too high for the Roth IRA, you might instead pursue the backdoor Roth IRA strategy: https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Backdoor_Roth_IRA",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f0bdfad4151cf82ea92285025dd4b5ee",
"text": "First thing to note is that contributions (i.e. the total of all the amounts that you directly contributed into Roth IRA at any point in time) to a Roth IRA can be withdrawn at any time, without needing any reason, without any tax or penalty. Early withdrawal (early because you are under 59.5) of earnings, on the other hand, will incur tax and penalty. (I didn't go into withdrawal of conversions as those are a little more complex.) When you withdraw, contributions come out first, so as long as you don't withdraw more than the amount of past contributions, you won't have any tax or penalty. And if it's not going to have tax, it doesn't really matter if you do it this year or next year. If you need to dip into the earnings, however, then maybe it would be better to do this year so it will be taxed at lower rates.",
"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": "44161b0790cc3caf122100fa4e7dbfda",
"text": "You're right, of course - But that's not something you would ever want to do *accidentally*. Five years from now, the OP may well decide to convert some of his traditional funds to Roth; for now, even though Roth was his original intent, that would mean a tax bloodbath come next April. As an aside, the biggest reason (for most people) to have Roth funds **isn't** because you expect to make more (inflation - or more importantly, tax-code - adjusted) in retirement than now. If that were the case, the entire concept would be almost worthless - Who the heck makes more *after* retiring than *before*? The best reason to have substantial Roth funds in your retirement portfolio is the way that Social Security is taxed. If you can keep your AGI under $25k (note that includes half of your SS benefits, but since the standard deduction is roughly $10k, those more-or-less cancel each other out), you don't pay a dime in taxes on your SSI. So, if you have a solid budget, take your yearly expenses, subtract out $25k, and that's what you should (sustainably) have in Roth funds. The remaining $25k is what you should have in traditional funds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1a623fd663710ec8e383dcf5d15970c4",
"text": "Putting money into a Roth IRA or 401(k) will save you money if your taxes this year will be lower than your taxes in retirement. See also the Wikipedia retirement-savings matrix.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee9ec3cf0e095eca0867b554e25a864e",
"text": "\"If you have wage income that is reported on a W2 form, you can contribute the maximum of your wages, what you can afford, or $5500 in a Roth IRA. One advantage of this is that the nominal amounts you contribute can always be removed without tax consequences, so a Roth IRA can be a deep emergency fund (i.e., if the choice is $2000 in cash as emergency fund or $2000 in cash in a 2015 Roth IRA contribution, choice 2 gives you more flexibility and optimistic upside at the risk of not being able to draw on interest/gains until you retire or claim losses on your tax return). If you let April 15 2016 pass by without making a Roth IRA contribution, you lose the 2015 limit forever. If you are presently a student and partially employed, you are most likely in the lowest marginal tax rate you will be in for decades, which utilizes the Roth tax game effectively. If you're estimating \"\"a few hundred\"\", then what you pick as an investment is going to be less important than making the contributions. That is, you can pick any mutual fund that strikes your fancy and be prepared to gain or lose, call it $50/year (or pick a single stock and be prepared to lose it all). At some point, you need to understand your emotions around volatility, and the only tuition for this school is taking a loss and having the presence of mind to examine any panic responses you may have. No reason not to learn this on \"\"a few hundred\"\". While it's not ideal to have losses in a Roth, \"\"a few hundred\"\" is not consequential in the long run. If you're not prepared at this time in your life for the possibility of losing it all (or will need the money within a year or few, as your edit suggests), keep it in cash and try to reduce your expenses to contribute more. Can you contribute another $100? You will have more money at the end of the year than investment choice will likely return.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6530438ecc6e9d694d90f6f51a6c221e",
"text": "You are mistaken about a Roth IRA. You can take out your contributions at any time with no penalty as long as you don't touch the gains. Also, if the money has been in for 5 years you can withdraw for a first time home purchase. Your concerns about locking up the money are troublesome. You need discipline to save for retirement. That is a known massive expense you will have and it takes a LONG time of saving up to prepare. Be sure to account for the taxes you may owe on the winnings before you start spending the money. Before you sink the money into a down payment on a house, make sure you have several (preferrably) six months of living expenses in savings. If you don't have investment experience, steer away from individual stocks. Invest in index funds with low expense ratios and don't actively trade.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "808d119ccef312246efb4ee461f710cb",
"text": "If he moves his 401K to a Roth all in one go, all the money will be considered income for the year he moves it, and he will have to pay taxes on that income. If he keeps it in his 401K or rolls it into a traditional IRA, he will only pay taxes on the money as he withdraws it. Bottom line, converting to Roth is almost certainly a bad idea.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e4f9de5dd97850b3d692707d252fb75a",
"text": "There are a few things to consider. The answers others gave here are correct, but I'll offer some reasons you may not want to roll to an IRA:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "39da3ac1fff30b7f7baa37b7025907cf",
"text": "\"I think it would be worth it for you to look into something called a \"\"Self-directed IRA\"\" before you make any decisions. Sometimes the costs can be a little higher, but you may find the flexibility worth it. Basically, instead of being limited to a small set of mutual funds from which to choose, having the money in a self-directed IRA would let you branch out into real estate, gold, or other vehicles that aren't part of the usual 401K landscape. And count me as another vote for not taking the cash. MrChrister is right, there are plenty of other ways to pay that off without the penalty.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "810eceab7edb6216ea4133d029874089",
"text": "\"I humbly disagree with #2. the use of Roth or pre-tax IRA depends on your circumstance. With no match in the 401(k), I'd start with an IRA. If you have more than $5k to put in, then some 401(k) would be needed. Edit - to add detail on Roth decision. I was invited to write a guest article \"\"Roth IRAs and your retirement income\"\" some time ago. In it, I discuss the large amount of pretax savings it takes to generate the income to put you in a high bracket in retirement. This analysis leads me to believe the risk of paying tax now only to find tHat you are in a lower bracket upon retiring is far greater than the opposite. I think if there were any generalization (I hate rules of thumb, they are utterly pick-apartable) to be made, it's that if you are in the 15% bracket or lower, go Roth. As your income puts you into 25%, go pretax. I believe this would apply to the bulk of investors, 80%+.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
20b3f054b7c0816d78f351e649f825ed
|
How to evaluate stocks? e.g. Whether some stock is cheap or expensive?
|
[
{
"docid": "84cbadbf74d336dd11ac4556a53dc886",
"text": "\"If you are looking for numerical metrics I think the following are popular: Price/Earnings (P/E) - You mentioned this very popular one in your question. There are different P/E ratios - forward (essentially an estimate of future earnings by management), trailing, etc.. I think of the P/E as a quick way to grade a company's income statement (i.e: How much does the stock cost verusus the amount of earnings being generated on a per share basis?). Some caution must be taken when looking at the P/E ratio. Earnings can be \"\"massaged\"\" by the company. Revenue can be moved between quarters, assets can be depreciated at different rates, residual value of assets can be adjusted, etc.. Knowing this, the P/E ratio alone doesn't help me determine whether or not a stock is cheap. In general, I think an affordable stock is one whose P/E is under 15. Price/Book - I look at the Price/Book as a quick way to grade a company's balance sheet. The book value of a company is the amount of cash that would be left if everything the company owned was sold and all debts paid (i.e. the company's net worth). The cash is then divided amoung the outstanding shares and the Price/Book can be computed. If a company had a price/book under 1.0 then theoretically you could purchase the stock, the company could be liquidated, and you would end up with more money then what you paid for the stock. This ratio attempts to answer: \"\"How much does the stock cost based on the net worth of the company?\"\" Again, this ratio can be \"\"massaged\"\" by the company. Asset values have to be estimated based on current market values (think about trying to determine how much a company's building is worth) unless, of course, mark-to-market is suspended. This involves some estimating. Again, I don't use this value alone in determing whether or not a stock is cheap. I consider a price/book value under 10 a good number. Cash - I look at growth in the cash balance of a company as a way to grade a company's cash flow statement. Is the cash account growing or not? As they say, \"\"Cash is King\"\". This is one measurement that can not be \"\"massaged\"\" which is why I like it. The P/E and Price/Book can be \"\"tuned\"\" but in the end the company cannot hide a shrinking cash balance. Return Ratios - Return on Equity is a measure of the amount of earnings being generated for a given amount of equity (ROE = earnings/(assets - liabilities)). This attempts to measure how effective the company is at generating earnings with a given amount of equity. There is also Return on Assets which measures earnings returns based on the company's assets. I tend to think an ROE over 15% is a good number. These measurements rely on a company accurately reporting its financial condition. Remember, in the US companies are allowed to falsify accounting reports if approved by the government so be careful. There are others who simply don't follow the rules and report whatever numbers they like without penalty. There are many others. These are just a few of the more popular ones. There are many other considerations to take into account as other posters have pointed out.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b55537ea38f39ad5dca50ded39529760",
"text": "Its like anything else, you need to study and learn more about investing in general and the stocks you are looking at buying or selling. Magazines are a good start -- also check out the books recommended in another question. If you're looking at buying a stock for the mid/long term, look at things like this: Selling is more complicated and more frequently screwed up:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e",
"text": "",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "91b720167fd3efe4a248785f4df1a208",
"text": "\"duffbeer's answers are reasonable for the specific question asked, but it seems to me the questioner is really wanting to know what stocks should I buy, by asking \"\"do you simply listen to 'experts' and hope they are right?\"\" Basic fundamental analysis techniques like picking stocks with a low PE or high dividend yield are probably unlikely to give returns much above the average market because many other people are applying the same well-known techniques.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cfc6a71d87f7cc84ff75401a7965d421",
"text": "I look at the following ratios and how these ratios developed over time, for instance how did valuation come down in a recession, what was the trough multiple during the Lehman crisis in 2008, how did a recession or good economy affect profitability of the company. Valuation metrics: Enterprise value / EBIT (EBIT = operating income) Enterprise value / sales (for fast growing companies as their operating profit is expected to be realized later in time) and P/E Profitability: Operating margin, which is EBIT / sales Cashflow / sales Business model stability and news flow",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "a4afa8c2f6d30d437aba51b7bd25b53b",
"text": "Knowing the answer to this question is generally not as useful as it may seem. The stock's current price is the consensus of thousands of people who are looking at the many relevant factors (dividend rate, growth prospects, volatility, risk, industry, etc.) that determine its value. A stock's price is the market's valuation of the cash flows it entitles you to in the future. Researching a stock's value means trying to figure out if there is something relevant to these cash flows that the market doesn't know about or has misjudged. Pretty much anything we can list for you here that will affect a stock's price is something the market knows about, so it's not likely to help you know if something is mispriced. Therefore it's not useful to you. If you are not a true expert on how important the relevant factors are and how the market is reacting to them currently (and often even if you are), then you are essentially guessing. How likely are you to catch something that the thousands of other investors have missed and how likely are you to miss something that other investors have understood? I don't view gambling as inherently evil, but you should be clear and honest with yourself about what you are doing if you are trying to outperform the market. As people become knowledgeable about and experienced with finance, they try less and less to be the one to find an undervalued stock in their personal portfolio. Instead they seek to hold a fully diversified portfolio with low transactions costs and build wealth in the long term without wasting time and money on the guessing game. My suggestion for you is to transition as quickly as you can to behave like someone who knows a lot about finance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a6e87ece5bda5dbb3720b8f90837b88",
"text": "\"Here is how I would approach that problem: 1) Find the average ratios of the competitors: 2) Find the earnings and book value per share of Hawaiian 3) Multiply the EPB and BVPS by the average ratios. Note that you get two very different numbers. This illustrates why pricing from ratios is inexact. How you use those answers to estimate a \"\"price\"\" is up to you. You can take the higher of the two, the average, the P/E result since you have more data points, or whatever other method you feel you can justify. There is no \"\"right\"\" answer since no one can accurately predict the future price of any stock.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "946f3ce23e6c568eac2af2495c403eae",
"text": "There's only one real list that states what people think stock prices should be, and that's the stocks order book. That lists the prices at which stock owners are willing to buy stocks now, and the price that buyers are willing to pay. A secondary measure is the corresponding options price. Anything else is just an opinion and not backed by money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c7e2492482cabf5a89816370180c36c",
"text": "The only recommendation I have is to try the stock screener from Google Finance : https://www.google.com/finance?ei=oJz9VenXD8OxmAHR263YBg#stockscreener",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ecb2a725e650028ba832f98801a01b8",
"text": "I'd recommend looking at fundamental analysis as well -- technical analysis seems to be good for buy and sell points, but not for picking what to buy. You can get better outperformance by buying the right stuff, and it can be surprisingly easy to create a formula that works. I'd check out Morningstar, AAII, or Equities Lab (fairly complicated but it lets you do technical and fundamental analysis together). Also read Benjamin Graham, and/or Ken Fisher (they are wildly different, which is why I recommend them both).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7398abe8544fccf27a34b60e839f28b3",
"text": "You can check whether the company whose stock you want to buy is present on an european market. For instance this is the case for Apple at Frankfurt.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a4000a40d44e3fe823985daf10c1d0a8",
"text": "Stock valuation is a really sticky business, although they are ways to value it, it is somewhat subjective(expectations are calculated). But it will be at premium most likely, can't tell how much without any numbers.(wouldn't be able to tell with the numbers as well since i do not have any knowledge in the sector)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "076724614177d21d3c98defd53abe1b4",
"text": "REIT's are a different beast than your normal corporate stock (such as $AAPL). Here is a good article to get you started. From there you can do some more research into what you think you will need to truly evaluate an REIT. How To Assess A Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) Excerpt: When evaluating REITs, you will get a clearer picture by looking at funds from operations (FFO) rather than looking at net income. If you are seriously considering the investment, try to calculate adjusted funds from operations (AFFO), which deducts the likely expenditures necessary to maintain the real estate portfolio. AFFO is also a good measure of the REIT's dividend-paying capacity. Finally, the ratio price-to-AFFO and the AFFO yield (AFFO/price) are tools for analyzing an REIT: look for a reasonable multiple combined with good prospects for growth in the underlying AFFO. Good luck!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "60c9eac57d227944f7dd9dfc37899a80",
"text": "\"First, to mention one thing - better analysis calls for analyzing a range of outcomes, not just one; assigning a probability on each, and comparing the expected values. Then moderating the choice based on risk tolerance. But now, just look at the outcome or scenario of 3% and time frame of 2 days. Let's assume your investable capital is exactly $1000 (multiply everything by 5 for $5,000, etc.). A. Buy stock: the value goes to 103; your investment goes to $1030; net return is $30, minus let's say $20 commission (you should compare these between brokers; I use one that charges 9.99 plus a trivial government fee). B. Buy an call option at 100 for $0.40 per share, with an expiration 30 days away (December 23). This is a more complicated. To evaluate this, you need to estimate the movement of the value of a 100 call, $0 in and out of the money, 30 days remaining, to the value of a 100 call, $3 in the money, 28 days remaining. That movement will vary based on the volatility of the underlying stock, an advanced topic; but there are techniques to estimate that, which become simple to use after you get the hang of it. At any rate, let's say that the expected movement of the option price in this scenario is from $0.40 to $3.20. Since you bought 2500 share options for $1000, the gain would be 2500 times 2.8 = 7000. C. Buy an call option at 102 for $0.125 per share, with an expiration 30 days away (December 23). To evaluate this, you need to estimate the movement of the value of a 102 call, $2 out of the money, 30 days remaining, to the value of a 102 call, $1 in the money, 28 days remaining. That movement will vary based on the volatility of the underlying stock, an advanced topic; but there are techniques to estimate that, which become simple to use after you get the hang of it. At any rate, let's say that the expected movement of the option price in this scenario is from $0.125 to $ 1.50. Since you bought 8000 share options for $1000, the gain would be 8000 times 1.375 = 11000. D. Same thing but starting with a 98 call. E. Same thing but starting with a 101 call expiring 60 days out. F., ... Etc. - other option choices. Again, getting the numbers right for the above is an advanced topic, one reason why brokerages warn you that options are risky (if you do your math wrong, you can lose. Even doing that math right, with a bad outcome, loses). Anyway you need to \"\"score\"\" as many options as needed to find the optimal point. But back to the first paragraph, you should then run the whole analysis on a 2% gain. Or 5%. Or 5% in 4 days instead of 2 days. Do as many as are fruitful. Assess likelihoods. Then pull the trigger and buy it. Try these techniques in simulation before diving in! Please! One last point, you don't HAVE to understand how to evaluate projected option price movements if you have software that does that for you. I'll punt on that process, except to mention it. Get the general idea? Edit P.S. I forgot to mention that brokers need love for handling Options too. Check those commission rates in your analysis as well.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3ffd7588e47bdcfbf842058ec577af8f",
"text": "\"Answering this question is weird, because it is not really precise in what you mean. Do you want all stocks in the US? Do you want a selection of stocks according to parameters? Do you just want a cool looking graph? However, your possible misuse of the word derivative piqued my interest. Your reference to gold and silver seems to indicate that you do not know what a derivative actually is. Or what it would do in a portfolio. The straightforward way to \"\"see\"\" an efficient frontier is to do the following. For a set of stocks (in this case six \"\"randomly\"\" selected ones): library(quantmod) library(fPortfolio) library(PerformanceAnalytics) getSymbols(c(\"\"STZ\"\", \"\"RAI\"\", \"\"AMZN\"\", \"\"MSFT\"\", \"\"TWX\"\", \"\"RHT\"\"), from = \"\"2012-06-01\"\", to = \"\"2017-06-01\"\") returns <- NULL tickerlist <- c(\"\"STZ\"\", \"\"RAI\"\", \"\"AMZN\"\", \"\"MSFT\"\", \"\"TWX\"\", \"\"RHT\"\") for (ticker in tickerlist){ returns <- cbind(returns, monthlyReturn(Ad(eval(as.symbol(ticker))))) } colnames(returns) <- tickerlist returns <- as.timeSeries(returns) frontier <- portfolioFrontier(returns) png(\"\"frontier.png\"\", width = 800, height = 600) plot(frontier, which = \"\"all\"\") dev.off() minvariancePortfolio(returns, constraints = \"\"LongOnly\"\") Portfolio Weights: STZ RAI AMZN MSFT TWX RHT 0.1140 0.3912 0.0000 0.1421 0.1476 0.2051 Covariance Risk Budgets: STZ RAI AMZN MSFT TWX RHT 0.1140 0.3912 0.0000 0.1421 0.1476 0.2051 Target Returns and Risks: mean Cov CVaR VaR 0.0232 0.0354 0.0455 0.0360 https://imgur.com/QIxDdEI The minimum variance portfolio of these six assets has a mean return is 0.0232 and variance is 0.0360. AMZN does not get any weight in the portfolio. It kind of means that the other assets span it and it does not provide any additional diversification benefit. Let us add two ETFs that track gold and silver to the mix, and see how little difference it makes: getSymbols(c(\"\"GLD\"\", \"\"SLV\"\"), from = \"\"2012-06-01\"\", to = \"\"2017-06-01\"\") returns <- NULL tickerlist <- c(\"\"STZ\"\", \"\"RAI\"\", \"\"AMZN\"\", \"\"MSFT\"\", \"\"TWX\"\", \"\"RHT\"\", \"\"GLD\"\", \"\"SLV\"\") for (ticker in tickerlist){ returns <- cbind(returns, monthlyReturn(Ad(eval(as.symbol(ticker))))) } colnames(returns) <- tickerlist returns <- as.timeSeries(returns) frontier <- portfolioFrontier(returns) png(\"\"weights.png\"\", width = 800, height = 600) weightsPlot(frontier) dev.off() # Optimal weights out <- minvariancePortfolio(returns, constraints = \"\"LongOnly\"\") wghts <- getWeights(out) portret1 <- returns%*%wghts portret1 <- cbind(monthprc, portret1)[,3] colnames(portret1) <- \"\"Optimal portfolio\"\" # Equal weights wghts <- rep(1/8, 8) portret2 <- returns%*%wghts portret2 <- cbind(monthprc, portret2)[,3] colnames(portret2) <- \"\"Equal weights portfolio\"\" png(\"\"performance_both.png\"\", width = 800, height = 600) par(mfrow=c(2,2)) chart.CumReturns(portret1, ylim = c(0, 2)) chart.CumReturns(portret2, ylim = c(0, 2)) chart.Drawdown(portret1, main = \"\"Drawdown\"\", ylim = c(-0.06, 0)) chart.Drawdown(portret2, main = \"\"Drawdown\"\", ylim = c(-0.06, 0)) dev.off() https://imgur.com/sBHGz7s Adding gold changes the minimum variance mean return to 0.0116 and the variance stays about the same 0.0332. You can see how the weights change at different return and variance profiles in the picture. The takeaway is that adding gold decreases the return but does not do a lot for the risk of the portfolio. You also notice that silver does not get included in the minimum variance efficient portfolio (and neither does AMZN). https://imgur.com/rXPbXau We can also compare the optimal weights to an equally weighted portfolio and see that the latter would have performed better but had much larger drawdowns. Which is because it has a higher volatility, which might be undesirable. --- Everything below here is false, but illustrative. So what about the derivative part? Let us assume you bought an out of the money call option with a strike of 50 on MSFT at the beginning of the time series and held it to the end. We need to decide on the the annualized cost-of-carry rate, the annualized rate of interest, the time to maturity is measured in years, the annualized volatility of the underlying security is proxied by the historical volatility. library(fOptions) monthprc <- Ad(MSFT)[endpoints(MSFT, \"\"months\"\")] T <- length(monthprc) # 60 months, 5 years vol <- sd(returns$MSFT)*sqrt(12) # annualized volatility optprc <- matrix(NA, 60, 1) for (t in 1:60) { s <- as.numeric(monthprc[t]) optval <- GBSOption(TypeFlag = \"\"c\"\", S = s, X = 50, Time = (T - t) / 12, r = 0.001, b = 0.001, sigma = vol) optprc[t] <- optval@price } monthprc <- cbind(monthprc, optprc) colnames(monthprc) <- c(\"\"MSFT\"\", \"\"MSFTCall50\"\") MSFTCall50rets <- monthlyReturn(monthprc[,2]) colnames(MSFTCall50rets) <- \"\"MSFTCall50rets\"\" returns <- merge(returns, MSFTCall50rets) wghts <- rep(1/9, 9) portret3 <- returns%*%wghts portret3 <- cbind(monthprc, portret3)[,3] colnames(portret3) <- \"\"Equal weights derivative portfolio\"\" png(\"\"performance_deriv.png\"\", width = 800, height = 600) par(mfrow=c(2,2)) chart.CumReturns(portret2, ylim = c(0, 4.5)) chart.CumReturns(portret3, ylim = c(0, 4.5)) chart.Drawdown(portret2, main = \"\"Drawdown\"\", ylim = c(-0.09, 0)) chart.Drawdown(portret3, main = \"\"Drawdown\"\", ylim = c(-0.09, 0)) dev.off() https://imgur.com/SZ1xrYx Even though we have a massively profitable instrument in the derivative. The portfolio analysis does not include it because of the high volatility. However, if we just use equal weighting and essentially take a massive position in the out of the money call (which would not be possible in real life), we get huge drawdowns and volatility, but the returns are almost two fold. But nobody will sell you a five year call. Others can correct any mistakes or misunderstandings in the above. It hopefully gives a starting point. Read more at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_portfolio_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Option_(finance) The imgur album: https://imgur.com/a/LoBEY\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c9353f6a0cae024f3d16f95ca48999b",
"text": "\"Check your math... \"\"two stocks, both with a P/E of 2 trading at $40 per share lets say, and one has an EPS of 5 whereas the other has an EPS of 10 is the latter a better purchase?\"\" If a stock has P/E of 2 and price of $40 it has an EPS of $20. Not $10. Not $5.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0a7f714f0a3b50be1430a11363a34698",
"text": "Aswath Damodaran's [Investment Valuation 3rd edition](http://www.amazon.com/Investment-Valuation-Techniques-Determining-University/dp/1118130731/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&qid=1339995852&sr=8-12&keywords=aswath+damodaran) (or save money and go with a used copy of the [2nd edition](http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0471414905/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&condition=used)) He's a professor at Stern School of Business. His [website](http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/) and [blog](http://aswathdamodaran.blogspot.com/) are good resources as well. [Here is his support page](http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/Inv3ed.htm) for his Investment Valuation text. It includes chapter summaries, slides, ect. If you're interested in buying the text you can get an idea of what's in it by checking that site out.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b731769f380d1dbc187594d1070e9701",
"text": "I was thinking that the value of the stock is the value of the stock...the actual number of shares really doesn't matter, but I'm not sure. You're correct. Share price is meaningless. Google is $700 per share, Apple is $100 per share, that doesn't say anything about either company and/or whether or not one is a better investment over the other. You should not evaluate an investment decision on price of a share. Look at the books decide if the company is worth owning, then decide if it's worth owning at it's current price.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "76e622fc225406dbd70fb144752364dc",
"text": "\"You could use any of various financial APIs (e.g., Yahoo finance) to get prices of some reference stock and bond index funds. That would be a reasonable approximation to market performance over a given time span. As for inflation data, just googling \"\"monthly inflation data\"\" gave me two pages with numbers that seem to agree and go back to 1914. If you want to double-check their numbers you could go to the source at the BLS. As for whether any existing analysis exists, I'm not sure exactly what you mean. I don't think you need to do much analysis to show that stock returns are different over different time periods.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a1c8b750f6c21453c59ba60da65eed80",
"text": "\"Step 2 is wrong. Leverage is NOT necessary. It increases possible gain, but increases risk of loss by essentially the same amount. Those two numbers are pretty tightly linked by market forces. See many, many other answers here showing that one can earn \"\"market rate\"\" -- 8% or so -- with far less risk and effort, if one is patient, and some evidence that one can do better with more effort and not too much more risk. And yes, investing for a longer time horizon is also safer.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
03b8a77db3872266955d7029ceec3f01
|
Which US services allow small/micro-payments using a credit card?
|
[
{
"docid": "1bff0436c8c540881ce5addcb08ee967",
"text": "I don't know of any and it is unlikely that you will be able to find one. Most credit card processors charge a flat fee plus percentage. The flat fee is typically in the 35 cent range making the cost of doing business, in the manner you are suggesting, astronomical. Also what you are suggesting is contrary to best practices as hosting services, and many other industries, offer deep discounts when making a single payment for an extended period of time. This is not very helpful, but I think it is unrealistic to find what you are suggesting.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "8bb67dbef75bc0e21447b957487b2d92",
"text": "You can split payments, and nobody judges you because most prepaid cards are actually gift cards. They just think you have generous friends. When you use Visa/MC at a vendor, they get dinged around 2-3% plus 35 cents flat-rate. So when you ask them to charge 77 cents to the card, you're essentially asking they give half of it to Visa/MC. Which is unfair. A charity won't turn it down, but it's wasted. So how do you solve this problem? If you see a small merchant using Square or PayPal Here, their merchant agreements charge a flat rate (2.75% and 2.70% respectively) with no flat rate per transaction. If you see they are on PayPal/Square, go for it. Obviously PayPal itself doesn't have that problem, because they have a really, really good deal with Visa and Mastercard. So feel free to buy yourself credit on your PayPal account with these residual values. Amazon probably has a similar deal. You are getting these small amounts because you aim to pay a $22.69 bill with a card that has $25 on it. Reasonable, but it causes this. Flip it around: pay a $22.69 bill with a card that has $20 on it, consume the $20 value, and pay the $2.69 in cash. You may need to tell the cashier exactly the amount to charge (e.g. $20.00) especially if it is a Visa/MC card. It will certainly go faster if you do. The cashier may be able to pull up the balance, but it's an extra procedure, and an inexperienced cashier may struggle with it / have to call the manager etc. - not worth it in my book.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ce3daac0469561948d0af7fa2a82d15b",
"text": "I had $70K in credit card at one point. Limited income, starting a business - it's the only credit available. (yes, all paid off now).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4248acc7fc94e58e4871fe016df185da",
"text": "There's an excellent new service called SelfScore that offers US credit cards to international students. They work with students without a credit history and even without an SSN by using other qualifying factors such as major, financial resources in their home country, and employability upon graduation. Worth clarifying: it's neither a secured credit card nor a prepaid card. It's a proper US credit card with no annual fees and a relatively low APR designed to help students build US credit. The spending limit is relatively small but that probably doesn't matter for just building a credit history.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b4e97de34cef36c0dad6a1c09fff5040",
"text": "\"It is called \"\"Credit card installments\"\" or \"\"Equal pay installments\"\", and I am not aware of them being widely used in the USA. While in other countries they are supported by banks directly (right?), in US you may find this option only in some big stores like home improvement stores, car dealerships, cell phone operators (so that you can buy a new phone) etc. Some stores allow 0% financing for, say, 12 months which is not exactly the same as installments but close, if you have discipline to pay $250 each month and not wait for 12 months to end. Splitting the big payment in parts means that the seller gets money in parts as well, and it adds risks of customer default, introduces debt collection possibility etc. That's why it's usually up to the merchants to support it - bank does not care in this case, from the bank point of view the store just charges the same card another $250 every month. In other countries banks support this option directly, I think, taking over or dividing the risk with the merchants. This has not happened in US. There is a company SplitIt which automates installments if stores want to support it but again, it means stores need to agree to it. Here is a simple article describing how credit cards work: https://www.usbank.com/credit-cards/how-credit-cards-work.html In general, if you move to US, you are unlikely to be able to get a regular credit card because you will not have any \"\"credit history\"\" which is a system designed to track each customer ability to get & pay off debt. The easiest way to build the history - request \"\"secured credit card\"\", which means you have to give the bank money up front and then they will give you a credit card with a credit limit equal to that amount. It's like a \"\"practice credit card\"\". You use it for 6-12 months and the bank will report your usage to credit bureaus, establishing your \"\"credit score\"\". After that you should be able to get your money back and convert your secured card into a regular credit card. Credit history can be also built by paying rent and utilities but that requires companies who collect money to report the payments to credit bureaus and very few do that. As anything else in US, there are some businesses which help to solve this problem for extra money.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22a1be4fe209a2fd1ecad737d0d6f717",
"text": "\"I have a merchant account and accept Visa, Mastercard, and Discover but not AMEX. I don't take AMEX because they want me to go through another approval process (on top of what was required to get merchant status) and their fees are a percent or two higher than the other cards. This doesn't sound like a lot - but for a business that grosses $1M per year, an extra 2 percentage points is $20K. I don't gross $1M, but the additional cost for me to take AMEX would still use the word \"\"thousand\"\" and I don't see any reason to jump through extra hoops and fill out more forms for the privilege of giving extra money away. I haven't found anyone yet who wanted to pay me with AMEX who can't pay me with another card or a check instead.\"",
"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": "5390aa6214c748dcc7d6424c7e65f2eb",
"text": "It may seem very simple on its face but you don't know the merchant's agreement. You don't know who is providing the processing equipment. You don't know a lot of things. You know that Visa, Mastercard, Discover, Amex and others have network requirements and agreements. You know that laws have been changed to allow merchant surcharges (previously it was contracts that prohibited surcharges, not laws). That gas station, or that pizza parlor, or any other merchant doesn't have a direct relationship with Visa or Mastercard; it has an agreement with a bank or other processing entity. The issue here, is whom do you even call? And what would you gain? Find out what bank is contracted for that particular equipment and file a complaint that the merchant charged you $0.35? Maybe the merchant agreement allows surcharges up to state and local maximums? You don't know the terms of their agreement. Calling around to figure out what parties are involved to understand the terms of their agreement is a waste of time, like you said you can just go across the street if it's so offensive to you. Or just carry a little cash. If that's not the answer you're looking for, here's one for you: There is no practical recourse.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "28aca8fc12242a63427a0c031f083621",
"text": "I don't know of any that are comparable to credit cards. There's a reason for that. Debit cards, being newer, have a much lower interchange rate. Since collecting on debt is risky and less predictable, rewards / miles are paid from those interchange fees. This means with a debit card there's less money to pay you with. So what can you do? Assuming your credit isn't terrible, you can just open a credit card account and pay in full for purchases by the grace period. I don't know how all cards work, but my grace period allows me to pay in full by the billing date (roughly a month from purchase) and incur no finance charges. In effect, I get a small 30 day loan with no interest, and a cash back incentive (I dislike miles). You're also less liable for fraud via CC than debit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8be60d4f9c2f4fab7b7b8bded259d26a",
"text": "A lot of stores, especially smaller ones, won't accept card payments under $10.00. They pay a fee for taking cards and for small transactions it is not worth it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2f1ba347564bf022cb2ff4282dfce309",
"text": "As long as you can be trusted with a Credit Card i find that if you have a setup that uses three accounts: 1. your Credit Card, 2. 2. a high interest internet account (most of these accounts don’t have fees), 3. a savings account. The Method that works for me is: 1st i calculate my fixed monthly bills i.e Rent and utilities and then transfer it into my high interest account. for the month whenever i make a purchase i transfer the money into the high interest account ( this way I can keep a running balance of what money I have left to spend in the month. Then when the Credit Card bill comes I transfer the money out of the high interest account across to pay off the Credit Card ( this way you generate interest on the money which you would have spent throughout the month and still maintain $0 of interest from the Credit Card) over a year you can generate at least enough money in interest to go out for dinner on one of free flights!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2c682ef5283bb51dbcdf86854fba99e8",
"text": "Yes, but note that some credit card companies let you create virtual cards--you can define how much money is on them and how long they last. If you're worried about a site you can use such a card to make the payment, then get rid of the virtual number so nobody can do dirty deeds with it. In practice, however, companies that do this are going to get stomped on hard by the credit card companies--other than outright scams it basically does not happen. (Hacking is another matter--just pick up the newspaper. It's not exactly unusual to read of hackers getting access to credit card information that they weren't supposed to have access to in the first place.) So long as you deal with a company that's been around for a while the risk is trivial.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "749eaaf9fc54104235fb924c6e220d06",
"text": "The short term loan that accept any credit score is really merchant cash advance. They call it loan because clients do have options to pay as direct deposit but most of the times they would make clients switch to their credit card terminals so they can get percentage of daily sales as payment as well as percentage from their partner credit card company. And that kind of payment (percentage of daily credit card sales) is merchant cash advance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "087c2c58da445cb09a11861be55ecdea",
"text": "There's never been a good micropayment system on the internet. Credit card and paypal transaction costs are too high, and the whole thing takes too long. The hassle of a credit card transaction only makes sense if you are making a major (5$ and up) purchase. For micropayments there should be no lower limit on amounts, and contributing should take under a second. Like a button that contributes 5 cents.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0146622e30ee97ed4a6ebb72847e5f80",
"text": "\"@Joe's original answer and the example with proportionate application of the payment to the two balances is not quite what will happen with US credit cards. By US law (CARD Act of 2009), if you make only the minimum required payment (or less), the credit-card company can choose which part of the balance that sum is applied to. I am not aware of any company that chooses to apply such payments to anything other than that part of the balance which carries the least interest rate (including the 0% rate that \"\"results\"\" from acceptance of balance transfer offers). If you make more than the minimum required payment, then the excess must, by law, be applied to paying off the highest rate balance. If the highest rate balance gets paid off completely, any remaining amount must be applied to second-highest rate balance, and so on. Thus, it is not the case that that $600 payment (in Joe's example) is applied proportionately to the $5000 and $1000 balances owed. It depends on what the required minimum payment is. So, what would be the minimum required payment? The minimum payment is the total of (i) all finance charges incurred during that month, (ii) all service fees and penalties (e.g. fee for exceeding credit limit, fee for taking a cash advance, late payment penalty) and other charges (e.g. annual card fee) and (iii) a fraction of the outstanding balance that (by law) must be large enough to allow the customer to pay off the entire balance in a reasonable length of time. The law is silent on what is reasonable, but most companies use 1% (which would pay off the balance over 8.33 years). Consider the numbers in Joe's example together with the following assumptions: $5000 and $1000 are the balances owed at the beginning of the month, no new charges or service fees during that month, and the previous month's minimum monthly payment was made on the day that the statement paid so that the finance charge for the current month is on the balances stated). The finance charge on the $5000 balance is $56.25, while the finance charge on the $1000 balance is $18.33, giving a minimum required payment of $56.25+18.33+60 = $134.58. Of the $600 payment, $134.58 would be applied to the lower-rate balance ($5000 + $56.25 = $5056.25) and reduce it to $4921.67. The excess $465.42 would be applied to the high-rate balance of $1000+18.33 = $1018.33 and reduce it to $552.91. In general, it is a bad idea to take a cash advance from a credit card. Don't do it unless you absolutely must have cash then and there to buy something from a merchant who does not accept credit cards, only cash, and don't be tempted to use the \"\"convenience checks\"\" that credit-card companies send you from time to time. All such cash advances not only carry larger rates of interest (there may also be upfront fees for taking an advance) but any purchases made during the rest of the month also become subject to finance charge. In other words, there is no \"\"grace period\"\" for new charges, and this state of affairs will last for one month beyond the first credit-card statement whose statement is paid off in full in timely fashion. Finally, turning to the question asked, viz. \"\" I am trying to determine how much I need to pay monthly to zero the balance, ....\"\", as per the above calculations, if the OP makes the minimum required payment of $134.58 plus $1018.33, that $134.58 will be applied to the low-rate balance and the rest $1018.33 will pay off the high-rate balance in full if the payment is made on the day the statement is issued. If payment is made later, but before the due date, that $1018.33 will be accruing finance charges until the date the payment is made, and these will appear as 22% rate balance on next month's statement. Similarly for the low-rate balance. What if several monthly payments will be required? The best calculator known to me is at https://powerpay.org (free but it is necessary to set up a username and password). Enter in all the credit card balances and the different interest rates, and the total amount of money that can be used to pay off the balances, and the site will lay out a payment plan. (Basically, pay off the highest-interest rate balance as much as possible while making minimum required payments on the rest). Most people are surprised at how much can be saved (and how much shorter the time to be debt-free is) if one is willing to pay just a little bit more each month.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9adad2e3f5d693f57f0b96a8a1ff0a60",
"text": "There's no such service. The Israeli Credit Cards law is such that it will be very easy to defraud credit card issuers if such service was available. Check with the postal company if they allow doing it through their bank account, although their online service was horrible last time I checked. This is obviously country-dependent as laws differ from place to place.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
44d2bbcb85475a0601b95842ea62a017
|
Is there a way to monitor when executives or leaders in a company sell off large holdings?
|
[
{
"docid": "cdf88af3f4a06fb4676cd304af9accb7",
"text": "Exec Insiders have to file with the SEC and some sites like secform4.com track it. But many insiders have selling programs where the sell the same amount every month or quarter so you would have to do your homework to determine if there are real signals in the activity.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e7f5359f913a36b856fe5b024a82193c",
"text": "SEC Form 3 and SEC Form 4 are filed when insiders make share/derivatives acquisitions, transfers, sells and buys There is a time limit AFTER the action where they can be filed, such as 12 business days, so this can be a substantial amount of time after the effect on the market, depending on your strategy. You can aggregate these forms from SEC sources or from third party websites and services. In some cases, types of insider trading are permissible at certain intervals, so if you learn about when certain shares become unlocked, you can try to predict what insider actions will be and share price movements around those times.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "079146be252b00916828b6842bbca0da",
"text": "A public company should have a link for investor relations, which should help provide a trail of basis if this is a matter of company buyout, takeover, etc. This gets you close, but if you don't have an exact date, it will just be close, not exact. One clean way out of this, assuming the goal is to get rid of the stock and move on, is to donate the shares to charity. You will take the present value as a deduction, and be done. You can use a charitable gift fund such as those offered by Schwab or Fidelity, so if say, the shares are worth $20K, and you typically donate $5K per year, the fund lets you do this transaction at once, then send to the charities you wish over the next few years.",
"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": "193bc946d8e72c744a5e6362450cf56c",
"text": "\"My Broker and probably many Brokers provide this information in a table format under \"\"Course of Sale\"\". It provides the time, price and volume of each trade on that day. You could also view this data on a chart in some charting programs. Just set the interval to \"\"Tick by Tick\"\" and look at the volume. \"\"Tick by Tick\"\" will basically place a mark for every trade that is taken and then the volume will tell you the size of that trade.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c03fd2a93ac59c369f93c5f51ae09587",
"text": "\"What if everyone decided to sell all the shares at a given moment, let's say when the stock is trading at $40? I imagine supply would outweigh demand and the stock would fall. Yes this is the case. Every large \"\"Sell\"\" order results in price going down and every large \"\"Buy\"\" order results in price going up. Hence typically when large orders are being executed, they are first negotiated outside for a price and then sold at the exchange. I am not talking about Ownership change event. If a company wants a change in ownership, the buyer would be ready to pay a premium over the market price to get controlling stake.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7883e2d280b6f58e8966be6b1ae7cdc3",
"text": "No matter how a company releases relevant information about their business, SOMEBODY will be the first to see it. I mean, of all the people looking, someone has to be the first. I presume that professional stock brokers have their eyes on these things closely and know exactly who publishes where and when to expect new information. In real life, many brokers are going to be seeing this information within seconds of each other. I suppose if one sees it half a second before everybody else, knows what he's looking for and has already decided what he's going to do based on this information, he might get a buy or sell order in before anybody else. Odds are that if you're not a professional broker, you don't know when to expect new information to be posted, and you probably have a job or a family or like to eat and sleep now and then, so you can't be watching somebody's web site constantly, so you'll be lagging hours or days behind the full-time professionals.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f4932025d533dcdd30c72fa9eed87af",
"text": "Of course. The fact that it's such a generic concern should be taken for granted - that's why I think the article focuses on it too much. Everybody knows that losing a lot of executives is bad news, even if there was no line in the 10-K at all. So I'd have preferred to see less about that and more information on what it could mean for this company specifically.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "341d6a2a406972d0c1356d6762328b87",
"text": "\"Unfortunately, there is very little data supporting fundamental analysis or technical analysis as appropriate tools to \"\"time\"\" the market. I will be so bold to say that technical analysis is meaningless. On the other hand, fundamental analysis has some merits. For example, the realization that CDOs were filled with toxic mortgages can be considered a product of fundamental analysis and hence provided traders with a directional assumption to buy CDSs. However, there is no way to tell when there is a good or bad time to buy or sell. The market behaves like a random 50/50 motion. There are many reasons for this and interestingly, there are many fundamentally sound companies that take large dips for no reason at all. Depending on your goal, you can either believe that this volatility will smooth over long periods and that the market has generally positive drift. On the other hand, I feel that the appropriate approach is to remain active. You will be able to mitigate the large downswings by simply staying small and diversifying - not in the sense of traditional finance but rather looking for uncorrelated products. Remember, volatility brings higher levels of correlation. My second suggestion is to look towards products like options to provide a method of shaping your P/L - giving up upside by selling calls against a long equity position is a great example. Ground your trades with fundamental beliefs if need be, but use your tools and knowledge to combat risks that may create long periods of drawdown.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4e30ca5efd5d21101a2e6d781d8bcf48",
"text": "Some personal finance packages can track basis cost of individual purchase lots or fractions thereof. I believe Quicken does, for example. And the mutual funds I'm invested in tell me this when I redeem shares. I can't vouch for who/what would make this visible at times other than sale; I've never had that need. For that matter I'm not sure what value the info would have unless you're going to try to explicitly sell specific lots rather than doing FIFO or Average accounting.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "43bdbf79a13a6c8e8d9b9fc4fface6b0",
"text": "Bloomberg is really just a huge database. You can look up just about anything you need to know. Launchpad is much better than the old NW market monitors. The Excel API is useful. If it wasn't where all my brokers are I would consider something different like Eikon. It has some limitations but it's a useful system and parts of my job would be a pain without it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "867938426d19347fb40cde94e4d03fc8",
"text": "Many exchanges trade the same securities. An order may be posted to a secondary exchange, but if the National Best Bid and Offer data provider malfunctions, only those with data feeds from that exchange will see it. Only the data provider for the primary exchange where a stock is listed provides the NBBO. Missing orders are very common with the NBBO data providers. NASDAQ's order consolidator has had many failures over the past few years, and the data provider's top executive has recently resigned. Brokers have no control over this system. A broker may be alerted to a malfunction by an accountholder, but a broker may only inform the relevant exchange and the relevant data provider.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "da3bb20b815bd711a1d70bb82fd9fd3f",
"text": "In general you cannot. Once the security is no longer listed on the exchange - it doesn't have to provide information to the exchange and regulators (unless it wants to be re-listed). That's one of the reasons companies go private - to keep their (financial and other) information private. If it was listed in 1999, and is no longer listed now - you can dig through SEC archives for the information. You can try and reach out to the company's investors' relations contact and see if they can help you with the specific information you're looking for.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb2125f617de0d2ef9c2669b5daee3e3",
"text": "\"There are a number of ways to measure such things and they are generally called \"\"sentiment indicators\"\". The ones that I have seen \"\"work\"\", in the sense that they show relatively high readings near market tops and relatively low readings near market bottoms. The problem is that there are no thresholds that work consistently. For example, at one market top a sentiment indicator may read 62. At the next market top that same indicator might read 55. So what threshold do you use next time? Maybe the top will come at 53, or maybe it will not come until 65. There was a time when I could have listed examples for you with the names of the indicators and what they signaled and when. But I gave up on such things years ago after seeing such wide variation. I have been at this a long time (30+ years), and I have not found anything that works as well as we would like at identifying a top in real time. The best I have found (although it does give false signals) is a drop in price coupled with a bearish divergence in breadth. The latter is described in \"\"Stan Weinstein's Secrets For Profiting in Bull and Bear Markets\"\". Market bottoms are a little less difficult to identify in real time. One thing I would suggest if you think that there is some way to get a significant edge in investing, is to look at the results of Mark Hulbert's monitoring of newsletters. Virtually all of them rise and fall with the market and almost none are able to beat buy and hold of the Wilshire 5000 over the long term.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d80b33775084481e3cce09445f2b3a83",
"text": "I don't think that you will be able to find a list of every owner for a given stock. There are probably very few people who would know this. One source would be whoever sends out the shareholder meeting mailers. I suspect that the company itself would know this, the exchange to a lesser extent, and possibly the brokerage houses to a even lesser extent. Consider these resources:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "41ae722fcce68d01edfb7eaddcc8744f",
"text": "Investment banks will put out various reports and collect revenues from that along with their banking activity. I don't read them or care to read them myself. If banks can make money from something, they will likely do it, especially if it is legal. To take the Tesla stock question for a moment: Aren't you ruling out that yesterday was the day that Tesla was included in the Nasdaq 100 and thus there may be some people today exiting because they tried to cash in on the index funds having to buy the stock and bid it up in a sense? Or as @littleadv points out there could be those tracking the stocks not in the index that would have been forced to sell for another idea here. The Goldman note is a possible explanation but there could well be more factors in play here such as automated trading systems that seek to take advantage of what could be perceived as arbitrage opportunities. There can be quick judgments made on things which may or may not be true in the end. After all, who knows exactly what is causing the sell-off. Is it a bunch of stop orders being triggered? Is it people actually putting in sell order manually? Is it something else? There are lots of questions here where I'm not sure how well one can assign responsibility here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "93c269eb0810f9a10c3ac6a7948633d1",
"text": "\"any major brokerage firm will have something like this. more speculative rumors will typically not make their way to the \"\"news\"\" there, though; the news feeds are from established wires, who don't report on those things until confirmed.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ec6a767e034b6839db9d7505aea17295
|
Why must identification be provided when purchasing a money order?
|
[
{
"docid": "e8034a4cc4698ab17120162a58ee34d8",
"text": "The Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 requires that banks assist the U.S. Gov't in identifying and preventing money laundering. This means they're required to keep records of cash transactions of Negotiable Instruments, and report any such transactions with a daily aggregate limit of a value greater than (or equal to?) $10,000. Because of this, the business which is issuing the money order is also required to record this transaction to report it to the bank, who then holds the records in case FinCEN wants to review the transactions. EDITED: Added clarification on the $10,000 rule",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "3643d7beeb720ccb8b716a16c50eaae2",
"text": "\"The best I could come up with would be to simply ask for the amount of \"\"notes\"\" and \"\"coins\"\" you would like, and specify denominations thereof. The different currency labels exist for the reason that not all of them are valued the same, so USD 100 is not the same as EUR 100. To generalize would mean some form of uniformity in the values, that just isn't there.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c1c13aa49e715118d2734bb6c0617b2d",
"text": "PayPal is free for buyers, taking their profit from the sellers -- in much the same way that credit cards take a percentage from the seller (though they will also charge you interest if you don't pay off the entire balance every month). As far as I know, there's nothing that keeps a vendor from having a different price for PayPal customers than cash customers... but that would show up in the number displayed by PayPal before you authorize the purchase, so if you're paying attention it shouldn't be possible to sneak it by you. PayPal has several modes of operation. I'm not aware of one where they hold your balance. Normally you either give them your credit card info, or you give them information about (one of your) bank account(s) and authorize them to do electronic funds transfer from and to that account on your behalf. I've always stuck with the credit card approach; I trust PayPal but I don't trust them that far, on principle. If I was going to link them to an account, it would be a small account I'd create for that purpose, NOT my main savings/checking accounts! (Hm. Actually, I do have one account which normally floats around $500 -- it's the one I dump accumulated pocket change into -- and I could use that. If I ever feel a need to do so.) PayPal does reduce the risk of credit card numbers being abused, by reducing how many people you've given the number to. Depending on what kinds of purchases you make, that may be a security advantage. It certainly doesn't hurt. Personally I have no problem with giving my card number directly to a serious business, but on eBay or sites of that sort where I'm dealing with individuals who are complete strangers I do like the isolation that PayPal provides. In other words, eBay is exactly the environment where I DO use PayPal. After all, that's exactly what PayPal was created for.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "69a4097030d02ad2fe799e6e03e6d176",
"text": "Debit card purchases without PIN are treated as credit card purchases by merchants, and that includes ID verification. In addition to the ways you mentioned, you can get a debit card in any grocery store and load it with cash, and these debit cards don't have a name imprinted on them. But then if you lose them - you may have troubles proving you did in fact lose them when you try to recover your money, as anyone can use them. Technically you can register them online and call in and request refunds for fraud losses just as any other debit/credit card in the US (with $50 deductible), but in practice it may be difficult. These cards have very high fees, and may not be accepted for rentals etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c79f2e2c120b60e4f3b95c05270dbedf",
"text": "See what your current card requires for additional cards. When my daughter turned 16, and I ordered a card for her, I realized the issuer didn't ask for her social security number, only a name and address. That's when I also ordered a card with my pseudonym. Which I believe is what you're looking for. I realize that you prefer no name at all, but any online site where you place an order will require you to fill in that name field .",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "571edf1671b49f1cc5c36968933430f8",
"text": "In any country, individuals (and shops) can reject any form of payment that is not Legal Tender - defined by law as a payment form that must be accepted. Shops are typically more generous, because they want to do business with you, but individuals are in a different position. In France, only official coins and bills are declared as Legal Tender (so if they don't want to, individuals don't even need to accept bank transfers). This is for doubts you need to pay. In addition, as you are not forced to do business with them, people and shops can require whatever they feel like to require - if you want to buy their car, they can ask you to stand on your head and spit coins, and if you don't like it, they don't sell to you. (They won't do much business then, probably)",
"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": "a6dfcf26a5db31418a373383a13b4b34",
"text": "Nowadays, the field is irrelevant for processing the transfer and completely ignored by the banks. Pretty much the only purpose it has is for documenting whom you intended to send the transfer to. If you mistakenly send a transfer to the wrong person (which is becoming extremely unlikely with the IBAN due to the builtin check digits) then they are mandated by law to give it back to you. If they refuse to do so and you end up going to court, the content of that field could be important to prove them wrong if they claim they are the rightful recipient.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3425475716ba46e14d125eb4d5332090",
"text": "**Know your customer** Know your customer (KYC) is the process of a business identifying and verifying the identity of its clients. The term is also used to refer to the bank and anti-money laundering regulations which governs these activities. Know your customer processes are also employed by companies of all sizes for the purpose of ensuring their proposed agents, consultants, or distributors are anti-bribery compliant. Banks, insurers and export creditors are increasingly demanding that customers provide detailed anti-corruption due diligence information. *** ^[ [^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) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.27",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a25541623ab02af2dc87e91002dd5fb2",
"text": "The IBAN uniquely identifies a Bank and Account number Globally. Technically only IBAN should be sufficient. However in real world, today the way application have got developed [over a last 30 years without IBAN being in place], require Beneficiary Bank Code [identifiers], because based on that they determine how the payment needs to be processed. Although IBAN has been adopted by more countries in Europe [plus Australia, New Zealand and more], there applications have not yet undergone the required change to fully support the real purpose or essence of IBAN. It would still be quite some time for IBAN to be truly functional.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2ba2c626ca84ace787e7a478a3acbf83",
"text": "There generally isn't much in the way of real identity verification, at least in the US and online. The protection you get is that with most credit cards you can report your card stolen (within some amount of time) and the fraudulent charges dropped. The merchant is the one that usually ends up paying for it if it gets charged back so it's usually in the merchant's best interest to do verification. However the cost of doing so (inconvenience to the customer, or if it's an impulse buy, giving them more time to change their mind, etc) is often greater than the occasional fraudulent charge so they usually don't do too much about it unless they're in a business where it's a frequent problem.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "398bfb864e3bdee31e346f5c9836893b",
"text": "It depends on the seller. If the seller wants, they can collect the information from you and send it to the payment gateway. In that case, they of course have everything that you provide at some point. They are not supposed to keep the security code, and there are rules about keeping the credit card number safe. The first four digits of the credit card number often indicate the bank, although smaller banks may share. But for example a Capital One card would indicate the bank. Other sellers work through a payment gateway that collects the information. Even there, the seller may collect most of the information first and send it to the gateway. In particular, the seller may collect name, email, phone, and address information. And in general the gateway will reveal that kind of information. They will not give the seller credit card info other than the name on the card, expiration date, and possible last four digits. They may report if the address matches the card's billing address (mismatched addresses may mean fraud). Buying through someone like PayPal can provide the least information. For a digital good, PayPal can only expose the buyer's name (which may be a business name) and email (associated with the payment account). However PayPal still has the other information and may expose it under legal action (e.g. if the credit card transaction is reversed or the good sold is illegal). And even PayPal will expose the shipping address for physical goods that require shipping.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf31dca0449fe2ee8c4a4b0001b7fcfd",
"text": "It is likely the policy of the credit card company. If you are running a business, you should factor in theft as part of your mark-up/margin. Every major business accounts for theft within their business practices and accounting. That way they are covered for instances like yours. If you have not been accounting for theft, then I'd highly recommend it. This might be an expensive learning lesson for your family business. Either implement new procedures such as checking ID with credit cards to match the names, or factor in theft/loss of product into your margins. Ideally, do both.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4bcb8768fec274447c5e41195f94b885",
"text": "They could if they wanted. It's of course illegal to do if you didn't authorize it, and to process credit cards, they need to have a relationship with a credit card processing company, which is not so easy to fake - not any Joe could do that using a fake ID. Note that you are protected through your credit card company; if you tell them it's an unauthorized charge, they'll return it to you without discussion. It is then the vendor's duty to prove that it was authorized, and if he cannot, he'll pay extra fees to the processing company. Overall, the risk is very small; it shouldn't be your worry.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96159077e368527db2d43f985f7595bd",
"text": "\"Your money in the bank is yours. If you lose your bank card and forget the account number, it's still yours. It's just harder to prove. If your name is Joe Smith, it might be harder to find your bank account and to prove it's yours. If \"\"go to the bank\"\" means walking into a branch of the bank and walking out with your money fifteen minutes later, that's unlikely to happen. More likely they will give you forms to fill in to maximise chances of finding your account, and tell you what evidence to bring to prove that you are the owner of the account.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a65fc91a3ca55f1c0bd429d5487b7e8c",
"text": "The laws of the United States of America require that the federal currency issued is accepted as legal tender for all goods and services anywhere within this country. One really has to wonder what the motivation behind this story is. VISA obviously knows that such a move is illegal. I am skeptical that there's any truth to the article at all.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
2b9b49848acd73e0956999c6b0fe62e3
|
Live in Oregon and work in Washington: Do I need to file Oregon state taxes?
|
[
{
"docid": "6f99de8c7958c0d3021748790f921142",
"text": "Yes. Here's the answer to this question from oregon.gov: 3. I am moving into Oregon. What income will be taxed by Oregon? As an Oregon resident, you are taxed on ALL income regardless of the source of the income. This includes, but is not limited to: You may need to pay estimated taxes if you don't have Oregon withholding on your income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f4aa07f26f949b47c07d71acff501526",
"text": "Unfortunately, you are required, but most states do have agreements with neighboring states that let the states share the collected taxes without the person having to pay double taxes. So being as this is your first tax return in your current situation, you might be wise to have a professional fill it out for you this year and then next year you can use it as a template. Additionally, I really would like to see someone challenge this across state lines taxation in court. It sure seems to me that it is a inter-state tariff/duty, which the state's are expressly forbidden from doing in the constitution.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "eb3edb9346792440f6dfe9396e27c24c",
"text": "If you have non Residency status in Canada you don't need to file Canadian tax return. To confirm your status you need to contact Canada Revenue (send them letter, probably to complete some form).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "911df199ca187b4ee1e9ef008adcf0a7",
"text": "Yes, you do. You also need to file a tax return every year, and if you have more than $50k of total savings you need to declare this every year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "28526f65abdc2985664cffeb477ba4eb",
"text": "\"IRS Pub 554 states (click to read full IRS doc): \"\"Do not file a federal income tax return if you do not meet the filing requirements and are not due a refund. ... If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien, you must file a return if your gross income for the year was at least the amount shown on the appropriate line in Table 1-1 below. \"\" You may not have wage income, but you will probably have interest, dividend, capital gains, or proceeds from sale of a house (and there is a special note that you must file in this case, even if you enjoy the exclusion for primary residence)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b80f37a9693776121b787c7f4caa04d8",
"text": "No, you probably do not need to file a tax return if you received no income, and if you meet a number of other criteria. The below is copied and pasted, slightly edited, from the CRA: You must file a return for 2014 if any of the following situations apply: You have to pay tax for 2014. We sent you a request to file a return. You and your spouse or common-law partner elected to split pension income for 2014. See lines 115, 116, 129, and 210. You received working income tax benefit (WITB) advance payments in 2014. You disposed of capital property in 2014 (for example, if you sold real estate or shares) or you realized a taxable capital gain (for example, if a mutual fund or trust attributed amounts to you, or you are reporting a capital gains reserve you claimed on your 2013 return). You have to repay any of your old age security or employment insurance benefits. See line 235. You have not repaid all amounts withdrawn from your registered retirement savings plan (RRSP) under the Home Buyers’ Plan or the Lifelong Learning Plan. For more information, go to Home Buyers' Plan (HBP) or see Guide RC4112, Lifelong Learning Plan (LLP) or You have to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan (CPP). This can apply if, for 2014, the total of your net self-employment income and pensionable employment income is more than $3,500. See line 222. You are paying employment insurance premiums on self-employment and other eligible earnings. See lines 317 and 430. In general, you will want to file a tax return even if none of the above applies. You could, for example, claim a GST/HST credit even with no income. Now, if you receive any income at all, you are going to have to pay taxes, which means you are obligated to file a tax return. If sufficient taxes were deducted from your paycheque, you are still obligated to file a tax return. However, you will not have to pay penalties if you file late, even if you file very late, at least not until the CRA sends you a request to file. But be aware, you won't likely be able to tell if you owe the CRA money until you do your taxes, and if you do end up owing, there are substantial penalties for filing late. In general, I'd strongly advise filing your tax return in almost all circumstances.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d7a63f5121c2c343600372138c27dbe",
"text": "Having 401k or HSA is not income and doesn't trigger filing requirements. Withdrawing from 401k or HSA does. Also, in some States, HSA gains are taxed as investment income, so if you have gains in an HSA and you're a resident of such a State - you'll need to file a State tax return and pay taxes on the gains.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4670b0910632a066c4f05dc13cb178eb",
"text": "Answering for just the US part, yes, you should be able to do this and it's a good strategy. The only additional gotcha I can think of is that if you've made after-tax contributions to your traditional IRA, you need to prorate the conversion, you can't just convert all the pre-tax or all the after-tax. I'm not familiar with Oregon personal income tax so there may be additional gotchas there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1318010b545beed42ab41bb2b647d1b5",
"text": "A couple things. First of all, most people's MAIN source of income is from their job, but they have others, such as bank interest, stock dividends, etc. So that income has to be reported with their wage income. The second thing is that most people have deductions NOT connected with their job. These deductions reduce income (and generate refunds). So it's in their interest to file.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "caac26bdd391f8e851b7ad6108cc0407",
"text": "Yes, you do. Depending on your country's laws and regulations, since you're not an employee but a self employed, you're likely to be required to file some kind of a tax return with your country's tax authority, and pay the income taxes on the money you earn. You'll have to tell us more about the situation, at least let us know what country you're in, for more information.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "734867313a623f2f57edf5c18acbae18",
"text": "Yes, you need to include income from your freelance work on your tax return. In the eyes of the IRS, this is self-employment income from your sole-proprietorship business. The reason you don't see it mentioned in the 1040EZ instructions is that you can't use the 1040EZ form if you have self-employment income. You'll need to use the full 1040 form. Your business income and expenses will be reported on a Schedule C or Schedule C-EZ, and the result will end up on Line 12 of the 1040. Take a look at the requirements at the top of the C-EZ form; you probably meet them and can use it instead of the more complicated C form. If you have any deductible business expenses related to your freelance business, this would be done on Schedule C or C-EZ. If your freelance income was more than $400, you'll also need to pay self-employment tax. To do this, you file Schedule SE, and the tax from that schedule lands on form 1040 Line 57.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "58fd1222e8565395bee7290f7a71a3e3",
"text": "\"In the U.S., Form 1040 is known as the tax return. This is the form that is filed annually to calculate your tax due for the year, and you either claim a refund if you have overpaid your taxes or send in a payment if you have underpaid. The form is generally due on April 15 each year, but this year the due date is April 18, 2016. When it comes to filing your taxes, there are two questions you need to ask yourself: \"\"Am I required to file?\"\" and \"\"Should I file?\"\" Am I required to file? The 1040 instructions has a section called \"\"Do I have to file?\"\" with several charts that determine if you are legally required to file. It depends on your status and your gross income. If you are single, under 65, and not a dependent on someone else's return, you are not required to file if your 2015 income was less than $10,300. If you will be claimed as a dependent on someone else's return, however, you must file if your earned income (from work) was over $6300, or your unearned income (from investments) was over $1050, or your gross (total) income was more than the larger of either $1050 or your earned income + $350. See the instructions for more details. Should I file? Even if you find that you are not required to file, it may be beneficial to you to file anyway. There are two main reasons you might do this: If you have had income where tax has been taken out, you may have overpaid the tax. Filing the tax return will allow you to get a refund of the amount that you overpaid. As a student, you may be eligible for student tax credits that can get you a refund even if you did not pay any tax during the year. How to file For low income tax payers, the IRS has a program called Free File that provides free filing software options.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"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": "9e54f8026b89f25711e7092dcbbaf3e1",
"text": "From the Massachusetts Department of Revenue: 1st - Massachusetts Source Income That is Excluded Massachusetts gross income excludes certain items of income derived from sources within Massachusetts: non-business related interest, dividends and gains from the sale or exchange of intangibles, and qualified pension income. 2nd - Massachusetts Source Income That is Included: Massachusetts gross income includes items of income derived from sources within Massachusetts. This includes income: 3rd - Trade or business, Including Employment Carried on in Massachusetts: A nonresident has a trade or business, including any employment carried on in Massachusetts if: A nonresident generally is not engaged in a trade or business, including any employment carried on in Massachusetts if the nonresident's presence for business in Massachusetts is casual, isolated and inconsequential. A nonresident's presence for business in Massachusetts will ordinarily be considered casual, isolated and inconsequential if it meets the requirements of the Ancillary Activity Test (AAT) and Examples. When nonresidents earn or derive income from sources both within Massachusetts and elsewhere, and no exact determination can be made of the amount of Massachusetts source income, an apportionment of income must be made to determine that amount considered Massachusetts gross income. 4th - Apportionment of Income: Apportionment Methods: The three most common apportionment methods used to determine Massachusetts source income are as follows: Gross income is multiplied by a: So if you go to Massachusetts to work, you have to pay the tax. If you collect a share of the profit or revenue from Massachusetts, you have to pay tax on that. If you work from Oregon and are paid for that work, then you don't pay Massachusetts tax on that. If anything, your company might have to pay Oregon taxes on revenue you generate (you are their agent or employee in Oregon). Does the answer change depending on whether the income is reported at 1099 or W-2? This shouldn't matter legally. It's possible that it would be easier to see that the work was done in Oregon in one or the other. I.e. it doesn't make any legal difference but may make a practical difference. All this assumes that you are purely an employee or contractor and not an owner. If you are an owner, you have to pay taxes on any income from your Massachusetts business. Note that this applies to things like copyrights and real estate as well as the business. This also assumes that you are doing your work in Oregon. If you live in Oregon and travel to Massachusetts to work, you pay taxes on your Massachusetts income in Massachusetts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d402dc885d5d6ef6afda8b49de969880",
"text": "You're doing business in the US and derive income from the US, so I'd say that yes, you should file a non-resident tax return in the US. And in Connecticut, as well, since that's where you're conducting business (via your domestic LLC registered there). Since you paid more than $600 to your contractor, you're probably also supposed to send a 1099 to him on that account on behalf of your LLC (which is you, essentially, if you're the only member).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c8429265033f2b74acb269e7e2c43e9f",
"text": "In the USA, you probably owe Self Employment Tax. The cutoff for tax on this is 400$. You will need to file a tax return and cover the medicaid expenses as if you were both the employer and employee. In addition, if he earns income from self-employment, he may owe Self-Employment Tax, which means paying both the employee’s and employer's share of Social Security and Medicaid taxes. The trigger for Self Employment Tax has been $400 since 1990, but the IRS may change that in the future. Also see the IRS website. So yes, you need to file your taxes. How much you will pay is determined by exactly how much your income is. If you don't file, you probably won't be audited, however you are breaking the law and should be aware of the consequences.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b00dcf0b2faaae67c0b38a657cffcb20",
"text": "\"I'm not a tax professional, but as I understand it, you are not expected to commute from San Francisco to Boston. :) If your employer has not provided you with an external office, then yes, you have very likely met the \"\"convenience of the employer\"\" test. However, to take the home office deduction, there are many requirements that have to be met. You can read more at the Nolo article Can You Deduct Your Home Office When You're an Employee? (Thanks, keshlam) The home office deduction has many nuances and is enough of an IRS red flag that you would be well-advised to talk to an accountant about it. You need to be able to show that it is exclusively and necessarily used for your job. Another thing to remember: as an employee, the home office deduction, if you take it, will be deducted on Schedule A, line 21 (unreimbursed employee expenses), among other Miscellaneous Deductions. Deductions in this section need to exceed 2% of your adjusted gross income before you can start to deduct. So it will not be worth it to pursue the deduction if your income is too high, or your housing expenses are too low, or your office is too small compared to the rest of your house, or you don't itemize deductions.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
427007d5ed3b07779d7ff4e0d37680d9
|
Can't the account information on my checks be easily used for fraud?
|
[
{
"docid": "02edd927316d3a17f1b61bb55968e196",
"text": "Yes, and there are almost no checks (no pun intended) on people pulling money from your account using a routing number. It is an EXTREMELY insecure system. If you want a real Halloween scare, read this article: Easy Check Fraud Technique Draws Scrutiny. Unfortunately you just have to live with it. If you are curious why this loophole is allowed to continue, consider how hard it is to close it without undermining the convenience of checks. Short of you going to the bank with each person you write a check to and showing ID to validate the transaction, I don't see how you could continue to use a negotiable instrument like this without such a security hole. The ultimate answer is going to have to be replacing checks with other means of payment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "259214949481607d982ee738ff17c7a3",
"text": "Yes, those numbers are all that is needed to withdraw funds, or at least set online payment of bills which you don't owe. Donald Knuth also faced this problem, leading him to cease sending checks as payment for finding errors in his writings.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "14ab055436f15aed3e2ca0ee8ecd6fcf",
"text": "The bottom line is to keep most of your money in accounts with no check privileges and to not give the account numbers for these accounts to anyone. Keep just enough in your checking account for the checks you are going to write.",
"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": "1338c98be810a7589d60fb24c4903d79",
"text": "When an someone as esteemed and smart as Donald Knuth tells you the chequing system is busted it's time to close your cheque account, or I guess live with the associated risk. Answer to question, yes your account information can be used to commit fraud on you via your bank.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a96543e87a7d692090fe7441ce7b12c7",
"text": "I was a victim of this. I'm not sure who got my routing and account number off my check, but someone subscribed to Playboy.com using my bank account information. Luckily it was only for about $30 and the bank refunded my money. However, it was a mess in that I had to open a new checking account and keep the other one open until all checks cleared. The bank was extremely helpful and monitored the account to make sure only the checks I told them about were processed. I then had to close the old account. This is why I believe checks are much less secure than credit cards or debit cards. A paper check can lay on someone's desk for anyone to pick up or write the information down off of it. I avoid checks if at all possible. For things like Craig's list, I would try to use PayPal or some other intermediate processing service.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d946609ef38fb86422a19d3d63a6971",
"text": "Yes this is a huge security loophole and many banks will do nothing to refund if you are scammed. For example for business accounts some Wells Fargo branches say you must notify within 24 hours of any check withdrawal or the loss is yours. Basically banks don't care - they are a monopoly system and you are stuck with them. When the losses and complaints get too great they will eventually implement the European system of electronic transfers - but the banks don't want to be bothered with that expense yet. Sure you can use paypal - another overpriced monopoly - or much better try Dwolla or bitcoin.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7b379bedf230127771cc0de462510532",
"text": "This is the information required to wire money into your account from abroad. They would only need the account number and the ABA (routing) number to withdraw, and it is printed on every check you give.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7d5890e675f59e1fbb5cf3627c912696",
"text": "The only way someone can take money out of your account using just your sort code and account number is if you set up a direct debit to pay them (or someone pretending to be you sets up the direct debit). Even with Paperless DD's this can take some time. Anyone who can process debit card transactions can take money from your account if they have your debit card number, expiry date and cvv number. Direct debits do not have an expiry date so they are normally used for paying automatic regular long term bills (like rent, rates, electricity etc). Note, anyone with an ordinary bank account can pay money into account, using your sort code and account number.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "de461907150698ed96ffed19f2e047fb",
"text": "From personal experience, I can tell you that bank account numbers are not unique. Someone from another branch of my bank was able to withdraw money from my account at my branch because they had the same account number. You are supposed to enter your branch number on the withdrawal slip in front of your account number. The person who got my money did not do this. Because it was at my branch, the teller debited my account for the transaction. I caught this on my monthly statement and immediately complained to my branch manager. He was able to retrieve the withdrawal slip and saw what had happened. He credited my account and said he was going to talk to the teller who should have asked for the branch number and/or should have noticed that the name and address on the withdrawal slip did not match those on my account. I would not have thought that the bank would allow this situation considering how many numbers are available to assign but they did.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "da0a33e57f0f0404070c71c19c000933",
"text": "\"First, there are not necessarily two accounts involved. Usually the receiving party can take the check to the bank on which it is drawn and receive cash. In this case, there is only one bank, it can look to see that the account on which the check is drawn has sufficient funds, and make an (essentially irrevocable) decision to pay the bearer. (Essentially irrevocable precisely because the bearer did not necessarily have to present account information.) The more usual case is that the receiving party deposits the check into an account at their own bank. The receiving party's bank then (directly or indirectly - in the US via the Federal Reserve) presents the check to the paying party's bank. At that point if the there are insufficient funds, the check \"\"bounces\"\" and the receiving party's account will be debited. The receiving party's bank knows that account number because, in this case, the receiving party is a customer of the bank. This is why funds from check deposits are typically not available for immediate withdrawal.\"",
"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": "2d797e0c5aeb688f536cd46d2b3308dd",
"text": "\"Here's a hack for getting the \"\"free\"\" checking that requires direct deposit. Some effort to set up, but once everything is in place, it's all autopilot. (If your transfer into savings is higher than your transfer out of savings, you'll build up a nice little stash over time.) I don't know if there are deposit amounts or frequencies that you must have to qualify for the free account, if these are public or secret, or if this works everywhere. If anyone else has experience using this kind of hack, please leave a comment.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4dda835616037c706767369d1efac27a",
"text": "\"See \"\"Structuring transactions to evade reporting requirement prohibited.\"\" You absolutely run the risk of the accusation of structuring. One can move money via check, direct transfer, etc, all day long, from account to account, and not have a reporting issue. But, cash deposits have a reporting requirement (by the bank) if $10K or over. Very simple, you deposit $5000 today, and $5000 tomorrow. That's structuring, and illegal. Let me offer a pre-emptive \"\"I don't know what frequency of $10000/X deposits triggers this rule. But, like the Supreme Court's, \"\"We have trouble defining porn, but we know it when we see it. And we're happy to have these cases brought to us,\"\" structuring is similarly not 100% definable, else one would shift a bit right.\"\" You did not ask, but your friend runs the risk of gift tax issues, as he's not filing the forms to acknowledge once he's over $14,000.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "43bf814aee8a481c647ff68c9defa496",
"text": "\"As others have noted, in the U.S. a checking account gives you the ability to write a check, while a savings account does not. I think you know what a check is even if you don't use them, right? Let me know if you need an explanation. Personally, I rarely write paper checks any more. I have an account for a small side business, and I haven't bothered to get new checks printed since I moved 6 years ago even though the checks still have my old address, because I've only written I think 3 paper checks on that account in that time. From the bank's point of view, there are all sorts of government regulations that are different for the two types of accounts. But that is probably of little concern to you unless you own a bank. If the software you have bought allows you to do the things you need to do regardless of whether you call the account \"\"savings\"\" or \"\"checking\"\", then ... who cares? I doubt that the banking software police will come to your house and beat you into unconsciousness and arrest you because you labeled an account \"\"checking\"\" that you were supposed to label \"\"savings\"\". If one account type does what you need to do and the other doesn't, then use the one that works.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c78c7ad755e34be77c564bf31073b601",
"text": "I'm guessing you're in the US? If so, yes, you can be prosecuted, but it's unlikely. Fraud crimes are up to a prosecutor to pursue, there are a lot of fraud cases and bystanders take low priority, I'm assuming you're passively complicit, not actively. If this is the case it's best to work with the bank to get your situation cleaned up and move on. These days, most banks have dealt with wire fraud at least once, and they're familiar with cashiers check fraud. A fair warning, the bank will report you, if they think you're involved, so if you are not a complete bystander, you may want to lawyer up. So hopefully you didn't try to spend any of the fraudulent money and hopefully you have proof of a third party, because they will want a connection to that person (name/number/other) to file their report.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "47fe6feea862a9e94ee988d3f57832a7",
"text": "You encountered a quite common scam: You are supposed to perform a job, they send you a check for too much money, and you are supposed to pay them some money back. Ten weeks later the check bounces and your money is gone. That's these people's job. They do this all day long. The success rate isn't very high, so they are busy doing this all day. These scammers might have your name and address, but if that is all there is, they can get names and addresses of 100s of people by using the phone book, and they don't. I wouldn't say that it is impossible to turn your name and address into money, but it is hard work. So it is quie unlikely to happen.",
"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": "d8c78aabc5f37a828f69b2ed51edda39",
"text": "If you have the expired check in hand and take it back to the bank that issued it to you, I'd think they could do something for you. (I'd hope they would, anyway.) But automatically? I don't think so.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4bc0051425fa5f3365e51dec08592589",
"text": "I agree with you that smartphone deposits make you more vulnerable to a variety of issues. Checks are completely insecure, since anyone with your routing/account number can create a check, and individuals are less likely to shred or otherwise secure the check properly. Ways to control this risk are:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8dec97805d71df6a1e4966b5cb02aa13",
"text": "\"If someone gains access to these data, he could use social engineering approach to impersonate you - i.e. call the American Express and ask tell he he is you and he lost the access to the account and he needs the access to be reset and sent to certain email, and if they doubt it's you he would send them the statement data, even on company letterhead (which he would be able to fake since he has the data from the statements, and AE has no idea how the authentic letterhead looks like). He could also do the opposite trick - like calling your assistant or even yourself and saying something like \"\"I'm from American Express, calling about the transaction at this-and-this date and this-and-this time, this amount, please confirm you are {your name} and your address is {your address}, I need to confirm something\"\" - which would make it appear as he is really from AE since he knows all these details - and then ask you some detail he's missing \"\"for security\"\" - like your birth date or last digits of SSID or anything like that - and then use these details to impersonate you to AE. So putting all this info together where it can be accessed by strangers does have risks. It may not work out if both you and AE personnel are vigilant and follow instructions to the letter, but we know it not always so.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "77f21ce3d3ec8bae1cde5b264f8112e6",
"text": "POS stands for Point of Sale (like a specific store location) which indicates that the purchase occurred by using your debit card, but it can also be the on-line transaction done via 3-D Secure. Checking with bank, they said that Kirchstrasse transaction could be related to direct marketing subscription service ordered on-line. Investigating further what I've found these kind of transactions are performed by 2BuySafe company registered at Kirchstrasse in Liechtenstein with went through the MultiCards on-line cashier which can be used for paying different variety of services (e.g. in this case it was polish on-line storage service called Chomikuj). These kind of transactions can be tracked by checking the e-mail (e.g. in gmail by the following query: after:2014/09/02 before:2014/09/02 Order). Remember, that if you still don't recognise your transaction, you should call your bank. I have found also some other people concerns about that kind of transactions who ask: Is 2BuySafe.com and www.multicards.com some sort of Scam? Provided answer says: MultiCards Internet Billing is a provider of online credit card and debit card processing and payment solutions to many retailers worldwide. MultiCards was one of the pioneer companies offering this type of service since 1995 and is a PCI / DSS certified Internet Payment Service Provider (IPSP) providing service to hundreds of retail websites worldwide MultiCards is a registered Internet Payment Service Provider and has implemented various fraud protection tools including, but not limited to, MultiCards Fraud Score Tool and 'Verified by Visa' and 'MasterCard SecureCode' to protect card holder's card details. 2BuySafe.com Is also Secured and Verified By GeoTrust The certificate should be trusted by all major web browsers (all the correct intermediate certificates are installed). The certificate was issued by GeoTrust. Entering Incorrect information can lead to a card being rejected as @ TOS 2BuySafe.com is hosted on the Multicards Server site",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
40d4a122de1e2190621ddbe63b086262
|
Capital Gains in an S Corp
|
[
{
"docid": "73cccbaae914b8dac683a086c810dac6",
"text": "These are all factually correct claims. S-Corporation is a pass-through entity, so whatever gain you have on the corporate level - is passed to the shareholders. If your S-Corp has capital gains - you'll get your pro-rata share of the capital gains. Interest? The same. Dividends? You get it on your K-1. Earned income? Taxed as such to you. I.e.: whether you earn income as a S-Corp or as a sole proprietor - matters not. That's the answer to your bottom line question. The big issue, however, is this: you cannot have more than 25% passive income in your S-Corp. You pass that limit (three consecutive years, one-off is ok) - your S-Corp automatically converts to C-Corp, and you're taxed at the corporate level at the corporate rates (you then lose the capital gains rates, personal brackets, etc). This means that an S-Corp cannot be an investment company. Most (75%+) of its income has to be earned, not passive. Another problem with S-Corp is that people who work as self-proprietors incorporated as S-Corp try to abuse it and claim that the income they earned by the virtue of their own personal performance shouldn't be taxed as self-employed income. IRS frowns upon such a position, and if considerable amounts are at stake will take you all the way up to the Tax Court to prove you wrong. This has happened before, numerously. You should talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA/Attorney licensed in your state) to educate you about what S-Corp is and how it is taxed, and whether or not it is appropriate for you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "829ff126b899af4b65aa225ce89badc3",
"text": "Lets just get to the point...Ordinary income (gains) earned from S-Corp operations (i.e. income earned after all expenses for providing services or selling products) is passed through to the owners/shareholders and taxed at the owner's personal tax rate. Separately, if an S-Corp earns capital gains (i.e. the S-Corp buys and sells stock, earns dividends from investments, etc), those gains are passed through to the owners and taxed at a capital gains rate Capital gains are not the same as ordinary income (gains). Don't get the two confused, they are as different for S-Corp taxation as they are for personal taxation. In some cases an exception occurs, but only when the S-Corp was formally a C-Corp and the C-Corp had non-distributed earnings or losses. This is a separate issue whereas the undistributed C-Corp gains/losses are treated differently than the S-Corp gains/losses. It takes years of college coursework and work experience to grasp the vast arena of tax. It should not be so complex, but it is this complex. It is not within the scope of the non-tax professional to make sense of this stuff. The CPA exams, although very difficult and thorough, only scrape the surface of tax and accounting. I hope this provides some perspective on any questions regarding business tax for S-Corps and any other entity type. Hire a good CPA... if you can find one.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "306bbfcbeb9d36a4dfe629c06c6049d9",
"text": "\"A nondividend distribution is typically a return of capital; in other words, you're getting money back that you've contributed previously (and thus would have been taxed upon in previous years when those funds were first remunerated to you). Nondividend distributions are nontaxable, so they do not represent income from capital gains, but do effect your cost basis when determining the capital gain/loss once that capital gain/loss is realized. As an example, publicly-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs) generally distribute a return of capital back to shareholders throughout the year as a nondividend distribution. This is a return of a portion of the shareholder's original capital investment, not a share of the REITs profits, so it is simply getting a portion of your original investment back, and thus, is not income being received (I like to refer to it as \"\"new income\"\" to differentiate). However, the return of capital does change the cost basis of the original investment, so if one were to then sell the shares of the REIT (in this example), the basis of the original investment has to be adjusted by the nondividend distributions received over the course of ownership (in other words, the cost basis will be reduced when the shares are sold). I'm wondering if the OP could give us some additional information about his/her S-Corp. What type of business is it? In the course of its business and trade activity, does it buy and sell securities (stocks, etc.)? Does it sell assets or business property? Does it own interests in other corporations or partnerships (sales of those interests are one form of capital gain). Long-term capital gains are taxed at rates lower than ordinary income, but the IRS has very specific rules as to what constitutes a capital gain (loss). I hate to answer a question with a question, but we need a little more information before we can weigh-in on whether you have actual capital gains or losses in the course of your S-Corporation trade.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "93b6457e8a48c4363e86f317dbc0934e",
"text": "From 26 CFR 1.1012(c)(1)i): ... if a taxpayer sells or transfers shares of stock in a corporation that the taxpayer purchased or acquired on different dates or at different prices and the taxpayer does not adequately identify the lot from which the stock is sold or transferred, the stock sold or transferred is charged against the earliest lot the taxpayer purchased or acquired to determine the basis and holding period of the stock. From 26 CFR 1.1012(c)(3): (i) Where the stock is left in the custody of a broker or other agent, an adequate identification is made if— (a) At the time of the sale or transfer, the taxpayer specifies to such broker or other agent having custody of the stock the particular stock to be sold or transferred, and ... So if you don't specify, the first share bought (for $100) is the one sold, and you have a capital gain of $800. But you can specify to the broker if you would rather sell the stock bought later (and thus have a lower gain). This can either be done for the individual sale (no later than the settlement date of the trade), or via standing order: 26 CFR 1.1012(c)(8) ... A standing order or instruction for the specific identification of stock is treated as an adequate identification made at the time of sale, transfer, delivery, or distribution.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a16cdeba56a7edbdb8277e7c90b16dce",
"text": "\"You can exclude up to $250000 ($500000 for married filing jointly) of capital gains on property which was your primary residence for at least 2 years within the 5 years preceding the sale. This is called \"\"Section 121 exclusion\"\". See the IRS publication 523 for more details. Gains is the difference between your cost basis (money you paid for the property) and the proceeds (money you got when you sold it). Note that the amounts you deducted for depreciation (or were allowed to deduct during the period the condo was a rental, even if you chose not to) will be taxed at a special rate of 25% - this is called \"\"depreciation recapture\"\", and is discussed in the IRS publication 544.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "00d92ce163cbaa2219366d5a87720ef9",
"text": "You increase the capital account by the additional contributions and retained earnings and decrease the capital account by the distributions of return of capital and/or losses. Distributing gains doesn't change the capital account. So in your case it would be: 1st year we lost money Assuming you lost 20K, and the interests are even, it will look like this: 1st year we break even Nothing changes - you break even, means the balance sheet doesn't change (in this example). 1st year we made money Assume you gained 20K and kept it: If you didn't retain the earnings, it would look the same as case 2 - no change. Note that this is only the financial accounting, tax accounting might look differently. For example, in the US Partnerships (or LLCs taxed as) are pass-through entities, on in case 3 while you retained the earnings, the partners will still be taxed. I'm of course neither CPA nor a licensed tax adviser. I suggest you get a consultation with one. Only a CPA can provide a reliable accounting advice or sign official financial statements, reviews and audits. Only a EA, CPA or an Attorney specializing in tax law can provide a tax advice.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "69cae92454c28e2e4d04cda5494408f7",
"text": "That's really not something that can be answered based on the information provided. There are a lot of factors involved: type of income, your wife's tax bracket, the split between Federal and State (if you're in a high bracket in a high income-tax rate State - it may even be more than 50%), etc etc. The fact that your wife didn't withdraw the money is irrelevant. S-Corp is a pass-through entity, i.e.: owners are taxed on the profits based on their personal marginal tax rates, and it doesn't matter what they did with the money. In this case, your wife re-invested it into the corp (used it to pay off corp debts), which adds back to her basis. You really should talk to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) to learn how S-Corps work and how to use them properly. Your wife, actually, as she's the owner.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "72659982bcc756ea19515bf267862f2d",
"text": "I think you're misunderstanding how S-Corp works. Here are some pointers: I suggest you talk with a EA/CPA licensed in your state and get yourself educated on what you're getting yourself into.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc36a99ffea70f0b1e78475c3ad6fcb7",
"text": "Yes. You incur income tax on the RSU on they date they vest. At this point you own the actual shares and you can decide to sell them or to hold them. If you hold them for the required period, and sell them later, the difference between your price at vesting and the sales price would be taxed as long term capital gains. Caution: if you decide to hold, you are still liable to pay income tax in the year they vest. You have to pay taxes on income that you haven't made yet. This is fairly dangerous: if the stock goes down, you may lose a lot of this tax payment. Technically you could recover some of this through claiming capital losses, but that this is severely restricted: the IRS makes it much easier to increase taxes through gains than reducing taxes through losses.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d04463611f1cc42a2614271873cb0e89",
"text": "I don't know the legal framework for RSUs, so I'm not sure what is mandatory and what is chosen by the company issuing them. I recently reviewed one companies offering and it basically looked like a flat purchase of stock on the VEST date. So even if I got a zillion shares for $1 GRANTED to me, if it was 100 shares that vested at $100 on the 1st, then I would owe tax on the market value on the day of vest. Further, the company would withhold 25% of the VEST for federal taxes and 10% for state taxes, if I lived in a state with income tax. The withholding rate was flat, regardless of what my actual tax rate was. Capital gains on the change from the market value on the VEST date was calculated as short-term or long-term based on the time since the VEST date. So if my 100 shares went up to $120, I would pay the $20 difference as short term or long term based on how long I had owned them since the VEST. That said, I don't know if this is universal. Your HR folks should be able to help answer at least some of these questions, though I know their favorite response when they don't know is that you should consult a tax professional. Good luck.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a1d3611099cbee3136ec36c06127dd7",
"text": "Now assume these shares are vested, held for at least 1 year, and are then sold for $5 each. Everything I've read implies that the grantee now owes long-term capital gains taxes on the difference, which would be 10k * ($5 - $1). No. That's exactly what the SO is NQ for. Read more on the differences between ISO and NQSO here. Now assume these shares are vested, held for at least 1 year, and are then sold for $5 each. Everything I've read implies that the grantee now owes long-term capital gains taxes on the difference, which would be 10k * ($5 - $1). At this point you no longer have NQSO, you have RSU. If you filed 83(b) when you exercised, then you pay capital gains tax when they vest. If you didn't - its ordinary income to you. NQSO is a red herring here since once exercised they no longer exist. If you didn't file 83(b), then when the stock vests the difference between the FMV at vest and the money you spent on it when exercising (if any) is considered wages and taxed as ordinary income (+FICA etc). From that point the RSU becomes a regular stock investment and the capital gains clock starts ticking.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4286585f14be963a8f314ca32f310036",
"text": "\"This is actually quite a complicated issue. I suggest you talk to a properly licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). Legal advice (from an attorney licensed in your State) is also highly recommended. There are many issues at hand here. Income - both types of entities are pass-through, so \"\"earnings\"\" are taxed the same. However, for S-Corp there's a \"\"reasonable compensation\"\" requirement, so while B and C don't do any \"\"work\"\" they may be required to draw salary as executives/directors (if they act as such). Equity - for S-Corp you cannot have different classes of shares, all are the same. So you cannot have 2 partners contribute money and third to contribute nothing (work is compensated, you'll be getting salary) and all three have the same stake in the company. You can have that with an LLC. Expansion - S-Corp is limited to X shareholders, all of which have to be Americans. Once you get a foreign partner, or more than 100 partners - you automatically become C-Corp whether you want it or not. Investors - it would be very hard for you to find external investors if you're a LLC. There are many more things to consider. Do not make this decision lightly. Fixing things is usually much more expensive than doing them right at the first place.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d9bdb78150f5089baeab672332d02d2",
"text": "Federal income taxes are indeed expenses, they're just not DEDUCTIBLE expenses on your 1120. Federal Income Tax Expense is usually a subcategory under Taxes. This is one of the items that will be a book-to-tax difference on Schedule M-1. I am presuming you are talking about a C corporation, as an S corporation is not likely to be paying federal taxes itself, but would pass the liability through to the members. If you're paying your personal 1040 taxes out of an S-corporation bank account, that's an owner's draw just like paying any of your personal non-business expenses. I would encourage you to get a tax professional to prepare your corporate tax returns. It's not quite as simple as TurboTax Business makes it out to be. ;) Mariette IRS Circular 230 Notice: Please note that any tax advice contained in this communication is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by anyone to avoid penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b3bb25844cb10bfb674a0e794e241cf7",
"text": "Capital gains taxes for a year are calculated on sales of assets that take place during that year. So if you sell some stock in 2016, you will report those gains/losses on your 2016 tax return.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "28736c47950db9528b1fd9ac554aa8c6",
"text": "If you have held the stocks longer than a year, then there is no tax apart from the STT that is already deducted when you sell the shares. If you have held the stock for less than a year, you would have to pay short term capital gains at the rate of 15% on the profit. Edit: If you buy different shares from the total amount or profits, it makes no difference to taxes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "57390fc75c7c0b3a47269f7ea8e90c07",
"text": "\"If you have an S-Corp with several shareholders - you probably also have a tax adviser who suggested using S-Corp to begin with. You're probably best off asking that adviser about this issue. If you decided to use S-Corp for multiple shareholders without a professional guiding you, you should probably start looking for such a professional, or you may get yourself into trouble. That said, and reminding you that: 1. Free advice on the Internet is worth exactly what you paid for it, and 2. I'm not a tax professional or tax adviser, you should talk to a EA/CPA licensed in your state, here's this: Generally S-Corps are disregarded entities for tax purposes and their income flows to their shareholders individual tax returns through K-1 forms distributed by the S-Corp yearly. The shareholders don't have to actually withdraw the profits, but if not withdrawing - they're added to their cost bases in the shares. I'm guessing your corp doesn't distribute the net income, but keeps it on the corporate account, only distributing enough to cover the shareholders' taxes on their respective income portion. In this case - the amount not distributed is added to their basis, the amount distributed has already been taxed through K-1. If the corporation distributes more than the shareholder's portion of net income, then there can be several different choices, depending on the circumstances: The extra distribution will be treated as salary to the shareholder and a deduction to the corporation (i.e.: increasing the net income for the rest of the shareholders). The extra distribution will be treated as return of investment, reducing that shareholder's basis in the shares, but not affecting the other shareholders. If the basis is 0 then it is treated as income to the shareholder and taxed at ordinary rates. The extra distribution will be treated as \"\"buy-back\"\" - reducing that shareholder's ownership stake in the company and reallocating the \"\"bought-back\"\" portion among the rest of the shareholders. In this case it is treated as a sale of stock, and the gain is calculated as with any other stock sale, including short-term vs. long-term taxation (there's also Sec. 1244 that can come in handy here). The extra distribution will be treated as dividend. This is very rare for S-Corp, but can happen if it was a C-Corp before. In that case it will be taxed as dividends. Note that options #2, #3 and #4 subject the shareholder to the NIIT, while option #1 subjects the shareholder to FICA/Self Employment tax (and subjects the company to payroll taxes). There might be other options. Your licensed tax adviser will go with you through all the facts and circumstances and will suggest the best way to proceed.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc0f5b39efa96f612d974c9271078571",
"text": "As the owner of the S-corp, it is far easier for you to move money in/out of the company as contributions and distributions rather than making loans to the company. Loans require interest payments, 1099-INT forms, and have tax consequences, whereas the distributions don't need to be reported because you pay taxes on net profits regardless of whether the money was distributed. If you were paid interest, disregard this answer. I don't know if or how you could re-categorize the loan once there's a 1099-INT involved. If no interest was ever paid, you just need to account for it properly: If the company didn't pay you any interest and never issued you a 1099-INT form (i.e. you wrote a check to the company, no promissory note, no tax forms, no payments, no interest, etc.) then you can categorize that money as a capital contribution. You can likewise take that money back out of the company as a capital distribution and neither of these events are taxable nor do they need to be reported to the IRS. In Quickbooks, create the following Equity accounts -- one for each shareholder making capital contributions and distributions: When putting money into the company, deposit into your corporate bank account and use the Capital Contribution equity account. When taking money out of the company, write yourself a check and use the Distributions account. At the end of every tax year, you can close out your Contributions and Distributions to Retained Earnings by making a general journal entry. For example, debit retained earnings and credit distributions on Dec 31 every year to zero-out the distributions account. For contributions, do the reverse and credit retained earnings. There are other ways of recording these transactions -- for example I think some people just use a Member Capital equity account instead of separate accounts for contributions and distributions -- and QB might warn you about posting journal entries to the special Retained Earnings account at the end of the year. In any case, this is how my CPA set up my books and it's been working well enough for many years. Still, never a bad idea to get a second opinion from your CPA. Be sure to pay yourself a reasonable salary, you can't get out of payroll taxes and just distribute profits -- that's a big red flag that can trigger an audit. If you're simply distributing back the money you already put into the company, that should be fine.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2af033af3f8b981e4e7147ebc864cc28",
"text": "\"You probably don't need S-Corp. There's no difference between what you can deduct on your Schedule C and what you can deduct on 1120S, it will just cost you more money. Since you're gambling yourself, you don't need to worry about liability - but if you do, you should probably go LLC route, much cheaper and simpler. The \"\"reasonable salary\"\" trick to avoid FICA won't work. Don't even try. Schedule C for professional gamblers is a very accepted thing, nothing extraordinary about it.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
62d88b4d5f25e7f831d8b988b9c36312
|
Monthly money transfers from US to Puerto Rico
|
[
{
"docid": "18397334430909aee08a750b1b380c31",
"text": "Puerto Rico: Last I checked, the Puerto Rico banking system wasn't materially different than working within the US - though some Continental US banks exclude US Territories like Guam and Puerto Rico or charge more when dealing with them. I'm not certain as to why. However, most banks don't see them any differently than a regular US bank. Regarding Wire Transfers (WT): $35 for an ad-hoc WT within the US and Puerto Rico is for the most part average. Wires cost money for the convenience of quick clearing and guaranteed funds. If you have a business/commercial account where you are doing this regularly and paying a monthly fee for a WT service, $10 - $15 each may be expected. I had a business account with US Bank where I paid $15 a month for a WT transfer service and reoccurring template (always went to the same account - AMEX in this case) and the transfers were only $15 each. But, a WT as a general rule, especially when it's only a once a month thing from a personal account, will cost around $25 - $35 in the US and Puerto Rico. As others have said, you can simply mail a personal check just as you would in the US. Many people choose to use Money Orders for Puerto Rico as they can be cashed at the post office (I believe there is an amount limit though). ACH: If you want even easier, I would use ACH. Banks in Puerto Rico use this ACH (Automatic Clearing House) system as we do in the Continental US. It will take a little longer than WT, but as you said - this is fine. Not all US Banks offer free ACH, but a number of them do. Last I checked, Citibank and USAA where among them. Banks like, BAC charges a small fee. Much smaller than a WT! This post may be useful to you: What's the difference between wire transfer and ACH?",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6bc9f64574af2062c1c3525e86aac0e1",
"text": "Typically your statement will break down each of the balances that carry a different rate, so you'll see them lumped into the 0% line, or two separates lines with different rates for each. If you don't see it on the statement, a quick call to your bank should clarify it for you. If I had to guess, I would lean towards the fee likely being at 0% also, but if it isn't, typically you would pay the minimum + $350 on your next statement. (Because only amounts over the minimum go towards principal of the highest rates first, at least this is true in the US for personal accounts.) Of course this is something your bank should be able to clarify as well. Balance Transfer Tip: I always recommend setting up automatic payments when you take advantage of a balance transfer offer. The reason is, oftentimes buried deeply in the terms and conditions, is an evil phrase which says that if you miss a payment, they have the right to revoke the promotional rate and start charging you a higher rate. That would be bad enough if it happened, but to make things worse I believe the fee you paid for the transfer is not returned to you. So, set up an auto payment each month for at least the minimum payment. And if you can afford it, divide the total transferred by the number of months and pay that amount each month. (Assuming you don't pay interest on the fee: $17,500 * 1.02 / 18 = $991.67/per month.) That way you'll have it paid off just in time to not have any higher interest when the promotional rate expires. If you don't know if you can afford the higher amount each month, set it to the max you know for sure you can afford, and make additional payments whenever you can.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f556ec1a4b3445c80dd443fbfc037af",
"text": "I prefer to use a Foreign Exchange transfer service. You will get a good exchange rate (better than from Paypal or from your bank) and it is possible to set it up with no transfer fees on both ends. You can use an ACH transfer from your US bank account to the FX's bank account and then a SEPA transfer in Europe to get the funds into your bank account. Transfers can also go in the opposite direction (Europe to USA). I've used XE's service (www.xe.com) and US Forex's service (www.usforex.com). Transferwise (www.transferwise.com) is another popular service. US Forex's service calls you to confirm each transfer. They also charge a $5 fee on transfers under $1000. XE's service is more convenient: they do not charge fees for small transfers and do not call you to confirm the tramsfer. However, they will not let you set up a free ACH transfer from US bank accounts if you set up your XE account outside the US. In both cases, the transfer takes a few business days to complete. EDIT: In my recent (Summer 2015) experience, US Forex has offered slightly better rates than XE. I've also checked out Transferwise, and for transfers from the US it seems to be a bit of a gimmick with a fee added late in the process. For reference, I just got quotes from the three sites for converting 5000 USD to EUR:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "88c461ef9c397b80086de1ac45b49a68",
"text": "I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say, but in general its pretty simple: She goes to the UK bank and requests a wire transfer, providing your details as a recipient. You then go to your bank, fill the necessary forms for the money-laundaring regulations, you probably also need to pay the taxes on the money to the IRS, and then you have it. If you have 1 million dollars (or is it pounds?), I'm sure you can afford spending several hundreds for a tax attorney to make sure your liabilities are reduced to minimum.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "45b38491d157c18dffa4205923def3d9",
"text": "I may be moving to Switzerland soon and would like to know if there's a similar system to move money between a Swiss bank account and a U.S bank account. There is no easy way. The most common method is International Wire or SWIFT. These kinds of transfer are generally charged in the range of USD 20 to USD 50 per transfer. It generally takes 2 to 5 days to move the money. Some Banks have not yet given the facility to initiate a International Wire from Internet banking platforms. One has to physically walk-in. So if this is going to be frequent, make sure both your banks offer this. As the volume between US and Switzerland is less, there may not be any dedicated remittance service providers [these are generally low cost].",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc60c2be7f14a3235c87dbae4b1b69fd",
"text": "Transferwise gives an excellent exchange rate and very minimal costs. They save on costs by not actually changing any money; your money goes to someone else in the US, and the Canadia dollars you want come from someone else in Canada. No money changes currency or crosses borders, there is no bank transfer fee (assuming that domestic bank transfers, inside the country, are free), and they give an excellent exchange rate (very nearly the spot rate, I find; far better than many rates I find online for sending money across the border). I sent money from the UK to Japan with it last week, at a fixed fee of about three US dollars (I was charged in GBP, obviously). About one tenth the cost of an international bank transfer. I just double-checked; at about midday on the fifth of October 2016, they gave me a rate of 130.15 JPY per 1 GBP, and then charged me two GBP to transfer the money. The rate that day, according to xe.com, varied between 130.7 and 132 ; basically, I don't think I could have got a better deal pretty much anywhere. As I type, this very second, they offer 1.33 CAD for 1 USD , and google tells me that this very second, the exchange rate is 1.33 CAD for 1 USD - transferwise is giving the spot price. I don't think you'll get a better rate anywhere else.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7851f4eb8431440619c6ffb3774188f0",
"text": "\"As soon as I see the word \"\"friends\"\" along with money transfer I think scam. But ignoring that red flag.... You will have American companies reporting to the IRS that you are a Canadian Vendor they have hired. Then you are transferring money to people in Bangladesh. Assuming also that you fill out all the regulatory paperwork to establish this Money transfer business you may still face annual reporting requirements to 3 national taxing authorities. In the United states there are situations where the US Government hires a large company to complete a project. As part of that contract they require the large company to hire small businesses to complete some of the tasks. In a situation where the large company is imply serving as a conduit for the money between the government and the sub-contractor; and the large company has no other responsibilities; the usual fee for providing that function is 8% of the funds. This pays for their expenses for their accounting functions plus profit and the taxes that will trigger. Yet you said \"\"At the end of the day, I will not earn much, but the transactions will just burden my tax returns.\"\" The 8 percent fee doesn't include doesn't include having to file paperwork with 3 nations. Adding this to all the other risks associated with being an international bank, plus the legal costs of making sure you are following all the regulations...No thanks.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "95027669f9c35e4703223ae15a60e31e",
"text": "A quick search shows that https://www.westernunion.com/de/en/send-money/start.html says they will transfer €5,000 for a cost of €2.90. Assuming you can do a transfer every week, that would be six weeks at a cost of €17.40. €17.40 is slightly less than €1,500.00. I'm sure there are more ways.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d87e11efcd1821a28428fdb83e5d531",
"text": "Most US banks allow to initiate wire transfers online. (I do it regularly with BoA and JPMorgan-Chase) Once you have your account details in Germany, you log on to your US account, set it up, and initiate the transfer; that should go through within one day. The exchange ratio is better than anything you would get buying/selling currency (paper cash money), no matter where you do it. Chase takes a fee of 40$ per online transaction; BoA 45$. The receiving bank might or might not take additional fees, they should be lower though (I have experienced between 0€ and 0.35%). Therefore, it is a good idea to bundle your transfers into one, if you can.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "08248f5214e8b3782b0d58a4351d7af1",
"text": "He cannot get money from someone else account. Your US resident friend in New York can send money to your Indian friend in Atlanta via Western Union which has presence in almost every corner of the US. Most definitely in the city of Atlanta. Your Indian friend can receive the Western Union transfer, in cash, within minutes after the friend in New York sends it. Here's the site for location search. The sender doesn't need to go anywhere, can send online, so your New York friend doesn't even need to waste much time. In fact - you don't need to bother your friend in New York, you can send it online yourself (assuming you're American/have US bank account). In order to receive the money, your Indian friend will obviously need a proper identification (i.e.: passport).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ffdf27fb9f7077c4a6d7ea0ba512f87f",
"text": "Three ideas: PayPal is probably the best/cheapest way to transfer small/medium amounts of money overseas.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1105d0dfbec07b6b30ea37e35393157",
"text": "HSBC exchange spread between HKD and USD was 483 bps (1 bps is 0.0001) on their 24 hours exchange network a few weeks ago when I checked. It is very high for a pair of linked currencies which has very little fluctuation. One should expect less than 5 bps or even 1 bps. I did my currency conversion at a US brokerage which can take HKD currency and then I was able to pick the time/rate and amount I like to make the conversion. Basically, the currency pair runs within a tight band and you just need to buy USD with HKD at the time when it is near the edge of the band to your advantage. There is usually no fee on currency conversion. They make money through the spread. HSBC premier allows you to wire free among countries. I forget whether they offer tighter spread or not. Rob was right on about the cost of transferring money overseas. The majority of the cost is in the conversion, not the wiring.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c295f6219f707bffbc845d07fe07b2d1",
"text": "I few years ago my company in the Washington DC area allowed employees to contribute their own pre-tax funds. The system at the time wasn't sophisticated enough to prevent what you are suggesting. The money each month was put on a special credit card that could only be used at certain types of locations. You could load it onto the Metro smart trip card, and use it for many months. Many people did this, even though the IRS says you shouldn't. But eventually the program for the federal employees changed, their employer provided funds were put directly onto their Smart Trip card. In fact there were two buckets on the card: one to pay for commuting, and the other to pay for parking. There was no way to transfer money between buckets. The first day of the new month all the excess funds were automatically removed from the card;and the new funds were put onto the card. If your employer has a similar program it may work the same way. HR will know.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ec9bbffb3de74756544e9883b0955746",
"text": "Just FYI for the benefit of future users. Haven't been paid yet nor have I paid but some interesting facts. I decided to sign the contract with the person who approached me. The contract seemed harmless whereby I only transfer money once I retrieve the funds. Thanks to your comments here I also understood that I must make sure the funds really cleared in my account and can never be cancelled before I transfer anything. He gave me the information of the check that matched my previous employer and made sense as it was a check issues just after I had left my job and the state. I did not used the contact details he provided me, but rather found the direct contact details of the go to person in my last institution and contacted them. I still haven't been able to reclaim the funds, but that is due to internal problems between the state comptroller and my institution. Will come back to update if I am ever successful, but the bottom line is that it is probably not a scam. I am waiting for the final resolution of the case before I post the name of the company which approached me (if it is at all OK per the discussion board rules)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c9acdcbf56c5fe87270584861c27edb",
"text": "After collecting information via web searching, the comments above, and a additional call to BOA, i have concluded the following to the best of my knowledge. Zelle Transfers are final. Irreversible. As Jay mentioned above, funds are subtracted from the sending account before the transfer is made, therefore it eliminates sending funds that do not exist. I validated this information with BOA, and the BOA representative said that once a zelle transfer is initiated and the receiving party has received the funds, it can no longer be canceled. Funds received by the receiving party is credited immediately. I will note that the BOA representative was a BOA representative and not a Zelle representative. I say this because the representatives seemed to be slightly weary in answering my questions about Zelle, as if he was looking up the information as we spoke. If someone is reading this and plans to transfer huge amount of cash from a highly likely malicious user, i would recommend contacting Zelle or your personal bank directly to further validate this information. Zelle, from what i can find, is a fairly new technology. I could not find a Zelle contact number via the web for questioning, so i can only rely on the knowledge on my BOA representative.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "536ea8d6b0e4f7dd151fac547fee08e0",
"text": "TL;DR for those who don't want to waste their time: Uber didn't do anything special. Also, you should follow unethical laws and not try to change or challenge the system. While I was reading the piece I thought it was the work of a sophomore, but it turns out this was written by a professor.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
20d02f1b25a96462f6a3203c74d054b4
|
Health insurance deduction on schedule C if also full time employee with w2?
|
[
{
"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": "aac26d91176181559f7c3ff25c7bc9bc",
"text": "Do you satisfy the necessary criteria listed there? Then why not?... It sounds like you do.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "2b3eb961fe4796f80757fdd694888379",
"text": "IRS Publication 463 is a great resource to help you understand what you can and can't deduct. It's not a yes/no question, it depends on the exact company use, other use, and contemporaneous record keeping.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "67b68ecf5c993aeea42bb178987d334d",
"text": "Yes, you are the proprietor of the business and your SSN is listed on Schedule C. The information on Schedule C is for your unincorporated business as a contractor; it is a sole proprietorship. You might choose to do this business under your own name e.g. Tim Taylor (getting paid with checks made out to Tim Taylor) or a modified name such as Tim the Tool Man Taylor (this is often referred to as DBA - Doing Business as), under a business name such as Tool Time etc. with business address being your home address or separate premises, and checking accounts to match etc. and all that is what the IRS wants to know about on Schedule C. Information about the company that paid you is not listed on Schedule C.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a69c7e92def07fbbe42864b0f06baa28",
"text": "The idea is that the premiums (or costs) associated with the plan are a business expense, you know that already. The distinction here is that employees don't pay premiums, they elect to contribute. The company sponsors a plan, the employees then choose to accept less salary in order to participate in the employer's plan. The idea is that you're foregoing income. Why is the employee not taxed on this cost? One major reason is that the employee has no say in, and often no idea, what the gross costs are (some find out if they ever receive COBRA election paperwork). There are more benefits than strict healthcare that are Section 125 eligible. The government has a vested interest in keeping the population healthy, and when the ERISA laws and Section 125 were written it was (and still is) a pretty low friction way to get health insurance out to more people. At this point, taking away the tax break from the employees would be a huge government take away from most of the population. Try to get a politician to take something away from taxpayers. Why doesn't the deduction exist in kind to people buying individual coverage? Ask your legislators. There are thousands of preferential tax treatment oddities, where some industry will get some sort of benefit or break. I'm not sure what leads you to think there needs to be some supremely logical reason for this oddity to exit.",
"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": "13e0e658786c6995ed1255db31b5fde5",
"text": "\"According to the IRS, it appears there is no issue in a spouse under EE or EE+Child(ren) coverage contributing to an FSA while you contribute to an HSA under an EE Only HDHP account: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rr-05-25.pdf \"\"In Situation 1, H has HDHP self-only coverage and no other health coverage, is not enrolled in Medicare and may not be claimed as a dependent on another taxpayer’s return. Although W has non-HDHP family coverage, H is not covered under that health plan. H is therefore an eligible individual as defined in section 223(c)(1). The special rules for married individuals under section 223(b)(5) do not apply because W’s nonHDHP family coverage does not cover H. Thus, H remains an eligible individual and H may contribute up to $2,000 to an HSA (lesser of the HDHP deductible for self-only coverage or $2,650) for 2005. H may not make the catch-up contribution under section 223(b)(3) because H is not age 55 in 2005. W has non-HDHP coverage and is therefore not an eligible individual.\"\" Some more information directly from IRS form 969 published for 2015 tax returns: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p969.pdf Qualifying for an HSA To be an eligible individual and qualify for an HSA, you must meet the following requirements. You must be covered under a high deductible health plan (HDHP), described later, on the first day of the month. You have no other health coverage except what is permitted under Other health coverage, later. You are not enrolled in Medicare. You cannot be claimed as a dependent on someone else's 2015 tax return. Under the last-month rule, you are considered to be an eligible individual for the entire year if you are an eligible individual on the first day of the last month of your tax year (December 1 for most taxpayers). If you meet these requirements, you are an eligible individual even if your spouse has non-HDHP family coverage, provided your spouse's coverage does not cover you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "00b414e442d21632884141ce59c4e87a",
"text": "\"You will need to see a tax expert. Your edited question includes the line For the short term, we will be \"\"renting\"\" it to my wife's grandmother at a deep discount. According to the instructions for schedule E If you rented out a dwelling unit that you also used for personal purposes during the year, you may not be able to deduct all the expenses for the rental part. “Dwelling unit” (unit) means a house, apartment, condominium, or similar property. For each property listed on line 1a, report the number of days in the year each property was rented at fair rental value and the number of days of personal use. A day of personal use is any day, or part of a day, that the unit was used by: I have no idea how this will work for Schedule C.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b09b1f94fb03bd10155b889cd8f16b08",
"text": "\"To claim medical expenses on your taxes they need to exceed 7.5% of your AGI, and then only the amount over 7.5% is deductible. That's not much. There is no \"\"floor\"\" if you use an FSA as it's all pre-tax. If you're concerned about use or lose, then allot less next year. It's all what you're comfortable with.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f5cfa6200bbb4657e77e736027602d4d",
"text": "It is true that with a job that pays you via payroll check that will result in a W-2 because you are an employee, the threshold that you are worried about before you have to file is in the thousands. Unless of course you make a lot of money from bank interest or you have income tax withheld and you want it refunded to you. Table 2 and table 3 in IRS pub 501, does a great job of telling you when you must. For you table 3 is most likely to apply because you weren't an employee and you will not be getting a W-2. If any of the five conditions listed below applied to you for 2016, you must file a return. You owe any special taxes, including any of the following. a. Alternative minimum tax. (See Form 6251.) b. Additional tax on a qualified plan, including an individual retirement arrangement (IRA), or other taxfavored account. (See Pub. 590A, Contributions to Individual Retirement Arrangements (IRAs); Pub. 590B, Distributions from Individual Retirement Arrangements (IRAs); and Pub. 969, Health Savings Accounts and Other TaxFavored Health Plans.) But if you are filing a return only because you owe this tax, you can file Form 5329 by itself. c. Social security or Medicare tax on tips you didn't report to your employer (see Pub. 531, Reporting Tip Income) or on wages you received from an employer who didn't withhold these taxes (see Form 8919). d. Writein taxes, including uncollected social security, Medicare, or railroad retirement tax on tips you reported to your employer or on groupterm life insurance and additional taxes on health savings accounts. (See Pub. 531, Pub. 969, and the Form 1040 instructions for line 62.) e. Household employment taxes. But if you are filing a return only because you owe these taxes, you can file Schedule H (Form 1040) by itself. f. Recapture taxes. (See the Form 1040 instructions for lines 44, 60b, and 62.) You (or your spouse if filing jointly) received Archer MSA, Medicare Advantage MSA, or health savings account distributions. You had net earnings from selfemployment of at least $400. (See Schedule SE (Form 1040) and its instructions.) You had wages of $108.28 or more from a church or qualified churchcontrolled organization that is exempt from employer social security and Medicare taxes. (See Schedule SE (Form 1040) and its instructions.) Advance payments of the premium tax credit were made for you, your spouse, or a dependent who enrolled in coverage through the Health Insurance Marketplace. You should have received Form(s) 1095A showing the amount of the advance payments, if any. It appears that item 3: You had net earnings from selfemployment of at least $400. (See Schedule SE (Form 1040) and its instructions.) would most likely apply. It obviously is not too late to file for 2016, because taxes aren't due for another month. As to previous years that would depend if you made money those years, and how much.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e58d99883593d6d12f8032f38a42982d",
"text": "If your business is a Sole Proprietorship and meets the criteria, then you would file form Schedule C. In this case you can deduct all eligible business expenses, regardless of how you pay for them (credit/debit/check/cash). The fact that it was paid for using a business credit card isn't relevant as long as it is a true business expense. The general rules apply: Yes - if you sustain a net loss, that will carry over to your personal tax return. Note: even though it isn't necessary to use a business credit card for business expenses, it's still an extremely good idea to do so, for a variety of reasons.",
"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": "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": "54c61d2d88276a215c365b346476ca43",
"text": "\"Even though this isn't really personal finance related I still feel like there are some misconceptions here that could be addressed. I don't know where you got the phrase \"\"pass-through\"\" insurance from. What you're describing is a self-funded plan. In a self-funded arrangement an employer contracts a third-party-administrator (TPA), usually one of the big health insurance carriers, to use it's provider network, process and adjudicate claims, etc. In addition to the TPA there will be some sort of stop-loss insurance coverage on each participant. Stop-loss coverage usually provides a maximum amount of risk on a given member and on the entire population for a given month and/or year and/or lifetime. The employer's risk is in between the plan deductible and the stop loss coverage (assuming the stop-loss doesn't have a maximum). Almost all of the claim dollars in a given plan will come from very very few people. These costs typically arise out of very unforeseen diagnoses not chronic issues. A cancer patient can easily cost $1,000,000 in a year. Someone's diabetes maintenance medicine or other chronic maintenance will cost no where near what a botched surgery will in a year. If we take a step back there are really four categories of employer insurance. Small group is tightly regulated. Usually plan premiums are filed with a state authority, there is no negotiating, your group's underwriting performance has zero impact on your premiums. Employers have no way of obtaining any medical/claim information on employees. Mid-market is a pooled arrangement. The overall pool has a total increase, and your particular group performs better or worse than the pool which may impact premiums. Employers get very minor claims data, things like the few highest claims, or number of claims over a certain threshold, but no employee specific information. Large-group is a mostly unpooled arrangement. Generally your group receives it's own rating based on its individual underwriting performance. In general the carrier is offloading some risk to a stop-loss carrier and employer's get a fair amount of insight in to claims, though again, not with employee names. Self-funded is obviously self-contained. The employer sets up a claims checking account. The TPA has draft authority on the account. The employee's typically have no idea the plan is self funded, their ID cards will have the carrier logo, and the carrier deals with them just as it would any other member. Generally when a company is this size it has a separate benefits committee, those few people will have some level of insight in to claims performance and stop-loss activity. This committee will have nothing to do with the hiring process. There are some new partially self-funded arrangements, which is just a really low-threshold (and relatively expensive) stop-loss program, that's becoming somewhat popular in the mid-market group size as employers attempt to reduce medical spend. I think when you start thinking on a micro, single employee level, you really lose sight of the big picture. Why would an employer hire this guy who has this disease/chronic problem that costs $50,000 per year? And logically you can get to the conclusion that with a self-funded plan it literally costs the company the money so the company has an incentive not to hire the person. I understand the logic of the argument, but at the self funded level the plan is typically costing north of half a million dollars each month. So a mid-level HR hiring manager 1. isn't aware of specific plan claims or costs and is not part of the benefits executive committee, 2. won't be instructed to screen for health deficiencies because it's against the law, 3. a company generally won't test the water here because $50,000 per year is less than 1% of the company's annual medical expenses, 4. $50,000 is well below the cost to litigate a discrimination law-suit. Really the flaw in your thought process is that $50,000 in annual medical expense is a lot. A harsh child-birth can run in the $250,000 range, so these companies never hire women? Or never hire men who could add a spouse who's in child bearing years? Or never hire women who might have a female spouse who could be in child bearing years? A leukemia diagnosis will ratchet up $1,000,000 in a year. Spend a bit of time in intensive care for $25,000 per day and you're fired? A few thousand bucks on diabetes meds isn't anything relative to the annual cost of your average self-funded plan. The second flaw is that the hiring managers get insight in to specific claims. They don't. Third, you don't hand over medical records on your resume anyway. I typed this out in one single draft and have no intention of editing anything. I just wanted paint a broad picture, I'm sure things can be nit-picked or focused on.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "27be59dd2f4445169ef9d91862353b69",
"text": "It would be unusual but it is possible that the expenses could be very high compared to your income. The IRS in pub 529 explains the deduction. You can deduct only unreimbursed employee expenses that are: Paid or incurred during your tax year, For carrying on your trade or business of being an employee, and Ordinary and necessary. An expense is ordinary if it is common and accepted in your trade, business, or profession. An expense is necessary if it is appropriate and helpful to your business. An expense doesn't have to be required to be considered necessary. The next part lists examples. I have cut the list down to highlight ones that could be large. You may be able to deduct the following items as unreimbursed employee expenses. Damages paid to a former employer for breach of an employment contract. Job search expenses in your present occupation. Legal fees related to your job. Licenses and regulatory fees. Malpractice insurance premiums. Research expenses of a college professor. Rural mail carriers' vehicle expenses. Tools and supplies used in your work. Work clothes and uniforms if required and not suitable for everyday use. Work-related education. If the term of employment was only part of the year, one or more of the these could dwarf your income for the year. Before deducting something that large be sure you can document it. I believe the IRS computers would flag the return and I wouldn't be surprised if they ask for additional proof.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a4a85a19b2748e606ed9363d10b805b4",
"text": "For a 401(k), only contributions that you make for the current tax year through payroll deduction are tax-deductible. Those contributions are subtracted off of your income for your W-2 Box 1 income amount. If you make a manual contribution to your 401(k) outside of that, it is not tax deductible, and there is nowhere on your Form 1040 to deduct it. Your commuter benefits are also paid for out of payroll deduction and deducted on your W-2, so this is not an option, either. You could contribute to a traditional IRA for last year up to your tax return deadline, and deduct the amount on Form 1040 Line 32. However, because you have access to a retirement plan at work, your IRA contribution is only tax deductible if your income is below certain limits.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "73e7a4dc29818a2a59bc2eb19bcac989",
"text": "\"Model 3 passed all regulatory requirements for production two weeks ahead of schedule. Expecting to complete SN1 [Serial Number 1] on Friday, Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) CEO Elon Musk tweeted on Sunday. \"\"Handover party for first 30 customer Model 3's on the 28th! Production grows exponentially, so Aug should be 100 cars and Sept above 1500... Looks like we can reach 20,000 Model 3 cars per month in Dec.\"\" The car, which already has over 400,000 pre-orders, is Tesla's cheapest vehicle to date - starting at $35,000. TSLA +3% premarket\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
dfab1dff1a17e46782a9950d224a453f
|
Why is routing number called ABA/ABN number?
|
[
{
"docid": "db71fa8d0f72907d3345cfdd48549a9b",
"text": "The ABA number you speak of is more accurately called the Routing Transit Number. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Routing_transit_number A routing transit number (RTN) is a nine digit bank code, used in the United States, which appears on the bottom of negotiable instruments such as checks identifying the financial institution on which it was drawn. This code was designed to facilitate the sorting, bundling, and shipment of paper checks back to the drawer's (check writer's) account. The RTN is also used by Federal Reserve Banks to process Fedwire funds transfers, and by the Automated Clearing House to process direct deposits, bill payments, and other such automated transfers. The RTN number is derived from the bank's transit number originated by the American Bankers Association, which designed it in 1910.[1] I am going to assume that the euphemistic ABA Number has been shortened by whoever told you about it and called it the ABN. Perhaps American Bank Number. Either way, the technical term is RTN. Perhaps a comment or editor can straighten me out about the ABN. There is an international number known as the SWIFT number that serves the same purpose worldwide. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_9362 ISO 9362 (also known as SWIFT-BIC, BIC code, SWIFT ID or SWIFT code) defines a standard format of Business Identifier Codes approved by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). It is a unique identification code for both financial and non-financial institutions.[1] The acronym SWIFT stands for the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication. When assigned to a non-financial institution, the code may also be known as a Business Entity Identifier or BEI. These codes are used when transferring money between banks, particularly for international wire transfers, and also for the exchange of other messages between banks. The codes can sometimes be found on account statements.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3eedfd995588585b7ebb1205710f32f",
"text": "With number of Banks increasing every country at some point in time adopted an Identification code. In US these are called ABA number because they are allocated by American Bankers Association, in UK Sort Codes ... like wise for other countries. See list here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_code In some countries the numbers are given by Central Bank. To enable internationl payments, the SWIFT body apart from message formats, allocated a SWIFT BIC [Bank identification Code] so that Banks can be globally identified. Currently IBAN being adopted in Europe & Australia to identify an Account [at a Bank] Uniquely across globe. In essence these number help uniquely identify a Location/Bank/Branch. The clearing house route the payments or collection instruments to the correct Bank on the basis of this number.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "ee8811b2d81aab7d77767fffc1331f20",
"text": "Emergency funds, by the name it implies that they should be available on hand at a very short notice if needed. Conservation of principal (not withstanding inflation, but rather in absolute terms) is also a very important criteria of any kind of account that you will use to save the emergency fund. I would suggest the following breakup. The number in brackets signifies the amount of per month expenses that you can keep in that account. = total 6 months living expenses",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "18665dc5fa080e4469ed3808a1f01234",
"text": "Most transactions that the bank performs for you are electronic ACH transactions, so the costs to them are minimal in the long run. Most banks do it now to keep up with the competition. Almost every bank does it now, so they have to do it to attract new business and keep existing customers. Also, the more you rely on the bank and use them to pay bills, the more they learn about you over time and can use that data in overall marketing plans. It's easier for them to record it into their system if it is all electronic to begin with.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e9eec0415e239f7e4adcd09bd0376bc",
"text": "It's to legally allow you to buy/ sell securities on behalf of others and to give advice. Different tests allow different things. 66 is for the basics: stocks and bonds etc. I believe 31 is for insurance or something. I'm not too sure the specifics I'm probably wrong about which test is which though.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b4c0bb00fb1fc446618ca073a74febfd",
"text": "Basically speaking, Japanese bank accounts are identified by three numbers: The four digit Bank number. For example 0005 is Mitsubishi Tokyo UFJ Bank The three digit Branch number. For example 001 = Main branch for Mitsubishi. The account number. This is your account number. Your ATM Cash Card and passbook will have these numbers on it in the format XXXX-YYYY-ZZZZZZZZ. When you use an ATM to send money to someone else (like your landlord) you but in these three numbers or use the search feature instead for the first two. This works the same whether you are talking about Mitsubishi, Mizuho, etc. The only thing to note is that while real banks use locations for the branch number (i.e. Ueno branch, Marunouchi branch, etc.), online only banks like Sony Bank (MoneyKit), Rakuten Bank, SBi, etc. use fake locations like colors, etc. This doesn't matter much though. Japan Post bank is technically not a bank and uses a totally different numbering system, though recently they have come up with a strange formula to convert your JP Bank account number into a normal bank account number so you can send payments to it as shown above). All of this is basically for domestic transfers only, though. If you want to transfer money internationally, there are two basic ways: The official way. Go to your bank overseas, and give them the SWIFT code and account code for your bank (likely the branch code will be necessary as well). The problem here is that they will likely charge a high fee for sending the money, and your bank in Japan may also charge a high fee for receiving it! (In addition to any currency conversion fees). A second problem is that only the very major banks even have SWIFT codes. Use a money transfer service that can handle both Japan and your other country. For example, you can use 2 Paypal accounts (Only in the direction of From Japan To overseas, though!), or you can use something like MoneyBookers Either way IBAN is a European standard and isn't used in Japan. If you just want to spend some money in Japan, the most convenient way is probably a foreign visa debit card. Or, you can use a foreign ATM card in Japan to withdraw cash and then deposit it into your Japanese account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d5e5e9132730459384f7e230754c00f4",
"text": "\"this is purely psychological. most people are absolutely terrible at keeping track of their finances. to the point where they will use multiple separate accounts for different types of spending or savings goals. when the average person tells the banker they want an account for the money they are saving, they get handed a \"\"savings account\"\" and don't bother to question how it is different from a checking account.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "61b85cead5d73582e622371bb6e9a673",
"text": "It's safe. You give people those numbers every time you write a check. If a check is forged, and doesn't have your signature on it, the bank has to return the money to you; they get it back from the other bank, who takes whatever action it deems necessary against the forger. They've been doing this for a few hundred years, remember.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a603e76dd7cf5e499482b89caca47328",
"text": "First, they don't have an obligation to provide a service for a non-customer. In theory, the could even refuse this service to account holders if that was their business model, although in practice that would almost surely be too large of a turn-off to be commercially feasible. Non-account holders aren't paying fees or providing capital to the bank, so the bank really has no incentive or obligation to tie up tellers serving them. Maybe as importantly, they have a legitimate business reason in this case as stated. The fact that the bill passed whatever test the teller did does not, of course, ensure that the bill is real. They may (or may not) subject it to additional tests later that might be more conclusive. Making you have an account helps ensure that, in the event they do test it and it fails, that (a) they know who you are in case the Secret Service wants to find you, and (b) they can recover their losses by debiting your account by the $100. This isn't foolproof since any number of bad things could still happen (identity theft, closing account before they do additional tests, bill passing later tests, etc.), but it does give them some measure of protection.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "250776fdc7608cf2ad194f982553b759",
"text": "\"In Europe in most of the countries there is also a thing called ACH. In UK there is a thing called BACS and in other countires there are other things. Essentially every country has what is called a \"\"Low value Net Settlement System\"\" that is used to transfer funds between accounts of different banks. In US there is rounting number, in UK there is a Sort Code, in Indonesia there is a sort code. Essentially a Bank Identifier that is issued by the Governing body within respective countires. Certian identifiers like SWIFT BIC [Bank Identification Code] are Unique across world.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b80c35e9f45bc2e2b566652dd85fa4dd",
"text": "Typically 'current' means the account from which you do your day-to-day banking (also called 'checking') and 'savings' is an interest earning account, from which you might occasionally take money. However...you can actually attach these labels (for ATM purposes) to any account you want. They don't have to be your actual checking or savings accounts. I have 'current' attached to my personal account and 'savings' on the account I hold jointly with my wife. They are just labels you attach to different accounts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "91d1802b16c0cb4b7467d2137e0e4800",
"text": "Probably because large chains can absorb the loss from fraud better than small stores do. Thus, small stores want to ensure that the person holding the card is the same as the name on the card.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4547ba8882ca5083e07856480f94e0ec",
"text": "For the clearing house, only the routing number and the check amount [which gets encoded before its presented to clearing] is important. The check numbers were put in as a fraud prevention mechanism to ensure that one check was only presented once and that it was issued to a particular account. Typically issued in sequence. So as your account is new, the bank may have a mechanism to verify the checks [maybe based on amount and other info]. If your volume of check issuing increases, they may start putting in a check number to better track.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd0bb20077a932bc52f28e8f88679e29",
"text": "\"I'm not sure I understand your question, but I'll try to answer what I think you're asking. I think you're asking this: \"\"A US bank receives a wire transfer from a Chinese bank. How does the US bank ensure there's any money in fact arriving before crediting the destination account?\"\" Well, the way wire transfers work is that the US bank would debit the senders' account with that US bank. So the US bank in fact transfers the money between two internal accounts: debit to the Chinese bank's account with that US bank and credit the destination customer account. If the Chinese bank doesn't have an account with the destination US bank - a third party intermediary is used that both banks have accounts with. Such third party will charge an additional fee (hence sometimes the wire transfer fees are slightly higher than you initially know when sending the money, the third party would debit from the transfer amount). \"\"Regular\"\" IBAN/ACH transfers work through regulatory channels that ensure integrity and essentially use a regulatory bank as that third party. But because they're done in batches and not on-line, they're much cheaper, and the accounting is for the whole batch and not each transfer separately. But batch processing means it will take a day or two of processing, while wire transfer takes hours at most.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d6484df1dd699dba84e32c627210e21",
"text": "Another explanation is that they keep your money three days to make money with it, because they can. The other reasons might have been valid 100 years ago, and no bank would voluntarily cut that down until forced by law. Example: In Europe, bank to bank transfers used to take three days, until a law forced them to give next day, and suddenly it was possible.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ec98223bf7d147a121185b9f03fae31",
"text": "\"There's something wrong with your story. The IBAN contiains two check digits, and the method used to compute them guarantees that any single digit error will be caught. So it's impossible that \"\"HSBC screwed up the last digit of my IBAN\"\" because if that were the case, the resulting IBAN would not be valid and be rejected by the computer when it was entered at your bank.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5fa31bc1e67933188329a7f3d31e7b99",
"text": "Most bank accounts offer automatic bill pay as well. They don't rely on support from the bill you're paying, I think they basically just mail a check with your account number on it",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
569e16491eae3083f9bf8d7803b400e3
|
Effect of Job Change on In-Progress Mortgage Application
|
[
{
"docid": "ea175beccdb5817a985138b4c2c23c18",
"text": "Best advice is to ask your lender. That being said, if you are changing jobs, but keeping the same type of job you are usually ok and if the loan was approved before, it would still be approved. If you switch from W-2 to 1099 or vice-versa, permanent to contract, switch industries (software dev to accountant), or make less money there is a strong risk of the loan being declined.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b07c7636d56c874eee129e2b74e5253e",
"text": "I recommend you ask this question to a qualified mortgage broker. We just closed on our first house. My wife & I have had several years of stable jobs, good credit scores, and a small side business with 1040 Schedule-C income... and we were surprised by the overwhelming amount of documentation we needed for the loan. For example, we had 3 checks deposited to our bank account for $37.95. We had to provide copies of the checks, deposit slip and a letter explaining the deposit. One reason we might have had so much trouble: the mortgage broker we selected sold our loan to a very picky lender. On the plus side, we obtained a competitive rate with extremely low closing costs on a 30 year fixed mortgage. However, I can't imagine the headaches we would've incurred if one of us were changing jobs to 1099 income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ba1580c6771f6b4c05e53e0699b7fc3",
"text": "I just closed on a refi last week Thursday. The app went to the lender mid to late May. The lender called my employer for an employment verification on the Monday before closing. I would wait till after the loan funds to change jobs. FWIW, we signed on Thursday afternoon, escrow had to FedEx the originals to the lender on Friday, lender should have received it on Monday, we are still waiting to fund. I expect the loan to fund no later than tomorrow.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "cc17ea9c00357c6358a5b88c815d6641",
"text": "This is at the bottom of my list of concerns, as both an employee and an employee. When hiring, its because I have work that needs to be done. I want to get someone in as quickly as possible, so I really don't care about holidays. Holiday pay also doesn't come out of my budget, so that doesn't enter in the decision. As a employee, if I'm unemployed I want to start as soon as possible. If switching jobs, I'm going to get paid for the holiday at one job or another, so it really doesn't matter. The last time I changed employers, I started the second week of January. That was more driven by moving concerns than anything else.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4abf089392937ac6b206358fd01f1bd8",
"text": "Closing a credit card decreases your total available balance, which can have a small negative effect if that credit card is a significant portion of your available credit. If it is not, then it likely will have little impact on your credit in that department. However, the case you explained - get a card, use it for a short while, then dump it - won't have much long-term impact to your available credit, since you will end up with the same amount as you started. The second factor will be the average age of accounts. This will affect you both in the short and long term, if you've had accounts open for a fairly long time, but won't impact you much if your credit history is fairly short. Even closed accounts affect the Average Age of Accounts for FICO scores (but not for some other scoring methods such as VantageScore). If you have only one other account, and it was 10 years old, then opening and closing this decreases your average age of accounts from 10 to 5 years - a significant hit which will not go away for years (10+ years in some cases, though usually 7 years). This will lower your score some. If you have had a lot of accounts, though (including things like mortgage, student loan, etc.), this won't have as significant of an impact, and if you had a short history in the first place, it won't hurt you much either. The third factor will be the hard credit pull. That will have a small negative impact for around six months; so don't do this just before getting a mortgage, but mostly this won't be a significant impactor for you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "57fcf3bb238da6e515ecdbe2d1cad81b",
"text": "\"As a former consumer credit counselor, who worked with struggling homeowners and first time homebuyers I would argue that it is a mistake for lenders to rely on gross income and assumptions on what an applicant spends their income on. I think lenders do this because they believe it is efficient and may not understand the long term ramifications for the stakeholders, e.g. the borrower, the lender, the servicer, the investor, the broker, the taxpayer, the marshall, the foreclosure lawyers etc. Or lenders do know the impact of a superficial mortgage screening, and intentionally want to enrich themselves in the short term while harming other stakeholders in the long term. Developing a budget that reflects what a person can realistically spend on their mortgage takes much longer than signing up for a Rocket mortgage. I would say an hour minimum for the first appointment to get a baseline, and at least two follow up appointments to make adustments soon after or whenever a borrower's financial situation changes dramatically. Credit counselors factor in all of the factors mentioned above, i.e. take home pay, future pay vs current pay, the ability to adjust deductions, seasonal expenses, multiple sources of income and their frequency, debt load etc. Budgets are always fluctuating, but when it is done right by a qualified professional the result is a much more accurate financial picture. The consequences for not doing this type of old-school due diligence, or for willfully choosing to skip it, are varied. First off, mortgages will be given to homeowners who should never have qualified in the first place, and likewise denied to homeowners who should qualify. This will result in market distortion and this distortion was a primary contributor to the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis and the wave of foreclosures that came with it. Another consequence is the stripping of wealth from minority communities since they are often targeted by the most unscrupulous of lenders. Additionally, the securitization of mortgages based on poor diligence at the loan officer level means loan portfolio ratings are questionable, investors will lose money, and small banks who are heavily invested will fail as they did in the past. Depending on the federal enforcement of Dodd Frank Act, the taxpayers may or may not have to pick up the bill from a bailout of a big mortgage bank that was \"\"too big to fail,\"\" via higher taxes, lost jobs, lost homes, and other negative externalities that were not accounted for by the loan officer, or willfully ignored. Lastly, borrowers also have a responsibility to provide accurate financial information, which they don't always do. Unfortunately, in a capitalistic society where property is commoditized instead of communal, there is always mistrust, competition, the fear that you will be left behind, or the desire to get ahead. This could incentivize cheating by either the, borrower, the broker/lender, or both in this example e.g. no-doc negative amatorizing loans. This is just one of many other negative externalities. So the only true fix would be a switch to communal land ownership. In the interim, I would push for universal borrower access to low cost consumer credit counselors and a change in loan officer training and incentive structure.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe71733a101a6794a0f35456fd068aa7",
"text": "My possible new job requires me to do dfast and ccar among others. A few questions 1) My background is public accounting and tax. I noted that these jobs requires experience from public firms. My past experience has nothing to do with banking. Any reasons? I have been reading up dfast in the past week and it seems they trust me to pick up fast. Another job ad from another bank indicates the same thing. 2) What type of job this is under? I tried risk analyst but quite a lot of times the results are quite different from what my job is. 3) What is the job outlook? My eventual plan is to a more data analyst role and/or job opportunities in EU. Currently in EA/SEA market. 4) Any programming language should I learn to speed up data extraction? I will be learning either python/r. And will surface 3 do? My current laptop is not working and the repair shop indicates the costs of repairing doesnt worth it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f63a2ebb0d599a7f156513c061b8228",
"text": "\"(I'm a bit surprised that nobody talked about the impact of multiple inquiries on a loan, since OP is concerned with credit building. Probably an answer as opposed to a comment is justified.) Yes. In fact when you shop for auto loan you are expected to have your credit score/report be pulled by different banks, credit unions, and/or the financing arm of the car manufacturer or the dealership, so that you can hopefully get the best rate possible. This is especially true if the dealer is requesting quotes on rates on your behalf, as they would probably use a batch process to send out applications to multiple financial institutions all at once. Yes, and a bit unusual - CALVERT TOYO (your dealer) pulled your report twice on the same day. Presumably they are not getting any new information on the second pull. Maybe a fat finger? Regardless, you should not worry about this too much (to be explained below). I would say \"\"don't bother\"\". The idea behind hard inquiries lowering credit score is that lenders see the number of hard inquiries as your desire for credit. Too high a number is often viewed as either \"\"desperate for credit\"\" or \"\"unable to qualify for credit\"\". But as explained above, it is very common for a person to request quotes for multiple financial institutions and thus to have multiple hard inquiries in a short period of time when shopping for loans. To account for that, the credit bureau's model would usually combine hard inquiries for a same type of loan (auto, mortgage, etc.) within 30 days. Hence a person sending quote request to 3 banks won't be rated higher for credit than if he were to request quotes from 5 banks. Therefore in your case your credit profile is not going to be different if you had been pulled just once. my credit score goes down for 15 points I'm assuming you are talking about the credit score provided by Credit Karma. The score CK provided is FAKO. The score lenders care about is FICO. They are well correlated but still different. Google these two terms and you should be able to figure out the difference quickly. You can also refer to my answer to a different question here: Equifax credit score discrepancy in 1 month, why?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd2b94114db1b8e58383c08c3f403b16",
"text": "Lenders want to judge the stability of the stated income. Because your are new to being self-employed they are concerned about your viability. It may be possible to find another lender who will consider a shorter term of business, but it looks like the lender wants 24 months of business. You should start with your current bank/credit Union, and if they say no ask what more info you need to provide.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0b4158af5e9614d1df98e6d6988ea694",
"text": "You mention that you would quit right after getting approved. But in the United States there would be one last check as a part of closing. Therefore it would be best to wait until after closing to quit your job. Waiting until after closing would also protect you from some hiccup that causes a delay in closing, thus requiring the need to reapply for the loan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7a973884516a9b20614aa458246f2d06",
"text": "No, it will have no negative impact on getting a mortgage. You are building up a history with regular payments and are not carrying a balance on the card each month. Your ability to get a mortgage will ultimately be based on other things. Money Saving Expert has a good guide on what will affect your credit score. A further discussion on the topic that backs up that what a mortgage company is interested in is affordability and a stable history. They really don't care about utilisation ratios. (Though might be spooked by almost maxed out cards - sign of poor spending control, or large unused limits - too easy to go into bad debt.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c02c01c6ca9bab6e0eeb104dac733e3e",
"text": "\"This article on the landlord website Property118.com shows a simple example, demonstrating that a private landlord with a mortgage could see a huge jump in their effective tax rate (in this case, from 18% to 67% by 2020), while a corporate landlord will see no change at all. There's also a link in that article to a detailed report which is highly critical of the tax changes. The government obviously take a different view! (See here for more worked examples of how the tax changes will be applied). More information can be found on this on various landlord sites. A key phrase to look for is \"\"section 24\"\", referring to the section of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2015 which implements the change. Note that this change only applies to private landlords (i.e. those who own a property personally, rather than through a company), and who have a mortgage on the property, and who (after the new calculations) are higher or additional rate taxpayers.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7060958d04aeaa00434f7d5a0d442542",
"text": "Would it be worth legitimizing his business or is it too late at this point? To be blunt, you're asking if we recommend that he stop breaking the law. The answer is obviously yes, he should be declaring his income. And it would probably benefit him to get on the same page as his employer (or client) so they can both start obeying the law together. Once he's filed a tax return for 2016 that would certainly help his cause as far as a lender is concerned, and as soon as he can provide some recent pay stubs (or paid invoices) he should be ready to move forward on the mortgage based on that additional income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a99ef0c8cc1d1302d5e75e47d44c9610",
"text": "In some cases, especially but not only for subprime loans, they are actually testing whether you will lie to them. (Discovered this when working on a loan origination applicatíon for car dealers -- they explicitly did not want us to autocomplete some values because that might remind applicants that answers would be checked.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b3acc09fce33e69930d2bf14ced64bb7",
"text": "If I recall correctly, the pay schedule is such that you initially pay mostly interest. As James Roth suggests, look at the terms of the loan, specifically the payment schedule. It should detail how much is being applied to interest and how much to the actual balance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e511afc8eba41870dd7e88e079f1499a",
"text": "The most likely reason for this is that the relocation company wants to have a guaranteed sale so as to get a new mortgage in the new location. Understand that the relocation company generally works for a prospective employer. So they are trying to make the process as painless as possible for the homeowner (who is probably getting hired as a professional, either a manager or someone like an engineer or accountant). If the sale is guaranteed to go through regardless of any problems, then it is easy for them to arrange a new mortgage. In fact, they may bridge the gap by securing the initial financing and making the downpayment, then use the payout from the house you are buying to buy out their position. That puts them on the hook for a bunch of money (a downpayment on a house) while they're waiting on the house you're purchasing to close. This does not necessarily mean that there is anything wrong with the house. The relocation company would only know about something wrong if the owner had disclosed it. They don't really care about the house they're selling. Their job is to make the transition easy. With a relocation company, it is more likely that they are simply in a hurry and want to avoid a busted purchase. If this sale fails to go through for any reason, they have to start over. That could make the employment change fall through. This is a variation of a no contingencies sale. Sellers like no contingencies sales because they are easier. Buyers dislike them because their protections are weaker. But some buyers will offer them because they get better prices that way. In particular, house flippers will do this frequently so as to get the house for less money than they might otherwise pay. This is better than a pure no contingencies sale, as they are agreeing to the repairs. This is a reasonable excuse to not proceed with the transaction. If this makes you so uncomfortable that you'd rather continue looking, that's fine. However, it also gives you a bit of leverage, as it means that they are motivated to close this transaction quickly. You can consider any of the following: Or you can do some combination of those or something else entirely that makes you fell more secure. If you do decide to move forward with any version of this provision, get a real estate lawyer to draft the agreement. Also, insist on disclosure of any previous failed sales and the reason for the failure before signing the agreement. The lawyer can make that request in such a way as to get a truthful response. And again, in case you missed it when I said this earlier. You can say no and simply refuse to move forward with such a provision. You may not get the house, but you'll save a certain amount of worry. If you do move forward, you should be sure that you are getting a good deal. They're asking for special provisions; they should bear the cost of that. Either your current deal is already good (and it may be) or you should make them adjust until it is.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "acd54039a93a99e6a45bd56d41b1e0a7",
"text": "\"tl;dr: Your best course of action is probably to do a soft pull (check your own credit) and provide that to the lender for an unofficial pre-approval to get the ball rolling. The long of it: The loan officer is mostly correct, and I have recent personal evidence that corroborates that. A few months ago I looked into refinancing a mortgage on a rental property, and I allowed 3 different lenders to do a hard inquiry within 1 week of each other. I saw all 3 inquires appear on reports from each of the 3 credit bureaus (EQ/TU/EX), but it was only counted as a single inquiry in my score factors. But as you have suggested, this breaks down when you know that you won't be purchasing right away, because then you will have multiple hard inquiries at least a few months apart which could possibly have a (minor) negative impact on your score. However minor it is, you might as well try to avoid it if you can. I have played around with the simulator on myfico.com, and have found inquiries to have the following effect on your credit score using the FICO Score 8 model: With one inquiry, your scores will adjust as such: Two inquiries: Three inquiries: Here's a helpful quote from the simulator notes: \"\"Credit inquiries remain on your credit report for 2 years, but FICO Scores only consider credit inquiries from the past 12 months.\"\" Of course, take that with a grain of salt, as myfico provides the following disclaimer: The Simulator is provided for informational purposes only and should not be expected to provide accurate predictions in all situations. Consequently, we make no promise or guarantee with regard to the Simulator. Having said all that, in your situation, if you know with certainty that you will not be purchasing right away, then I would recommend doing a soft pull to get your scores now (check your credit yourself), and see if the lender will use those numbers to estimate your pre-approval. One possible downside of this is the lender may not be able to give you an official pre-approval letter based on your soft pull. I wouldn't worry too much about that though since if you are suddenly ready to purchase you could just tell them to go ahead with the hard pull so they can furnish an official pre-approval letter. Interesting Side Note: Last month I applied for a new mortgage and my score was about 40 points lower than it was 3 months ago. At first I thought this was due to my recent refinancing of property and the credit inquiries that came along with it, but then I noticed that one of my business credit cards had recently accrued a high balance. It just so happens that this particular business CC reports to my personal credit report (most likely in error but I never bothered to do anything about it). I immediately paid that CC off in full, and checked my credit 20 days later after it had reported, and my score shot back up by over 30 points. I called my lender and instructed them to re-pull my credit (hard inquiry), which they did, and this pushed me back up into the best mortgage rate category. Yes, I purposely requested another hard pull, but it shouldn't affect my score since it was within 45 days, and that maneuver will save me thousands in the long run.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8defaaaef4e57a5dca811246a42fc530",
"text": "That metric is not very useful for anything other than very extremely long trading periods. Most strategies or concerned with price movement over much shorter time frames, 15 mins, 1 hr, 4 hr, daily, weekly, monthly. The MA or moving average is a trend following lagging indicator used to smooth out price fluctuations and more accurately reflect the price of trading instrument such as a stock (AAPL), commodity, or currency pair. Traders are generally concerned with current market trends and price action of the instrument they are trading. As such, an extremely long MA (average daily price, over a period of 365 days) are generally not that important.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
dd84c678d706be9f3baf2bc7efddb00e
|
Why so much noise about USA's credit rating being lowered?
|
[
{
"docid": "f0be4c290617e9cebd4b30f64ba5183f",
"text": "Because US bonds have had the prior impression of absolute invincibility and safety that has helped the dollar become the world's reserve currency and the United States borrow essentially at will. For the people that care what S&P says, the aura of invincibility is broken and it is conceivable, in SOME universe, for the US to default on its debt. This is of little practical importance on its own, but it's yet another signpost on the road to Chinese or European economic hegemony.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "62fce22d874701280896565f7ce28c74",
"text": "\"Pension- and many \"\"low-risk\"\" investment funds may only invest in AAA-rated stocks and bonds. While the S&P rating alone doesn't imply that such funds must immediately disinvest in US bonds (Fitch and Moody's are holding), it does create the risk that the other rating agencies will follow suite and also lower the US rating. As the largest issuer of bonds, controller of the world's reserve currency, and with many emerging markets placing almost all their current account surpluses in US bonds, this risk change has implications everywhere. Some companies will already start disinvestment while some investors will start demanding higher interest returns in order to buy US bonds. It isn't yet a stampede, but the gates are now open. That said, S&P is simply reflecting the opinions of bond traders. Markets were already unstable long before the downrating. However, from the US perspective, it is a timely reminder to politicians that the global balance is shifting and that the US cannot count on incumbency to protect it from the disapproval of financial analysts.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e9dab648c073d7d951d574e279b4de7",
"text": "Dollar is the lingua franca of the financial industry and unluckily it is the US currency. It is till today considered the most safest investment bet, that is why you have China possesing $3 trillion of US debt, as an investment albiet a very safe one. Financial investors get in queue to by US bonds the moment they are put up for sale. Because of the AAA rating the investors consider it to be safe at a specific rate. Now when you lower the credit rating you are indirectly asking the US government that you want a higher return(yield) on your investments. When you ask for higher yields, it translates into higher interest rates (money US would get for bonds issued decreases and so more bonds are issued). So you basically start looking at a slowdown in consumer spendings households and businesses. With already defaults, repossesions and lesser spending, the slowdown would increase manifold.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1527d960ca0ae909169234ac934632c1",
"text": "The credit scale is deceptive, it goes: AAA, AA, A, BBB, BBB-, BB+, BB, B, CCC, CC, C, D. In reality it should be A,B,C,D,E, F, G,H, I, etc. The current scale does not reflect with clarity the ranking of risks and ratings. AA is much worse than AAA, but the uncertainty involved can be scary. Check out these corporate and sovereign debt credit ratings.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "41545ca0fa6ba9f24a5671dfa997581d",
"text": "\"Because the USA is the world's biggest economy - everybody in the world works with the USA (even if the american companies are not direct suppliers, they are surely somewhere in the supply chain). If USA credit rating is lower, that means american companies will find it harder to get loans to finance their business (i.e. the price of capital will be higher), and this will consequently lead to higher prices for partners of american companies, etc. This will certainly lead to slowdown of global economy. Plus, the lower credit rating also means that the USA govt. is less likely to pay off the debts (Chinese already stated they will diversify their bonds portfolio -i.e. they will start selling out american govt. bonds). This will lead to cuts in public sector in USA, less spending by the consumers, also probably less import from abroad and less travel which will affect - you get it - the \"\"RoW\"\". It's not by chance we have a saying in Europe, when USA sneezes, the rest of the world catches a flu!\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c415f4a427b7a961daed56c38c5641f7",
"text": "Oh ok I see what you are getting at with the misdirection angle. I was wondering if there was a deeper meaning. Like making it more expensive for other nation to borrow money would help in some way for the US to unload it’s garbage?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c1ec558b13fb76754d0fdaf49b981640",
"text": "Reaching the debt ceiling is an admission that the US can't pay its bills as they come due. Credit rating agencies could cut the US's debt rating, making acquisition of new debt much more difficult. Creditors could file for involuntary bankruptcy, forcing the government to pay back the debt - which, to be clear, it simply is incapable of doing in any kind of reasonable timeframe. The loss of confidence in the US's ability to pay its debts... Given how the US is such a financial and economic center of the world (partially by design, partially by happenstance), it would probably be disastrous worldwide.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1cfd2a73d15108f80c99e0fac73fa980",
"text": "Also, interest rates and credit risk directly corelate to Greece's ability to service the debt. Japan could be at 400% and Greece 50%, but if they can't make payments or have credit good enought to refi the debt, that's when they will default. Meanwhile, the fact that they are risky drives up rates further and makes it even harder to make payments. It's called the death spiral. Japan has low rates, solid GDP and good credit = non-issue.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d0a6244ee92298c6ccc80895748690c",
"text": "Lowering of the US credit rating would affect all US bonds. Some institutional investments are required to invest in securities with a certain credit rating (i.e. money markets and some low risk mutual funds). If the credit rating is lowered these institutions would be required to dump their US bond holdings. This could have a serious affect on bond prices. The lower bond prices would drive up yields. If the US credit rating was lowered after you purchased TIPS then the price you could sell your TIPS for would most probably be lower then what you bought them. You would lose money. All US bonds, including TIPS, would be affected by a lower credit rating since the credit rating is suppose to indicate the borrower's ability to repay the debt. This is independent of inflation. TIPS provide no additional benefit over regular bonds in regard to credit rating.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f441e55e66ed879cef39d6545bc24285",
"text": "Don't know why you're getting downvoted, wouldn't be worried about a credit crisis until we get bad jobs numbers, so far they've been pretty fucking good. On top of it interest rates are at historic lows. Maybe in the future but not now",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22bbe56378aea4fba20cd691be1adc8a",
"text": "Because it's barely reported and when it is most people don't understand some of the fundamental principles of finance to grasp the implications of it all. It's not their fault really. You can blame a man for a lack of wanting to be educated or no concern for intellectual curiosity but you can't for just being plainly uneducated.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "49298734e5683df12355c7dbccf30bb4",
"text": "\"The default scenario that we're talking about in the Summer of 2011 is a discretionary situation where the government refuses to borrow money over a certain level and thus becomes insolvent. That's an important distinction, because the US has the best credit in the world and still carries enormous borrowing power -- so much so that the massive increases in borrowing over the last decade of war and malaise have not affected the nation's ability to borrow additional money. From a personal finance point of view, my guess is that after the \"\"drop dead date\"\" disclosed by the Treasury, you'd have a period of chaos and increasing liquidity issues after government runs out of gimmicks like \"\"borrowing\"\" from various internal accounts and \"\"selling\"\" assets to government authorities. I don't think the markets believe that the Democrats and Republicans are really willing to destroy the country. If they are, the market doesn't like surprises.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c70a614589354717b2fe6d2c6f2c6b2f",
"text": "^This. As we can see with the pending $125b bail-out that Europe will provide. Imagine, if India was in the place of the Spanish? Who would conjure up such a bail-out for them? As said by 23_47 earlier, the credit rating is a measure of risk. A country backed by a 17-country alliance (Eurozone) is less risky to invest in than a country without such support.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "53a4702afa7b5c8d2feab0fd72d0caa6",
"text": "\"This is known as an inverted yield curve. It is rare, and can be caused by a few things, as discussed at the link. It can be because the view is that the economy will slow and therefore interest rates will go down. It is not caused by \"\"secret\"\" preparation. It could also be that there is generally in the world a move towards safer investments, making their interest rates cheaper. If I had to guess (and this guess is worth what you paid for it) it is because Australia's interest rate is significantly greater than other parts of the world, long term lower risk investment is being attracted there, as it gets a better return than elsewhere. This is pushing rates lower on long term bonds. So I would not take it as an indication of a soon-to-be economic downturn simply because in this global economy Australia is different in ways that influence investment and move interest rates.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3183eaf434c9e5a766a8bacab88329e0",
"text": "In principle, a default will have no effect on your bank account. But if the US's credit rating is downgraded, the knock-on effects might cause some more bank failures, and if the debt ceiling is still in place then the FDIC insurance might not be able to pay out immediately.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3bfca67c5764c321162f28e2f725a737",
"text": "The picture talks is about assets on the Fed's balance sheet, which is very different than US government debt. Nor is there anything in the picture about corporate bottom lines, just US equities. The implication of the picture is that the Fed's QE program is propping up US equity prices, and it is not a comment on the US debt or corporate earnings. You're reading things that simply aren't there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "527ed0927a72d065546cc9c9b44eb994",
"text": "Should voters care? What is the scenario in which this debt actually becomes a problem? It seems to me that the money from this debt is largely going into the pockets of US Citizens, so less debt would mean less prosperity for Americans. What are the arguments against this assumption?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c93087d0f9e0211ac98e62b04d7fb3e5",
"text": "\"The sad part about this, IMHO, is that almost all of this new debt is \"\"bad debt\"\". Meaning it hasn't really gone into productive endeavors. Just stock buy-backs and such. So it has had minimal positive effects but is likely to be a drag on future growth for decades.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1a5a111977188a198987902819134621",
"text": "So nothing preventing false ratings besides additional scrutiny from the market/investors, but there are some newer controls in place to prevent institutions from using them. Under the DFA banks can no longer solely rely on credit ratings as due diligence to buy a financial instrument, so that's a plus. The intent being that if financial institutions do their own leg work then *maybe* they'll figure out that a certain CDO is garbage or not. Edit: lead in",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b694223af98a9fc679eef5620ab4827d",
"text": "And I was being facetious, apologies. I think your assertion that the > entire crux of the story was that credit ratings agencies weren't transparent is a massive simplification of what happened. There are many great analyses of the crisis, and most of them come to the conclusion that 'it was a perfect storm' of different factors. I gather you think the problem was regulatory, I think the problem is systemic. To me it doesn't matter how the regulations are written what matters are the incentives. I see no evidence that the regulatory agencies in the US can effectively police, let alone effectively deter financial institutions from skirting the laws. In fact I think wall street runs on such a haystack of grey-area regulations that without wholesale, root and branch reform (e.g. antitrust laws similar to Standard Oil to be used on the big banks) there's no hope that any patchwork of regulations, well-intentioned as they may be, from making a difference. CDOs are a great example of what to avoid.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
0bdf59843f3fe921677bbca060c51fa0
|
Buying a building with two flats, can I rent one out and still get a residential mortgage?
|
[
{
"docid": "13e534a38f08621aef55efbc3f071620",
"text": "It depends on the terms of the mortgage. Generally speaking, residential mortgages specifically prohibit letting out a property without the bank's express permission -- but as you say, that tends to assume that the whole property is being let, not just a part of it. Conversely, buy-to-let mortgages generally prohibit living in the property yourself! The final arbiter as to what is allowed under a mortgage is the mortgage provider; so the safest option is to speak to one or more banks, and see what they say. (Note that if you're changing the use of part of a property from business to residential, you may need to apply for permission; check with your local council.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b7978e0382f7ec74eeb2ff9356352751",
"text": "I'd talk to a solicitor and see if you can structure the purchase in a way that breaks the property into three pieces. One would be the freehold of the whole building, one would be a long lease on the downstairs part (on which you would get a residential mortgage) and one would be a long lease on the upstairs flat (on which you would get a buy-to-let mortgage). Since there's essentially no price premium for freehold as opposed to long lease, you should be able to raise enough money from the two mortgages to fund the purchase.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "24d27d57f0294cef060793e5d19c2702",
"text": "NO Even worse, most BTL(buy to let) lenders will not lend if you are going to be living in the property. There are very few lenders that will touch something like this. It is likely you will also need to use bridging for the time the building work takes at something like 1.5% per month! Try posting the question to http://www.propertytribes.com/ as there are a few UK mortgage experts on that site.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "669d187e2d8ad7563511763431a511af",
"text": "The simple answer is to get a residential mortgage first, and once you have secured the loan, do whatever you want. The bank only cares about what risk they are taking on the day of closing and won't care afterwards so long as you pay the mortgage on time. Residential mortgages are going to give you better rates than rentals, generally.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6278cee56a5973aae9cec2d8328fb568",
"text": "\"Generally, when you own something - you can give it as a collateral for a secured loan. That's how car loans work and that's how mortgages work. Your \"\"equity\"\" in the asset is the current fair value of the asset minus all your obligations secured by it. So if you own a property free and clear, you have 100% of its fair market value as your equity. When you mortgage your property, banks will usually use some percentage loan-to-value to ensure they're not giving you more than your equity now or in a foreseeable future. Depending on the type and length of the loan, the LTV percentage varies between 65% and 95%. Before the market crash in 2008 you could even get more than 100% LTV, but not anymore. For investment the LTV will typically be lower than for primary residence, and the rates higher. I don't want to confuse you with down-payments and deposits as it doesn't matter (unless you're in Australia, apparently). So, as an example, assume you have an apartment you rent out, which you own free and clear. Lets assume its current FMV is $100K. You go to a bank and mortgage the apartment for a loan (get a loan secured by that apartment) at 65% LTV (typical for condos for investment). You got yourself $65K to buy another unit free and clear. You now have 2 apartments with FMV $165K, your equity $100K and your liability $65K. Mortgaging the new unit at the same 65% LTV will yield you another $42K loan - you may buy a third unit with this money. Your equity remains constant when you take the loan and invest it in the new purchase, but the FMV of your assets grows, as does the liability secured by them. But while the mortgage has fixed interest rate (usually, not always), the assets appreciate at different rates. Now, lets be optimistic and assume, for the sake of simplicity of the example, that in 2 years, your $100K condo is worth $200K. Voila, you can take another $65K loan on it. The cycle goes on. That's how your grandfather did it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "352c25ab4c52da36ab4f18847e5dac52",
"text": "\"It doesn't make a lot of sense to buy a house/condo and rent it out now. On the other hand, I think finishing your basement and then renting it out is an excellent idea. The ROR is excellent as long as you can deal with the \"\"strangers\"\" in the basement, have the extra driveway space and negative association with renting out your basement. HTH\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "78073fba775581c025e7fb35c48e3db3",
"text": "I don't know enough about taxes and real-state in the Netherlands to be super helpful in determining whether or not a rental property is a good investment. One thing for certain is that there's some risk in spending everything on a rental property. It's wise to have some buffer, an emergency fund of 3-6 months expenses. If things got dire, you'd still need to live somewhere until your tenant was gone, and you'd want to be able to handle any major repairs that crop up. So, even if it is a good idea to buy a rental property, you should probably wait until doing so doesn't leave you without a healthy buffer. As for owning a rental, you described a scenario where you'd get 6% income on your investment each year if there were zero expenses associated with owning the property. Are there property taxes? Is there a monthly cost to maintain the building the apartment is in? Are rental incomes taxed more heavily than other investment income? Just be aware of the full financial picture before deciding if it's a worthwhile investment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "84884f32ad061129295dd2d49b720dd1",
"text": "In my experience buy-to-let mortgages charge a higher rate of interest than an personal residential mortgage. They are regarded as a business enterprise and presumably the banks calculate that they carry a higher risk. A bank would probably take action if the property on an ordinary mortgage was rented out, as you would be breaking their terms. Policies could be rendered void. The terms on an ordinary mortgage disallow renting out the property.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a8f1abce7f1bb4e2585da25dee8fb6b",
"text": "You should absolutely go for it, and I encourage you to look for multi-unit (up to 4) properties if there are any in your area. With nulti-unit properties it is far more common than not that the other units pay the mortgage. To comment on your point about slowly building an asset if the renter covers the payment; that's true, but you're also missing the fact that you get to write off the interest on your income taxes, that's another great benefit. If you intend to make a habit out of being a landlord, I highly encourage you to use a property management company. Most charge less than 10% and will handle all of the tough stuff for you, like: fielding sob stories from tenants, evicting tenants, finding new tenants, checking to make sure the property is maintained... It's worth it. There fees are also tax-deductible... It makes a boat load of sense. Just look at the world around you. How many wealthy people rent??? I've met one, but they own investment properties though...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "95eb20ad4d8b177f6dcec3183a702b99",
"text": "There's nothing wrong with it. Living in a two-family house and renting the downstairs was a fairly standard path to the middle class and home ownership in the 20th century. Basically, if market conditions are good, you'll have someone else paying your mortgage. The disadvantage of the situation is that you're a landlord. So you have to deal with your tenant, who is also a neighbor. Most tenants are fine, but the occasional difficult person may come out of the woodwork. That model of achieving home ownership became less popular in the late 60's-early 70's when the law allowed two incomes to be used for mortgage underwriting. Also, as suburbanization became a national trend, absentee landlords became more common Sounds like you are in the right place at the right time, and have stumbled into a good deal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4bf65001c063594bdc70a9d5a0562c5b",
"text": "\"that would deprive me of the rental income from the property. Yes, but you'd gain by not paying the interest on your other mortgage. So your net loss (or gain) is the rental income minus the interest you're paying on your home. From a cash flow perspective, you'd gain the difference between the rental income and your total payment. Any excess proceeds from selling the flat and paying off the mortgage could be saved and use later to buy another rental for \"\"retirement income\"\". Or just invest in a retirement account and leave it alone. Selling the flat also gets rid of any extra time spent managing the property. If you keep the flat, you'll need a mortgage of 105K to 150K plus closing costs depending on the cost of the house you buy, so your mortgage payment will increase by 25%-100%. My fist choice would be to sell the flat and buy your new house debt-free (or with a very small mortgage). You're only making 6% on it, and your mortgage payment is going to be higher since you'll need to borrow about 160k if you want to keep the flat and buy a $450K house, so you're no longer cash-flow neutral. Then start saving like mad for a different rental property, or in non-real estate retirement investments.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "04bc38af33a77e553afb790380e0d30b",
"text": "You seem to underestimate the risk of this deal for the inverstors. A person purchasing a residence is happy to pay $70K instead of $150K now, and the only risk they take is that the construction company fails to build the condo. Whatever happens on the estate market in two years, they still saved the price difference between the price of complete apartments and to-be-build apartments (which by the way may be less than $150K-$70K, since that $150K is the price on a hot market in two years). However, an investor aiming to earn money counts on that the property will actually cost $150K in two years, so he's additionally taking the risk that the estate market may drop. Should that happen, their return on investment will be considerably lower, and it's entirely possible they will make a loss instead of a profit. At this point, this becomes yet another high risk investment option, like financing a startup.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f730beb1a1976bc6e03c56f50c55361",
"text": "It depends what rate mortgage you can get for any extra loans... If you remortgage you are likely to get a rate of 3.5-4%... depending who you go with. With deposit accounts in the UK maying around 1% (yes, you can get more by tying it up for longer but not a huge amount more) clearly you're better off not having a mortgage rather than money in the bank. Does your 8k income allow for tax? If it does, you are getting 6% return on the money tied up in the flat. If you are getting 6% after tax on the invested money, that's way better than you would get on any left over cash paid into an investment. Borrowing money on a mortgage would cost you less than 6%... so you are better off borrowing rather than selling the flat. If you are getting 6% before tax... depending on your tax rate... it probably makes very little difference. You'd need to work out how much an extra 80k mortgage would cost you, how much the 50k on deposit would earn you and how much you make after tax. There is a different route. Set up a mortgage on the rental flat. You can claim the interest payment off the flat's income... reduce your tax bill so the effective mortgage rate on the flat would be less than what you could get with a mortgage on the new house. Use the money from the flat's mortgage to finance the difference in house price. In fact from a tax view, you may be better off having a mortgage free house and maxing out the mortgage on the flat so you can write off as much as possible against your tax bill. All of the above assume ... that the flat is rented all the time. The odd dry spell on the flat could influence the sums a lot. All of the above assume that your cash flow works whichever route you choose. As no-one on stack exchange has all of the numbers for your specific circumstances it may be worth talking to a tax accountant. They could advise you properly, knowing the numbers, which makes the best sense for you in terms of overall cost, cash flow, risk and so on.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "948379606960b55844f32a5e29b472d4",
"text": "\"Do you want to split expenses of the new apartment, or split your income/assets equally too (as for instance with a marriage where no sort of \"\"yours, mine, and ours\"\" are split out)? I'm going to assume you have beliefs similar to me in my answer, in that you desire to split expenses of the new place but don't suddenly want to split all of your assets and income 50/50 too. So here's how I'd approach this. I am somewhat unsure of what you mean by \"\"living expenses\"\" for your flat. Does this mean the cost of ownership per month - what it takes to not get rid of the place - and no portion of this is interest/mortgage? To make the calculations a little simpler, I'll assume that all the money you pay out as expenses is just gone - none of it remains as equity or is dis-proportionally accumulating value in some other such way. So, you move in with your girlfriend. The cost for her place - the place itself, taxes, utilities, whatever - is 7892 per month. So since you are both getting equal use of the place, you would split this into 3946 per month for each of you. That's it. Well, I don't see how that really matters at all, anymore than if you owned a company or stocks and bonds. If you rent it out for less per month than it costs you, I don't see why your girlfriend should take any part of the loss. Conversely if you make more money per month than it costs you, that is your investment profit - the payment you get for owning the apartment and dealing with renting it out. Now if your girlfriend is going to partner with you in handling renting out the apartment you own and you want to look at this as an investment partnership, then you should pay all expenses out of the income first and then you can split the profit if you really want. One question to ask would be, what if you just sold your apartment completely? Would you give your girlfriend have the money from the sale? If not then I don't see why you would split the investment profit from holding on to the place. While this is what I recommend and would feel comfortable with personally and if the situation was reversed (and it was my girlfriend that owned a place and was moving in with me), ultimately this is about your personal values, beliefs, and relationship. You are very wise to seek something that both of you will find fair, and so you should discuss a proposed arrangement with your girlfriend and see if you are on the same page. If you are both fine with the agreement and feel OK with it, then great - none of us have to like or agree with it, because we aren't a part of your relationship. Psychologically and financially this situation seems the most reasonable to me, but YMMV. After some more thought and from comments, I realize that it's probably best to explore a few possibilities numerically. So I'll run a few sets of numbers which may help pick which one is right for your relationship. This is approximately the same as paying her \"\"rent\"\" for getting to live with her. You pay her for sharing her place, splitting the expense: 3946 paid to you. She pays the other 3946 for her place. Financially it's like being room-mates. You can do whatever you want with your place - rent or sell, hold on to it for security, etc. This deal makes your girlfriend financially better off by 3946. The financial advantage to you is wholly dependent on what you do with your place. This option would give you each the most financial independence, which is why I like it - but you might be keen on being more interdependent. Which leads us to the next option. Here you behave as before in splitting her expenses, but you include renting out your place as part of the deal. Let's say you get 10k a month for it. You pay the expenses on that place from the rent, then you have 2108 left as 'profit'. You split the profits monthly 1054 to each of you. There's a bit of problem here, though - what happens when the place is vacant? Do you share the full expense of the rent, so she'd actually be paying you each month while it sits open? What about repairs, taxes (costs and credits), etc? I would recommend instead what you do, if you go this way, to account for the apartment as an investment and don't pay out ANY of the profits right away. All rents stay in their own account, and you pay expenses from that same account. For you both it's like it doesn't exist, accept it is a nice earning asset. When you decide it has accumulated more than enough to pay for itself and has enough money to cover vacancy, repairs, etc, then when you pull out money for the duration you are together you just pay it out to both of you equally. You might also pull this \"\"equity\"\" out and spend it on something for both of you, like a nice vacation, etc - something you both enjoy, so you are still sharing the profits. I don't object to this, and it could be a nice arrangement. I would only note that this makes you have a personal relationship, you live together as roommates, and now you are co-landlords/business partners. That's a lot of types of relationships, and I can tell you from personal experience each type has it's own stresses - and this sort of stress can stack (or if you don't handle it well, multiply). So just make sure you are both clear what sort of responsibility you are really both signing up for up front, and what you'd do if you part. Combine your apartment expenses, which would equal 14753, so that's 7376 cost to each of you a month. If you rent your place then whatever money you get you split, and whatever costs come up (repairs, cleaning, etc) you would also split. So if you get an average of 10000 a month for the apartment you each are paying living expenses of 2376 total. But notice that this isn't exactly equal, either. You will pay 5516 less per month than you are now, and she will pay 4485 less than she was before. There's nothing morally wrong with this or anything - it's a 100% partnership across the board. Yet advantage is still not equal - you actually will see a larger benefit to your budget than she will. But if you seek equal benefit, you will have to pay 515 a month more than she does. This sort of thing is basically the model marriage uses, a pure 50/50 partnership, or \"\"communal property\"\". And note that one of you will either be paying more than the other, will be benefiting more than the other - no matter what you do! It's impossible to balance both costs and benefits, because your income and expenses are not the same going in. If you go this way you'll need to choose what is most important - splitting the expenses/income equally, or benefiting financially equally. So I say again, ultimately you have to choose based upon your individual and shared values, and also on just what sort of relationship and layers of commitment you want to have together. You could start slow with option 1, then progress to sharing more - that's what I'd recommend, because I like the idea of developing things one layer at a time rather than jumping in head-first (like I have personally done in the past, haha!). Once bitten twice shy, I might just be more risk-averse or careful than you desire to be, but that's a personal choice. I personally believe the relationship can be far more valuable than any investment, but at the same time I'll take $1 over a relationship that has turned sour any day of the week. This is why I suggest the more gradual, careful approach - to let your love bloom and grow deeper one layer at a time, without the complexities of fully shared finances or investment partnership. Relationships are hard enough, so this is why I favor trying to protect them aggressively from unnecessary complexity. Some favor the \"\"sink or swim\"\" model of seeking out trials and challenges, while I favor the \"\"relationship as tender, growing sapling\"\" model. I hope seeing these options laid out more is helpful to you, and good luck to you, your relationship, and - lastly - to your investments!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f1ce77cace7085d6fd06cd494c162242",
"text": "Let me add a few thoughts that have not been mentioned so far in the other answers. Note that for the decision of buying vs. renting a home i.e. for personal use, not for renting out there's a rule of thumb that if the price for buying is more than 20 year's (cold) rents it is considered rather expensive. I don't know how localized this rule of thumb is, but I know it for Germany which is apparently the OP's country, too. There are obviously differences between buying a house/flat for yourself and in order to rent it out. As others have said, maintenance is a major factor for house owners - and here a lot depends on how much of that you do yourself (i.e. do you have the possibility to trade working hours for costs - which is closely related to financial risk exposure, e.g. increasing income by cutting costs as you do maintenance work yourself if you loose your day-time job?). This plays a crucial role for landlords I know (they're all small-scale landlords, and most of them do put in substantial work themselves): I know quite a number of people who rent out flats in the house where they actually live. Some of the houses were built with flats and the owner lives in one of the flats, another rather typical setup is that people built their house in the way that a smaller flat can easily be separated and let once the kids moved out (note also that the legal situation for the landlord is easier in that special case). I also know someone who owns a house several 100 km away from where they live and they say they intentionally ask a rent somewhat below the market price for that (nice) kind of flat so that they have lots of applicants at the same time and tenants don't move out as finding a new tenant is lots of work and costly because of the distance. My personal conclusion from those points is that as an investment (i.e. not for immediate or future personal use) I'd say that the exact circumstances are very important: if you are (stably) based in a region where the buying-to-rental-price ratio is favorable, you have the necessary time and are able to do maintenance work yourself and there is a chance to buy a suitable house closeby then why not. If this is not the case, some other form of investing in real estate may be better. On the other hand, investing in further real estate closeby where you live in your own house means increased lump risk - you miss diversification into regions where the value of real estate may develop very differently. There is one important psychological point that may play a role with the observed relation between being rich and being landlord. First of all, remember that the median wealth (without pensions) for Germany is about 51 k€, and someone owning a morgage-free 150 k€ flat and nothing else is somewhere in the 7th decile of wealth. To put it the other way round: the question whether to invest 150 k€ into becoming a landlord is of practical relevance only for rich (in terms of wealth) people. Also, asking this question is typically only relevant for people who already own the home they live in as buying for personal use will typically have a better return than buying in order to rent. But already people who buy for personal use are on average wealthier (or at least on the track to become more wealthy in case of fresh home owners) than people who rent. This is attributed to personal characteristics and the fact that the downpayment of the mortgage enforces saving behaviour (which is typically kept up once the house is paid, and is anyways found to be more pronounced than for non-house-owners). In contrast, many people who decide never to buy a home fall short of their initial savings/investment plans (e.g. putting the 150 k€ into an ETF for the next 21 years) and in the end spend considerably more money - and this group of people rarely invests into directly becoming a landlord. Assuming that you can read German, here's a relevant newspaper article and a related press release.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "429d032007dcb3fc973f02149c9d81d6",
"text": "Banks in New Zealand tend to take a lien that is higher than the amount of the loan, so that your only option for a second mortgage is with them. ASB wanted 50% more than the value of the loan when I had my mortgage with them. Of course, with house price inflation the way it's been in NZ, the value of your house may have outstripped the lien anyway, and you can mortgage the rest of it with anyone you like. I suspect your lawyer will need to inform the other lienholder, but you don't need their permission.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8226861e999d5309617e09affbc81fb2",
"text": "\"It's a little unusual, but I don't think the financial terms are completely unreasonable on their face. What you describe is similar to an interest-only loan, where you make payments that only cover the interest due each month, and the entire principal is due as a single \"\"balloon payment\"\" on a specified date (in this case, the date on which the condo is sold). Your monthly payment of $500 on a principal of $115K is equivalent to an annual interest rate of 5.22%, which at least is not completely usurious. With a traditional mortgage you might pay a rate as low as 3%, if you had sufficient income and excellent credit - but I don't know, from what you've said, whether that's the case. Did you make the current arrangement because you were unable to get a loan from a bank? The main difference here is that instead of the balloon payment being a fixed $115K, it's \"\"75% of the gross proceeds of the sale\"\". If the condo eventually sells for $155K, that would be $116,250, so that's slightly advantageous to them (assuming that \"\"gross proceeds\"\" means \"\"before deducting commissions for either the buyers' or sellers' realtors or any other costs of the sale\"\"), and thus slightly disadvantageous to you. If the condo appreciates in value, that's more of a win for them and more of a relative loss for you. But it's also possible that the value of the condo goes down, in which case this arrangement is better for you than a fixed balloon payment. So this deal does prevent you from getting a larger share of any gains in the value of the property, but it also helps insulate you from any losses. That's important to keep in mind. There's also the issue of needing their consent to sell. That's potentially problematic - usually in a joint ownership scheme, either owner has the right to demand to be bought out or to force a sale. I guess it depends on whether you think your parents would be likely to consent under reasonable circumstances, or to insist on holding the property against your best interests. It's true that you aren't building equity with this arrangement, and if you thought you were, you are mistaken or misled. But let's compare it with other options. If you would qualify for a traditional 30-year fixed mortgage at 3%, your monthly payment would be slightly lower ($484), and you would be building some equity because your payments would reduce the principal as well as paying the interest. But a 30-year loan builds equity very slowly at first - after 7 years you'd have only about $20,000 in principal paid down. If we assume that 5.2% represents the interest rate you'd otherwise pay based on your creditworthiness, then your monthly payment would be $631. So compared to that, you have an extra $130 per month that you can save or invest in whatever you want - you're not forced to invest it in your house. Note that in either case you'd still be paying the condo fees, property taxes, insurance, and maintenance yourself. So we might as well eliminate those from consideration. It might be a good idea to find out what other options you would have - perhaps try to get an interest rate quote on a traditional mortgage from a bank, based on your income and credit history. Then you can decide what to do, taking into account: your financial situation; how much of a monthly payment could you afford? your relationship with your parents; are they likely to be reasonable about renegotiating? Do they in general tend to respect your wishes? Would it harm your relationship if you tried to get out of the deal, and how important is that to you? To what extent do you actually want to pay for equity in this property? Do you really believe it's a good investment, and have evidence to support that? Your options include: Try to renegotiate the terms of the loan from your parents Try to \"\"refinance\"\" the loan, by getting a loan from a bank and paying off some agreed-upon amount of principal to your parents Try to force the sale of the condo and move to another house, financing it some other way Consult a lawyer as to whether your agreement with your parents is legally enforceable. For instance, do they have a lien on the property?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20740f5842204ad615cd3309fc8cd602",
"text": "Will buying a flat which generates $250 rent per month be a good decision? Whether investing in real estate is a good decision or not depends on many things, including the current and future supply/demand for rental units in your particular area. There are many questions on this site about this topic, and another answer to this question which already addresses many risks associated with owning property (though there are also benefits to consider). I just want to focus on this point you raised: I personally think yes, because rent adjusts with inflation and the rise in the price of the property is another benefit. Could this help me become financially independent in the long run since inflation is getting adjusted in it? In my opinion, the fact that rental income general adjusts with 'inflation' is a hedge against some types of economic risk, not an absolute increase in value. First, consider buying a house to live in, instead of to rent: If you pay off your mortgage before your retire, then you have reduced your cost of accommodations to only utilities, property taxes, and repairs. This gives you a (relatively) known, fixed requirement of cash outflows. If the value of property goes up by the time you retire - it doesn't cost you anything extra, because you already own your house. If the value of property goes down by the time you retire, then you don't save anything, because you already own your house. If you instead rent your whole life, and save money each month (instead of paying off a mortgage), then when you retire, you will have a larger amount of savings which you can use to pay your monthly rental costs each month. By the time you retire, your cost of accommodations will be the market price for rent at that time. If the value of property goes up by the time you retire - you will have to pay more on rent. If the value of property goes down by the time you retire, you will save money on rent. You will have larger savings, but your cash outflow will be a little bit less certain, because you don't know what the market price for rent will be. You can see that, because you need to put a roof over your own head, just by existing you bear risk of the cost of property rising. So, buying your own home can be a hedge against that risk. This is called a 'natural hedge', where two competing risks can mitigate each-other just by existing. This doesn't mean buying a house is always the right thing to do, it is just one piece of the puzzle to comparing the two alternatives [see many other threads on buying vs renting on this site, or on google]. Now, consider buying a house to rent out to other people: In the extreme scenario, assume that you do everything you can to buy as much property as possible. Maybe by the time you retire, you own a small apartment building with 11 units, where you live in one of them (as an example), and you have no other savings. Before, owning your own home was, among other pros and cons, a natural hedge against the risk of your own personal cost of accommodations going up. But now, the risk of your many rental units is far greater than the risk of your own personal accommodations. That is, if rent goes up by $100 after you retire, your rental income goes up by $1,000, and your personal cost of accommodations only goes up by $100. If rent goes down by $50 after you retire, your rental income goes down by $500, and your personal cost of accommodations only goes down by $50. You can see that only investing in rental properties puts you at great risk of fluctuations in the rental market. This risk is larger than if you simply bought your own home, because at least in that case, you are guaranteeing your cost of accommodations, which you know you will need to pay one way or another. This is why most investment advice suggests that you diversify your investment portfolio. That means buying some stocks, some bonds, etc.. If you invest to heavily in a single thing, then you bear huge risks for that particular market. In the case of property, each investment is so large that you are often 'undiversified' if you invest heavily in it (you can't just buy a house $100 at a time, like you could a stock or bond). Of course, my above examples are very simplified. I am only trying to suggest the underlying principle, not the full complexities of the real estate market. Note also that there are many types of investments which typically adjust with inflation / cost of living; real estate is only one of them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b509ef7590b593609fa926e7c92f2d42",
"text": "This may effect how much, or under what terms a bank is willing to loan us I don't think this is likely, an investment is an investment whether it is money in a savings account or a loan. However, talk to your bank. Is it worth getting something by a lawyer? Definitely, you need a lawyer and so do your parents. There is a general presumption at law that arrangements between family members are not meant to be contracts. You definitely want this to be a contract and engaging lawyers will make sure that it is. You also definitely want this to be a proper mortgage so that you get first call on the property should your parents die or go bankrupt. In addition, a lawyer will be able to advise you of the pitfalls that you haven't seen. If both of my parents were to pass away before the money is returned, would that document be enough to ensure that the loan is returned promptly? No, see above. Tax implications: Will this count as taxable income for me? And if so, presumably my parents can still count it as a tax deduction? Definitely, however the ATO is very keen that these sorts of arrangements do not result in tax minimisation. Your parents will get a deduction at the rate charged; you will pay tax on the greater of the rate charged or a fair commercial rate i.e. what your parents would be paying a bank. For example, if the going bank mortgage rate is 5.5% and you charged 2% they get the deduction for 2%, you pay tax as though they had paid 5.5%. Property prices collapse, and my parents aren't able to make their repayments, bank forecloses on the place and sells it, but not even enough to cover the outstanding loan, meaning my parents no longer have our money. (I could of course double down and pay their monthly repayments for them in this case). First, property prices collapsing have no impact on whether your parents can pay the loan. If they can it doesn't matter what the property is worth. If they can't then it will be sold as quickly as possible for an amount that covers (as far as possible) the first mortgagee's indebtedness. It is only in reading this far that I realise that there will still be a bank as first mortgagee. This massively increases the risk profile. Any other risks I have missed? Yes, among others: Any mitigations for any identified risks? Talk to a lawyer. Talk to an accountant. Talk to an insurance professional. Anything I flagged as a risk that is not actually an issue? No Assuming you would advise doing this, what fraction of savings would you recommend keeping as a rainy day fund that can be accessed immediately? I wouldn't, 100%.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
aab1aaf847dde85311df090c8649c570
|
If something is coming into my account will it be debit or credit in my account?
|
[
{
"docid": "2b92b6e2f3a8d740509e76d0c66896bf",
"text": "\"The bank will make this even more confusing because they use the terms from their own perspective. From the bank's perspective (printed on your statements) credit: Money into your account (increases the bank's liabilities) debit: Money out of your account (decrease bank liabilities) From your perspective: It depends on the nature of the transfer of money, but here are the most common for a personal account. Income into your account: Credit Expenses out of your account: Debit Payment on a loan made for an asset (house/car): Credit for the loan account, debit for the equity account for the car/house/etc. Yes, it's complicated. Neither credits nor debits are always a + or -. That's why I agree with the advice of the others here that double-entry accounting is overkill for your personal finances. Note: I simplified the above examples for the purpose of clarity. Technically every transaction in double entry accounting includes both a credit and a debit (hence the \"\"double\"\" in the name). In fact, sometimes a transaction involves more than one credit or debit, but always at least one of each. Also, this is for EACH party. So any transaction between you and your bank involves at least FOUR debits and/or credits when all involved are considered.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "adacca83dbfb4de58aba2e034d7e2a54",
"text": "It sounds like you're mixing a simple checkbook register with double-entry bookkeeping. Do you need a double-entry level of rigor? Otherwise, why not have two columns, one for income (like a paycheck) and one for expenses (like paying a cable bill)? Then add up both columns and then take the difference of the sums to get your increase or decrease for the time period. If you want to break up income and expenses further, then you can do that too.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "86d35eb31c8cdc76b6c33c4a7c9da582",
"text": "I agree with mbhunter's suggestion of labeling your columns, 'income' and 'expenses'. However, to answer your question, money coming in (a paycheque, for example) is credited to your account. Money going out (a utility bill, for example) is debited from your account. There's no real 'why'... this is simply the definition of the words.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b987480a00109e250c5865bd585c4a7f",
"text": "\"If you are considering this to be an entry for your business this is how you would handle it.... You said you were making a balance sheet for monthly expenses. So on the Balance Sheet, you would be debiting cash. For the Income Statement side you would be crediting Owner's Equity to balance the equation: Assets = Liabilities + Owner's Equity So if you deposited $100 to your account the equation would be affected thus: $ 100 in Assets (Debit to Cash Account) = 0 Liabilities - $100 (Credit to Owner's Equity) It is correctly stated above from the bank's perspective that they would be \"\"Crediting\"\" you account with $100, and any outflow from the bank account would be debiting your account.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3ff0e9f98da1ef2abf5cdf90973fb1c",
"text": "\"The bank \"\"credit's\"\" your account for money coming into it. In double entry accounting, you always have a debit and a credit to balance the accounts. As an Example: for $500 that the bank credited to your checking account, you would post a debit to Cash and a Credit to Income Earned. The accounting equation is: Assets = Liabilities + Owner's Equity $500 = $500 Cash is the \"\"Asset\"\" side of the equation, Income is part of Owner's Equity, and so is the Credit side... to make the equation balanced.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "11df2d48aade57748eb732849fd92870",
"text": "Most bank registers (where you write down entries) show deposits (+) to account as a CREDIT. Payments, fees, and withdrawals are DEBITs to your bank accounnt. On loans such as credit card accounts, a credit to your loan account is a payment or other reductions of the amount you owe. A charge to your account is a DEBIT to you loan account. They did this just to confuse us!",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "12e3eca26acd6ac18e2b9214cc243715",
"text": "a typical debit card is subject to several limits:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b05298f3563d6864d3393cef31eb4c9",
"text": "Based on the definitions I found on Investopedia, it depends on whether or not it is going against an asset or a liability. I am not sure what type of accounting you are performing, but I know in my personal day-to-day dealings credits are money coming into my account and debits are money going out of my account. Definition: Credit, Definition: Debit",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f61ca8c9f06ada8ee5abe94edec796dd",
"text": "Credit card, without a doubt. The reason is dispute resolution. If you dispute a charge on debit card - the money has left your account already, and if the dispute was accepted - you'll get it back. If. Eventually. In the mean time your overdraft will be missing $$$. For credit cards, you can catch a fraud action before the money actually leaves your pocket and dispute it then. In this case the charge is set aside, and you will only be required to actually pay if the dispute is rejected. I.e.: The money stays in your pocket, until the business proves that the charge is legit. In both cases, if the dispute is justified (i.e.: there was indeed a fraud) neither you nor the bank will lose money at the bottom line, it's just who's got the money during the dispute resolution process (which may be lengthy) that matters.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "19db7d1ea4440024576bf59019233a4a",
"text": "Debit cards do not earn the bank any interest from you whereas credit cards do, so they want to give incentive to use credit over debit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "229e624be26e55c13dc369974db632b8",
"text": "Just use a credit card like AMEX Blue that categorizes your purchases, and reconcile at the end of the month. There is no good reason to use a debit card.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "783b84591778a56bc293aceac3976a8c",
"text": "\"The terms debit and credit come from double-entry book-keeping. In this system, every transaction is applied against two accounts: it debits one and credits the other by equal amounts. (Or more technically, it affects two or more accounts, and the total of the credits equals the total of the debits.) Whether a debit or a credit adds or subtracts from the balance depends on the type of account. The types of accounts were defined so that it is always possible to have these matching debits and credits. Assets, like cash or property that you own, are \"\"debit accounts\"\", that is, a debit is an increase in the balance of the account. Liabilities, like money you owe, are \"\"credit accounts\"\", that is, a credit is an increase. To get into all the details would require giving a tutorial on double-entry book-keeping, which I think is beyond the scope of a forum post. By a quick Bing search I find this one: http://simplestudies.com/double-entry-accounting-system.html. I haven't gone through it so I can't say if it's a particularly good tutorial. There are plenty of others on the Web and in bookstores. Note that the terminology can be backwards when someone you're doing business with is describing the account, because their viewpoint may be the opposite of yours. For example, to me, my credit card is a liability: I owe the bank money. So when I post a charge, that's a credit, and when I pay it off, that's a debit. But to the bank, my account is an asset: the customer (me) owes them money. So to the bank, a charge is a debit and a payment is a credit.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5f1ba13982a5807efb36ceba54ef5776",
"text": "Hmm, let's see, I always get Credit and Debit mixed up, but I'll try: Signing of the contract: Receiving 500 deposit: When you are done Accounts Receivable will have $500 (because you are owed $500), Revenue will have $1000 (because you made $1000 on an accrual basis), and Cash will have $500 (because you have $500 in your pocket).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "00784d70261597cf764bc79c19735260",
"text": "Credited to your account means amount has been deposited to your account(this will be your income). Debited from your account means withdrawn from your account(This will be your expense). Hope this clarifies your question. Regards Jayanthi",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "40ea4342d72c1383ab1e45d535b5cf5d",
"text": "CC always (applies only if you pay your balance in full). First you rack up points on your card, second if there is an unauthorized pull a Cc will help you a bank may or may not. As a general advice don't hand out your banking information like a credit card number. Now paying bills through the bank is a different matter. This advice applies to companies that would like to pull money from bank accounts. Never do that if Cc is an alternative.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d145cb58025d07fff4622110a9142fbb",
"text": "Just to put in one more possibility: my credit card can have a positive balance, in which case I earn interest. If more money is due, it will automatically take that from the connected checking account. If that goes into negative, of course I have to pay interest. I chose (argued with the bank in order to get) only a small credit allowance. However, I'll be able to access credit allowance + positive balance. That allows me within a day or so to make larger amounts accessible, while the possible immediate damage by credit card fraud is limited at other times. Actually, the credit card pays more interest than the checkign account. Nevertheless, I don't keep high balance there because the risk of fraud is much higher for the credit card.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fcd56cfb29a65093219e54faf3421aee",
"text": "There's the fear that one might forget the debit is coming and still bounce the payment. Personally, I agree with Dheer's list, I don't want to give someone unlimited access to my account. I make good use of electronic payments where I initiate the payment. For the credit card I use regularly, I have a $250 monthly payment set to go automatically. If I forget to make a payment or lose the bill, at least the minimum is covered. The monthly charges are enough that when I actually pay the bill in full upon receipt, it just goes in toward current charges. Bills like gas/electric/phone are different every month, so an auto-debit is actually more trouble than how I handle.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a682f2cbbdf005cda229bd17b4176713",
"text": "Etiquette doesn't really come into the picture here. The business offers a service and I choose to accept it. Personally, I use my debit card as much as possible. For every transaction, I record it in my checkbook. Then, when I do reconciling, I know exactly how much I paid for various categories of stuff. Good for budgeting. Most often my purchases are over $10 but when they aren't, I have no qualms about using the card.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d45bfce38b0fdd281e087adfda5cb3e8",
"text": "Here's a simple answer: If your debit card has a visa or mc logo, it can be used as a 'credit card'. In order to do so, you shouldn't enter the pin, instead choose 'credit' and sign for it. Unlike a credit card, you can't spend money you don't have but like a credit card, your purchase is protected by the credit card company (visa/mc) and gives you privileges like zero fraud liability and purchase disputes. http://www.moneycone.com/should-you-sign-for-a-debit-card-purchase-or-use-your-pin/",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc875b9c0d3f029ba3a99bb6c6a2d0be",
"text": "I am using my debit card regularly: in ATM's with a pin, in stores with my signature, and online. But later you say But from what I recall from starting my own business (a LONG time ago), for debit cards there's only a per-transaction fee of like $0.25, not a percentage cut. Only pin transactions have just a per-transaction fee paid by you to the merchant (and you are reimbursed by Schwab). If you use your card with just a signature or online without a pin, then it is a credit transaction from the merchant's perspective. The merchant pays a fee and Schwab gets its cut of that. So for two of the transaction types that you describe, the merchant pays Schwab (indirectly) out of your payment. Only when you enter your pin does it process as a debit transaction where Schwab pays the merchant. Because check cards withdraw the money from your account immediately, you don't even get the twenty to fifty day grace period. So those merchant fees are pure profit for Schwab, offsetting the loss from the ATM fees. You claim $4-5k in fees at $.25 each. That's sixteen to twenty thousand transactions. Assuming that several is four to five years, that's more than ten transactions a day. That seems like a lot. I can see three for meals, one for miscellaneous, and maybe some shopping. But if I go shopping one day, I don't normally go again for a while. I have trouble seeing a consistent average of five or more transactions a day. Even if we use just the higher ATM fees (e.g. $2), that's still more than a transaction a day. That's an extreme level of usage, particularly for someone who also makes frequent purchases via card. I haven't done any other business with them. I find this confusing. How does money get into your account? At some point, you must have deposited money into the account. You can't debit from an account without a positive balance. So you must have done or be doing some kind of business with them. If nothing else, they can invest the balance that you deposit. Note that they make a profit off such investments. They share some of that profit with you in the form of interest, but not that much really. Of course, Schwab may still be losing money on your transactions. We can't really tell without more information on how much of each transaction type you do and how much of a balance you maintain. Perhaps they are hoping that you will do other, more profitable, activities in the future. I doubt there are that many Schwab customers like you describe yourself. As best I've been able to see, they advertise their banking services just to investment customers. So it's unlikely that many customers who don't use their investment services use their banking services just for ATM reimbursements.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
8bc61228df7aea5ffdebd16b261beb06
|
Changing Bank Account Number regularly to reduce fraud
|
[
{
"docid": "4a43b5590ae06162d3a7946e1e638d36",
"text": "Couple of my friends went through a fraud agent who ran off with their money and the landlords were none the wiser. So it always pays to be a bit diligent. Are they a well known letting agents nationally ? Many agents do have different accounts to manage their properties. Yours seems a case as such probably i.e. they manage the property on behalf of the landlord so keeping their monies differentiated. Did you sign an agreement ? If yes go through what is written in the agreement, most of it is same in all agreements but have a look anyway. Check if there is mention of deposit protection scheme. One thing you could do is go to a bank to do the transfer, the same bank where the letting agent holds their account and confirm from them if it is really a personal account or a business account. I am not sure how possible it is, but doesn't hurt to ask. If it is a personal account, then fraud is the most possible cause. The sort code should tell you which branch and which bank. Or the best option is to ask the estate agents to show a recent statement of the bank account, where the money is to be deposited into. Some tips",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d2a221dfeaebe9b45988e90b16481a57",
"text": "\"We change it every so often to reduce fraud. This is idiocy. They receive regular payments. They are asking the people who pay them to regularly change where their money is being sent. This increases their exposure to fraud dramatically as each time the account is changed, there is a risk it will be changed to an account they do not control. This is a huge red flag. Confirm that this is authentic and, if so, insist that they sign an agreement accepting all liability for the risks this crazy policy causes, otherwise, you should refuse to go through the effort of confirming new accounts and risking typing or communication errors on a regular basis. This is definitely a \"\"what were they thinking?!\"\" kind of thing. If it's not fake entirely. (This answer assumes that you were given a correct explanation, that they change it regularly believing that will reduce fraud.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b79473bb909aae086d116bb059928e44",
"text": "To be absolutely sure you should call the agent and check That said I have been renting accommodation through both agencies and directly through landlords for seven years (I live in London) and this is quite a common situation. It normally means that the deposit is being securely held by a third party so that it cannot be taken or depleted without the agreement of both parties. The deposit protection scheme ( https://www.depositprotection.com/ ) is one way that deposits are securely held in this manner. As a third party they will have different account details. It may be the case that the agency is protecting the deposit and you are paying rent to the landlord directly. This means that your deposit goes to the agency's account and the rent goes to the landlord's account. Obviously your landlord and agency have different accounts. A little colour to brighten your day: I am currently paying my rent to the agency who also took the deposit but, because of the way they handle deposits versus rent, the deposit was sent to a different account held by the same agent. In my previous flat I paid the deposit to an agency and the rent directly to the landlord. This resulted in an issue one time where I got the two accounts confused and paid rent to the agency who, after giving me a small slap on the wrist, transferred it to my landlord. In the flat before that I paid rent and the deposit to my landlords' holding company. That is one of the few times that I paid rent and the deposit into the same account. Again check with the agent that one of these situations is the case but this is absolutely normal when renting through an agency.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5462c5440487993203311af78d85f3d5",
"text": "\"We change it every so often to reduce fraud. If you're absolutely sure you didn't just send money to a scammer impersonating a landlord, this has nothing to do with fraud-- they're playing a game with you. By changing the account number frequently, it makes it more likely you make a mistake in entering the payment account. When they come back to you a few days past due saying \"\"we never received your rent,\"\" you'll eventually realize it got sent to the wrong account. Now you owe them late fees, and there's really nothing you can do about it-- you did not in fact pay them on time; you sent it to the wrong account! It's an easy way for them to collect an additional few thousand dollars a year. Anytime a small business or landlord says they have to do something \"\"weird\"\" to reduce fraud, chances are it's a pretense to you getting hosed in some way.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "67c16553eb107f3a09a363b409f3429c",
"text": "Although I do not know about US Institutions; In India Banks have adopted a mix of features that mitigate the risk. Some ways that are used are;",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac821b70be2c004e997630792a7b8877",
"text": "There are two unique identifiers for a bank account: SWIFT code + bank internal identifier, or IBAN code. IBAN is mostly used within European banking system, and the whole code provides a direct and unique identification of the account. SWIFT is an international network where each bank/bank branch has its own address, and account number is a metadata added to the message for the receiving bank to handle. Usually the name of the recipient and additional information are required when wiring money through the SWIFT network, to match the records and make sure there's no mistake. Account numbers don't have to be unique, not even within the same bank. There's always something else in addition to uniquely identify them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8dcfca74c7468d514f1fcd2ea1efdb83",
"text": "I believe it is so. It doesn't sound like they did anything outright illegal, just a pushy upsell. You can complain to the bank manager. If you want you can mention the employee by name (if you know who they are). Ultimately, you can change banks. From what you say it sounds like you are dissatisfied with this bank, so I think you should at least begin evaluating other banks and consider switching. You can also let your current bank know you are planning to take all your money away from them specifically because of their poor customer service. You could consider filing a complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau alleging that the bank engaged in some kind of deceptive marketing of their financial products. Of course you can also file a complaint with something like the Better Business Bureau, or even just write a negative Yelp review. But these actions won't really result in any penalty for the bank as a result of what they did in your specific case; they just express your dissatisfaction in a way that will be recorded and possibly made public (e.g., in a list of complaints) to protect future consumers. If you're really gung-ho and have time and money to burn, you could hire a lawyer and get legal advice about whether it is possible to sue the bank for fraud or misuse of your personal information. Needless to say, I think this would be overkill for this situation. I would just cancel the credit card, tell the bank you're dissatisfied, switch banks, and move on.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d16ce2d564ec8d4ba4693beacc3f424",
"text": "If the checking account is in a FDIC insured bank or a NCUA insured Credit Union then you don't have to worry about what happens if the bank goes out of business. In the past the government has made sure that any disruption was minimal. The fraud issue can cause a bigger problem. If they get a hold of your debit card, they can drain your account. Yes the bank gives you fraud protection so that the most you can lose is $50 or $500; many even make your liability $0 if you report it in a timely manor. But there generally is a delay in getting the money put back in your account. One way to minimize the problem is to open a savings account,it also has the FDIC and NCUA coverage . The account may even earn a little interest. If you don't allow the bank to automatically provide an overdraft transfer from savings to checking account, then the most they can temporarily steal is your checking account balance. Getting a credit card can provide additional protection. It also limits your total losses if there is fraud. The bill is only paid once a month so if they steal the card or the number, they won't be able to drain the money in the bank account. The credit card, if used wisely can also start to build a positive credit file so that in a few years you can get a loan for a car or a place to live. Of course if they steal your entire wallet with both the credit and the debit card...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3bbcc5182b857524b23283bcdab578ac",
"text": "If you're worried about the account number just take a statement and black out the account number with a Sharpie or the like. That is if the account number even appears on it, these days it often doesn't.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd91ac9a13ba443f8dd0b2a5af1598d9",
"text": "You will probably not be able to figure out the bank from the account number. You can check for your name on registries of abandoned bank accounts or unclaimed money, but without more information, you don't have a lot of options.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b9a8b8c4c7721475273f9e7d3459add0",
"text": "Every bank has uses their own number ranges and assigns account numbers as they like. That means that the same account number could be in use by basically every bank simultaneously - which makes it impossible to find out the bank from the account number. A similar situation would be to find a street name from the house number - obviously, there are many streets that have a given number.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "85c8b5fc25546611c4d7aa05d80c5060",
"text": "\"It's pretty easy for foreign scammers to get a US phone number or email. A domestic bank account is a little harder. Very likely the direct contact is a US citizen or a legal immigrant. The Nigerian may be completely made-up to throw you off the scent. And that person can be found, dunned, or deported, and there's even a small chance of reversing the bank transfers. It's also hard for foreign scammers to sound American on the phone, again suggesting a domestic scam or one with domestic agents. If you or your son is willing to do a serious amount of skill-building and legwork, you can uncover evidence by filing a lawsuit. Once you have done so, you can use the legal processes of discovery to force banks etc. to give you information they would never give willingly. There are countless details. Lawyers get paid to get the details right. Suing actual people can backfire, they can countersue. But since you do not know their real name, you would probably be filing a \"\"John Doe\"\" lawsuit. \"\"John Doe\"\" is a placeholder: the idea being that you will later, through discovery, uncover the defendants' real names. For a novice exploring the legal system for the first time, there's a big advantage - John Doe never countersues or quashes, he never gets in your way or wastes your time... heck, he never even shows up in court! And when you collect evidence via discovery, you can take that to law enforcement or immigration. It goes without sayi-- well, there's no need to go into that. Just realize you did goof, and make sure you learn the lessons.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "63bcbc146bddda345cf91dbc20cc10e5",
"text": "In many countries it is a legal requirement or in some other way mandatory for the banks to ban the owner(s) of an account to allow a third party to use the account. In some countries if you willing give someone access in this way you get no compensation what so ever and you'll be lucky if they catch the crooks and even luckier if you get any of your money back. Don't forget the possibility of jail time due to the criminal activities going on under your name.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cf9c27dcd6ececc521e3e36e3051ec44",
"text": "SpecKK's answer is excellent, I've only got two things to add: When your creditors change your account number, make sure to update your online information. You're not sending back a coupon, so it's up to you to make sure it has the new number and gets posted to the correct account. If your bank supports it, give the creditors good labels/nicknames. If you have names that are similar, it's easy to send a payment to the wrong place -- this may not be easy to detect and is a hassle to straighten out.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c9825f66ddff2952845d37a42b68709f",
"text": "\"I live in Kenya, and also here we have corruption. However, we use EFT, RTGS, Mobile Money and its more safe than cheques. Beware, that paper based payments cost you way more than anything electronic. Often the bank charge you for the cheque book, they charge for receiving paper based payment instruments, and settlement is often a day or two, while mobile/electronic settlement is instant. Seen from a tenants perspective, its also easier. Imagine too, the small likelihood that you loose the cheques from your tenants? Your fear for your account is understandable, but you may need to learn a little now, about how accounts are handled. In an online community only the persons with the necessary electronic credentials can withdraw from your account, being it online via your screen, or at the cashier, or by other means. Therefore, your money are safer via the electronic means. The cause of your concern / unease can be that you are relinquishing your control from a paper-based, visible system, into a system which you may not know so much about, maybe because of that you have not done so much on computers, yet. As a most recent caveat, though, don't get into the so called bitcoin technology, it is not safe, and as you saw, most recently, the very owner himself became the perpetrator breaking his very own bank by artificially inflating amounts on his own account, according to Japanese authorities. Now, electronic banking has been in existence since soon 40 years. Its based on cash, so behind the scenes, between the banks, huge deposits of cash are being moved physically, around from vault to vault, in the bank's money exchange / transaction settlement system. Thereby, a bank does not need to physically transfer money from one physical bank building to another - as they have huge loads of cash stashed in central depositories, between which they can now exchange money as compensation for cheques and electronic transfers. So, behind the scene of the electronic world, there are still physical cash being moved around, deep under the ground, in such vaults. I hope this has given you a little bit of confidence in the \"\"modern times\"\". If you have further questions, you are welcome. These were my 50 cents :-). My background is in software development, where I have worked on banking systems for more than 10 years, making banking systems, as part of huge teams, working for the largest banks in the world.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dba2b8b6ff34a67ab2d2fc51c37304d6",
"text": "You should talk to your bank and explain what happened. Your bank may contact vendor bank to discuss the account, but really that is up to them. Then you should contact your police department and report the fraud. Realistically, your chances of recovering any money is negligible. I think your best chance is convincing your bank to work with vendor bank on a reversal(if it was a domestic transfer), although it is more likely that the vendor bank account is already empty and closed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e6ee0268f820bc54c4686272f14fe567",
"text": "Generally just giving a Bank Account Number does not cause damage. It depends on what other information the user has and the country you are in. Generally Bank take telephone instruction for certain [non-transactional] activities , and they would authenticate you by asking account number, address, date of birth and some additional info. In today's world this info can be pretty easily accessible, for example facebook or a details posted on Jobsites etc. It is best avoided to give the bank account details, unless you are sure of the person. Typical other misuse is using your bank account to Launder black money. The typical modus is transfer funds to you and then ask you to transfer it elsewhere. At times its also a scam and you loose money as they trick you in sending money before you receive it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0a688faf4d3c64d1c61c6ff3d1e8d183",
"text": "ATMs have had repeated attack vectors over the years they have proved to be quite vulnerable over and over. Worse than that many of the attacks haven't been fixed either, its only secrecy of the attack vectors that save them. But that isn't an us issue, its an issue for the bank and if they loose money due to hacks then that happens and it impacts on their profits.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e28a61090dd27438f9dca6c582fb29c",
"text": "Your plan isn't bad, but it probably isn't worth the cost for the small amount of credit building it will achieve. If you do decide to continue with it though, you'll save in interest if you make the big payment now rather than in 6 months. In other words, you can take the minimum payment, multiply it by 5, subtract that amount from the total you owe and pay the difference immediately. This way you'll still get the 6 months of reporting to the credit bureaus, but you'll pay less interest since you'll have less principle each month. I would recommend applying for the credit card right now. I believe you'll probably get approved now. If you do, then pay off the car loan without thinking about it. (If you don't get approved, think about it, then probably still pay it off.) Regarding the full coverage insurance, even after the loan is paid off and you aren't required to have it, you may still want to keep it. Even if you're the best driver on earth, if someone hits you and doesn't have insurance, or they have insurance and drive off, or a deer runs in front of you, etc, you'll lose your car and won't be reimbursed. Also, as Russell pointed out in the comments below, without collision coverage your insurance company has no incentive to work on your behalf when someone else hits you, so even if it's not your fault you may still not get reimbursed. So, I wouldn't pass on the full coverage unless your car isn't worth very much or you can stomach losing it if something happens. Good luck, and congrats on being able to pay for a car in full at 19 years old.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
cb3f24852c5c7dc5c83ae3cfa2822b14
|
Is there any instrument with real-estate-like returns?
|
[
{
"docid": "bbb9c1dab71e1a4e1576c568d093714b",
"text": "Similarly to buying property on your own, REITs cannot get to good returns without leveraging. If you buy an investment property 100% cash only - chances are that 10% ROI is a very very optimistic scenario. If you use leveraging (i.e.: take out a mortgage) - you're susceptible to interest rate changes. REITs invest in properties all around all the time. They invest in mortgages themselves as well (In the US, that's the only security REITs can hold without being disqualified). You can't expect all that to be cash-only, there have to be loans and financing involved. When rates go up - financing costs go up. That brings net income down. Simple math. In the US, there's an additional benefit to investing in REIT vs directly holding real estate: taxes. REITs pay dividends, which have preferential (if qualified) taxation. You'll pay capital gains taxes on the dividends if you hold the fund long enough. If you own a rental property directly, your income after all the expenses is taxed at ordinary rates, which would usually be higher. Also, as you mentioned, you can use them as margin, and they're much much more liquid than holding real estate directly. Not to mention you don't need to deal with tenants or periods where you don't have any, or if local real-estate market tanks (while REITs are usually quite diversified in kinds of real estate they hold and areas). On the other hand, if you own real estate, you can leverage it at lower rates than margin (with HELOCs etc), and it provides some safety net in case of a stock market crash (which REITs are somewhat susceptible to). You can also live in your property, if needed, which is something that's hard to do with REITs....",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e",
"text": "",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "8e0cd198acc054563b2aec379fdbc074",
"text": "If you are tired of acting as the bank after selling your Real Estate and owner-financing the loan with a promissory note, we can offer a sound and painless exit strategy today. We can fund the purchase in as little as 15 business days. We at Cash Note USA buy Real Estate Promissory Notes Nationwide. We Purchase Owner Financed Mortgage, Land Contract, Contract For Deed, Deed Of Trust, Private Mortgages, Secured Notes, Business Notes, Commercial Notes and Partial Notes and many kinds of seller carry back mortgage notes. Convert Real Estate Note To Cash Now.Sell Your Mortgage Note Fast & get More Cash For Your Note. You will get a Fair Offer Within 24 Hours.Get your Note cashed today! Cash Note USA is a note buyer all over the nation. Convert your mortgage payments into cash. Simple closing process. We buy Promissory Notes, Real Estate Trust Deeds, Seller Carry Back Notes, Land Contract, Contract for Deed, Privately Help Notes, Commercial Mortgage Notes & Business Promissory Notes. Contact Us: Cash Note USA 1307 W.6th St.Suite 219N, Corona, CA 92882 888-297-4099 [email protected] http://cashnoteusa.com/",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f2957071718c3125aae989498d051224",
"text": "I was emailing back and forth with a manager in a different department on how real returns are being calculated, and he said that the industry standard is 1 + real returns*(1+inflation) - fees, and to not use my formula because it can double count inflation, making fees lower. However, real returns are not observable in the future, and I do not why he uses that formula. The returns were used in an Excel spreadsheet. What are your thoughts about this?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "31c5ac8c41c0019f73a79c19208dd61e",
"text": "Have you considered a self-directed IRA to invest, rather than the stock market or publicly traded assets? Your IRA can actually own direct title to real estate, loan money via secured or unsecured promissory notes much like a hard money loan or invest into shares of an entity that invests in real estate. The only nuance is that the IRA holder is responsible for finding and deciding upon the investment vehicle. Just an option outside of the normal parameters, if you have an existing IRA or old 401(k) or other qualified plan, this might be an option for you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a121c4f397ec5791d0fcf6b3cbdeb2e",
"text": "\"One way to \"\"get into the real estate market\"\" is to invest your money in a fund which has its value tied to real estate. For example, a Real Estate Investment Trust. This fund would fluctuate largely inline with the property values in the area(s) where the fund puts its money. This would have a few (significant) changes from 'traditional' real estate investing, including:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3bd43884a9d185524af6a2230f569e8c",
"text": "Your question may have another clue. You are bullish regarding the real estate market. Is that for your city, your state, your nation or for the whole world? Unless you can identify particular properties or neighborhoods that are expected to be better than the average return for your expected bull market in real estate, you will be taking a huge risk. It would be the same as believing that stocks are about to enter a bull market, but then wanting to put 50% of your wealth on one stock. The YTD for the DOW is ~+7%, yet 13 of the 30 have not reached the average increase including 4 that are down more than 7%. Being bullish about the real estate segment still gives you plenty of opportunities to invest. You can invest directly in the REIT or you can invest in the companies that will grow because of the bullish conditions. If your opinion changes in a few years it is hard to short a single property.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fac469245c0605d033cba9fca4684cc3",
"text": "Reasons for no: In your first sentence you say something interesting: rates low - prices high. Actually those 2 are reversely correlated, imagine if rates would be 5% higher-very few people could buy at current prices so prices would drop. Also you need to keep in mind the rate of inflation that was much higher during some periods in the US history(for example over 10% in the 1980) so you can not make comparisons just based on the nominal interest rate. Putting all your eggs in one basket. If you think real estate is a good investment buy some REITs for 10k, do not spend 20% of your future income for 20 years. Maintenance - people who rent usually underestimate this or do not even count it when making rent vs mortgage comparisons. Reasons for yes: Lifestyle decision - you don't want to be kicked out of your house, you want to remodel... Speculation - I would recommend against this strongly, but housing prices go up and down, if they will go up you can make a lot of money. To answer one of questions directly: 1. My guess is that FED will try to keep rates well bellow 10% (even much lower, since government can not service debts if interest rates go much higher), but nobody can say if they will succeed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "74b1000ebe616ec1d7efb65f43d157f6",
"text": "Apples and oranges. The stock market requires a tiny bit of your time. Perhaps a lot if you are interested in individual stocks, and pouring through company annual reports, but close to none if you have a mix of super low cost ETFs or index fund. The real estate investing you propose is, at some point, a serious time commitment. Unless you use a management company to handle incoming calls and to dispatch repair people. But that's a cost that will eat into your potential profits. If you plan to do this 'for real,' I suggest using the 401(k), but then having the option to take loans from it. The ability to write a check for $50K is pretty valuable when buying real estate. When you run the numbers, this will benefit you long term. Edit - on re-reading your question Rental Property: What is considered decent cash flow? (with example), I withdraw my answer above. You overestimated the return you will get, the actual return will likely be negative. It doesn't take too many years of your one per year strategy to wipe you out. Per your comment below, if bought right, rentals can be a great long term investment. Glad you didn't buy the loser.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a0ed194077d49ea34d04257f3a56dc3d",
"text": "Realistically, it is CDs with longer terms or are callable. You pretty much have to accept more risk if you want higher returns. If you are willing to accept that risk by losing the FDIC protections the next level up is probably high rated Government bonds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ef20c2eeb309e86103342ac03ce8e921",
"text": "You could look into an index fund or ETF that invests primarily in Real Estate Investment Trusts (REIT's). An REIT is any corporation, trust or association that acts as an investment agent specializing in real estate and real estate mortgages Many investment firms offer an index fund or ETF like this. For example, Vanguard and Fidelity have funds that invest primarily in real estate markets. You could also invest in a home construction ETF, like iShares' ITB, which invests in companies related to home construction. This ETF includes more companies than just REITs, so for example, Home Depot is included.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d16189759e51343e7ecb4ac89cf8ce81",
"text": "would buying the stock of a REIT qualify as a 'Like-Kind' exchange? Short answer, no. Long answer, a 1031 (Starker) exchange only applies to real estate. From the Wikipedia page on the topic: To qualify for Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code, the properties exchanged must be held for productive use in a trade or business, or for investment. Stocks, bonds, and other properties are listed as expressly excluded by Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code, although securitized properties are not excluded. A REIT, being stock in a real estate company, is excluded from Section 1031.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8920dfc811304724fd604a06d0c91b13",
"text": "Ok, have your father 'sell' you the house with a RECORDED land contract for x dollars and a gift of equity(GOE) of y. He writes of the max he can each year for the GOE (ask a tax attorney on this one), and your cousin lends him the money for his FL prop. Consult a tax attorney on the capital gains, but you can write off the actualized gains at sale if you LIVED in the prop for 2 of the last 5 or 7 years (I can't remember) and were on title. Years later, you use the recorded land contract, with the verifiable on time payments you've been making, to a conforming lender and do a R&T refi.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "98863528ca9a2014fa3bc34c6c060f5a",
"text": "yes, i am incorporating monte carlo return scenarios for both equity and real estate. yeah there is a lot to consider in the case of the property being a condo where you have to account for property taxes as well as condo fees. the two projects have entirely different considerations and it's not like the money that is injected to one is similar to the other (very different) which is why i figured there should be differing discount rates. in any case, thanks for the discussion and suggestions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e2514f7b41ead8b0f37d702fcf7fbd2",
"text": "well yes but you should also begin to understand the sectoral component of real estate as a market too in that there can be commercial property; industrial property and retail property; each of which is capable of having slightly (tho usually similar of course) different returns, yields, and risks. Whereas you are saving to buy and enter into the residential property market which is different again and valuation principles are often out of kilter here because Buying a home although exposing your asset base to real estate risk isnt usually considered an investment as it is often made on emotional grounds not strict investment criteria.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "89cc2b6694f315a40c76c1cee002a052",
"text": "\"The iShares Barclays Aggregate Bond - ticker AGG, is a ETF that may fit the bill for you. It's an intermediate term fund with annual expenses of .20%. It \"\"seeks investment results that correspond generally to the price and yield performance, before fees and expenses, of the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e0fd5f580d29bb7dc0d3a235d31ffdf2",
"text": "\"All of these frameworks, Markowitz, Mean/CVaR, CARA, etc sit inside a more general framework which is that \"\"returns are good\"\" and \"\"risk/lack of certainty in the returns is bad\"\", and there's a tradeoff between the two encoded as some kind of risk aversion number. You can measure \"\"lack of certainty in returns\"\" by vol, CVaR, weighted sum of higher moments, but even sector/region concentration. Similarly do I want more \"\"returns\"\" or \"\"log returns\"\" or \"\"sqrt returns\"\" in the context of this tradeoff? You don't need any formal notion of utility at that point - and I don't know what formal ideas of utility beyond \"\"I want more returns and less risk\"\" really buys you. The Sharpe ratio only really gets its meaning because you've got some formal asset-pricing notion of utility. In my view the moment that you're putting constraints on the portfolio (e.g. long only, max weights, don't deviate too much from the benchmark ...) - really you're operating in this more general framework anyway and you're not in \"\"utility-land\"\" anymore.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
9cf4aec9021b1e68600aff74ba4d11a3
|
Simple loan with a mortage as collateral
|
[
{
"docid": "cf4ebb2f45e209ce6aed1eb9814a36ff",
"text": "\"Obligatory \"\"Don't do it\"\" remarks: If the guy isn't trusted enough to even show up to work, and can't get a personal loan directly from a bank (Home Equity Line of Credit would suffice), this is really setting things up for failure. What if he quits? What if you need to fire him (you know, for not showing up for weeks)? </rant> In order to be able to place a lien on his home should he default on the loan, you'll need to draft up a loan agreement or promissory note stating specifically that you have the right to do so. Get a lawyer involved. Here's an article that talks about setting up a Private Home Loan, which is geared more at helping someone buy a home, but may prove useful in this case as well: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/borrowing-from-family-friends-buy-29649.html It's pretty lengthy, so I won't quote it out here, but the gist of it is: Get everything in writing in a legally binding contract.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "72eed75865cf38a35de154505afa0fe3",
"text": "Assuming United States; answer may be different elsewhere. The best instructions I have seen for this were on the webpage of one of the law firms making an organized business out of intra-family loans, but any lawyer who can deal with normal bank loans should be able to help you set this up and get it filed with the appropriate authorities to make it a legally binding mortgage. Shouldn't cost you much in legal time to do it. You will have to charge interest; your lawyer can tell you what the minimum and maximimum interest rates would be where you are. Your interest income will be taxable. The borrower may or may not be able to deduct the interest paid from their taxes. Of course if the borrower has any sense they'll want to get their own lawyer to review the terms of the agreement, and to tell them whether they can deduct it from taxes or not.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6c3d4c6665da2f9ba58598c819e7094d",
"text": "I'm assuming that when you sell the house you expect to be able to pay off these loans. In that case you need a loan that can be paid off in full without penalty, but has as low an interest rate as possible. My suggestions:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f92ce53db50ec532e8395af9da6f0bb",
"text": "I think you are running into multiple problems here: All these together look like a high risk to a bank, especially right now with companies being reluctant to hire full-time employees. Looking at it from their perspective, the last thing they need right now is another potential foreclosure on their books. BTW, if it is a consolation, I had to prove 2 years of continuous employment (used to be a freelancer) before the local credit union would consider giving me a mortgage. We missed out on a couple of good deals because of that, too.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "779300a60e57ff333c291551940b1bbd",
"text": "\"Please clarify your question. What do you mean by \"\"..loan in Greece\"\"? If you are referring to taking a mortgage loan to purchase residential property in Greece, there are two factors to consider: If the loan originates from a Greek bank, then odds are likely that the bank will be nationalized by the government if Greece defaults. If the loan is external (i.e. from J.P. Morgan or some foreign bank), then the default will certainly affect any bank that trades/maintains Euros, but banks that are registered outside of Greece won't be nationalized. So what does nationalizing mean for your loan? You will still be expected to pay it according to the terms of the contract. I'd recommend against an adjustable rate contract since rates will certainly rise in a default situation. As for property, that's a different story. There have been reports of violence in Greece already, and if the country defaults, imposes austerity measures, etc, odds are there will be more violence that can harm your property. Furthermore, there is a remote possibility that the government can attempt to acquire your private property. Unlikely, but possible. You could sue in this scenario on property rights violations but things will be very messy from that point on. If Greece doesn't default but just exits the Euro Zone, the situation will be similar. The Drachma will be weak and confidence will be poor, and unrest is a likely outcome. These are not statements of facts but rather my opinion, because I cannot peek into the future. Nonetheless, I would advise against taking a mortgage for property in Greece at this point in time.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba18ba31775842e53398358765bef09d",
"text": "Construction loans have an entirely set of rules and factors than mortgages and that's hard to reconcile into one instrument. Also, I'm guessing the bank would be a bit shy about giving a commitment to a home loan before they have any information about how the construction process is going. There would have to be a ton of contingencies put into mortgage and they probably can't account for everything.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e2e2ad27dfc78b189d96ccbc1f54039",
"text": "You will not be able to. Here is why you don't have the collateral. You have a car that is probably not worth 10k. Also you probably do not have a simple interest loan. You have to look at your contract. Make sure that there is not early payment fee. Also look for the rule of 78's Explanation of Rule of 78's I can't sugarcoat this chances are you were ripped off because you had bad credit putting you into an even deeper hole.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "86ef9962360668eba7a9c6caf07a7265",
"text": "Generally speaking, no they won't. In this case, though I haven't done it myself, I was recommended to put the mortgage on the real estate after it's been leased out and has a contract on it. Then, yes, they will use it for that. But, ex-ante don't expect any bank to count on income from it because, at that point, there's zero guarantee you'll get it leased, and even if you do, at what rate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d99d9f07d98a490df01d95a11efb58aa",
"text": "\"Your assumption is wrong. Land is definitely mortgageable. On the other hand, it may be simpler and attract a lower interest rate if you just mortgage your existing house. (I believe most companies call this \"\"remortgaging\"\" even if you have no existing mortgage). Any loan will be subject to proof that you'll be able to pay it off, like any other mortgage. If the land itself is mortgaged you would need a deposit (i.e. the value of the mortgage would need to be less than the value of the land).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "73deb8ce59c254ab3f7158df06349e47",
"text": "\"Not unless you have something else to put up as collateral. The bank wants a basic assurance that you're not going to immediately move the money to the Caymans and disappear. 999 times out of 1000, the collateral for a home mortgage is the home itself (which you wouldn't be able to take with you if you decided to disappear), so signing up for a 30 year mortgage on a nonexistent house is probably going to get you laughed out of the bank. It's sometimes possible to negotiate something else as collateral; you may, for instance, have a portfolio of securities worth the loan principal, that you can put in escrow for the term of the loan (the securities will stay in your name and make you money, but if you default on the loan the bank goes to the escrow company and takes the portfolio for their own). The bank will consider the risk of value loss on the securities in the portfolio, and may ask for a higher collateral value or only allow a lower loan amount. In all cases, it's usually a bad idea to go into long-term personal debt just to get \"\"cheap money\"\" that you can use to beat the interest rate with some business plan or investment. If you have a business plan, take that to the bank with an LLC and ask for a business loan. The business itself, if the plan is sound, should become valuable, and the terms of business loans take that into account, allowing for a \"\"shrinking collateral\"\" transferring the initial personal risk of the loan to the business.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "adeb62f3873388115cae70ccf26f77c7",
"text": "Used car dealers will sometimes deliberately issue high-interest-rate subprime loans to folks who have poor credit. But taking that kind of risk on a mortgage, when you aren't also taking profit out of the sale, really isn't of interest to anyone who cares about making a profit. There might be a nonprofit our there which does so, but I don't know of one. Fix your credit before trying to borrow.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ad0a10b997fe694ff570c21f460ebae",
"text": "Typically the least formal agreement for any type of lending is a Promisory Note (of which you can find plenty across the web, although I'd suggest picking up a Nolo book from the library and using their templates -- I think the book holding your type of form would be the Personal Legal forms Book). Still, $10k is a very large amount of money to lend to a friend and he probably is better off going to a bank and asking for an unsecured line of credit (not a credit card, but rather a general loan) and doing the money that way because typically that amount of money is small to the bank and they will already have the licenses/assets in place to handle collateral and such (which can be very tricky to do on your own).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e6ad881959a40ac8ec659db1924860be",
"text": "You're never going to get really low interest for an unsecured loan (i.e. without collateral), but if your credit score is excellent, then most banks should give you a decent rate for a personal line of credit. You could inquire at several banks to compare offers. Here in Germany there are also websites that will do such a comparison for you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "72c6294a241bea25d2691f469ed674e1",
"text": "What you are describing is called a Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC). While the strategy you are describing is not impossible it would raise the amount of debt in your name and reduce your borrowing potential. A recent HELOC used to finance the down payment on a second property risks sending a signal of bad financial position to credit analysts and may further reduce your chances to obtain the credit approval.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "001ad7f8030aa55b992aab75c2bd3b7d",
"text": "This is one way in which the scheme could work: You put your own property (home, car, piece of land) as a collateral and get a loan from a bank. You can also try to use the purchased property as security, but it may be difficult to get 100% loan-to-value. You use the money to buy a property that you expect will rise in value and/or provide rent income that is larger than the mortgage payment. Doing some renovations can help the value rise. You sell the property, pay back the loan and get the profits. If you are fast, you might be able to do this even before the first mortgage payment is due. So yeah, $0 of your own cash invested. But if the property doesn't rise in value, you may end up losing the collateral.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4e6b3c3d49316238ac8a589d1dd171d9",
"text": "\"The problem here can be boiled down to that fact you are attempting to obtain a loan without collateral. There are times it can be done, but you have to have a really good relationship with a banker. Your question suggests that avenue has been exhausted. You are looking for an investor, but you are offering something very speculative. Suppose an investor gives you 20K, what recourse does he have if you do not pay the terms of the loan? From what income will this be paid from? What event will trigger the capability to make a balloon payment? Now if you can find a really handy guy that really needs a place to live could you swap rent for repairs? Maybe. Perhaps you buy the materials, and he does the roof in exchange for 6 months worth of rent or whatever. If you approached me with this \"\"investment\"\", the thing that would raise a red flag is why don't you have 20K to do this yourself? If you don't how will you be able to make payments? For example of the items you mentioned: That is a weekend worth of work and some pretty inexpensive materials. Why does money need to be borrowed for this? A weekend worth of demo, and $500 worth of material and another weekend to build something serviceable for a rental. Why does money need to be borrowed for this? 2K? Why does money need to be borrowed for this? This can be expensive, but most roofing companies offer financing. Also doing some of the work yourself can save a ton of money. Demoing an old roof is typically about 1/3 of the roofing cost and is technically simple, but physically difficult. So besides the new roof, you could have a lot of your list solved for less than 3K and three weekends worth of work. You are attempting to change this into a rental, not the Taj Mahal.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd40fec317928dc6104dc709adb7b007",
"text": "On $4K/mo gross about $1000/mo can go to the mortgage, and at today's rates, that's about $200K of mortgage the bank might lend you. Income is qualified based on gross, not net, so if $48,000/yr is wrong, please scale my guesstimate down a bit. In the end, today's rates allow a mortgage of nearly 4X one's gross income. This is too high, in my opinion. I'm answering what the bank would approve you at, not what I think is wise. Wise, in my opinion is 2.5-3X one's income, tops.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f924b3bee805c4529399b76d5b18ffe2
|
Accounting equation: does income really decrease equity?
|
[
{
"docid": "f5ee0695964953917759f76fb3faf967",
"text": "\"If your income stream goes up, it would usually increase both your \"\"income\"\" term and your \"\"assets\"\" term since that money sits in your bank account as an asset. (Even more likely a combination of assets and expenses go up if you have cost associated with the increase in income.) In this case, they balance in the equation and your equity doesn't change. The question as you posed it is true mathematically, but the \"\"paradox\"\" happens because you're not taking into account where the money form the increased income falls in other terms of the equation.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b6acbd800032ff4c58c231b53a69496b",
"text": "\"Equity is the term to make things balance. In a simple transaction, you get $100 paid to you. Income goes up by $100 and the asset of whatever bank account or petty cash drawer you put it into also goes up by $100. Equity is unchanged. If for some reason you had to take some income into your books, but no asset increased, no debt decreased, and you had no way to take an offsetting expense into your books, then this would lower your equity. How else to explain having \"\"earned\"\" $100 but having nothing to show for it?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c7487e4e9f05ef9095d429fe366d9cc5",
"text": "The accounting equation, in short, is: This can be further broken down into: Which can be further broken down into: The GnuCash equation is right, though I would substitute the word equity in that equation with a more-specific paid-in capital. Equity is (simply put) made up of 2 parts: shareholders' equity and retained earnings. Shareholders' equity is the amount invested by shareholders. Retained earnings is the amount earned by the business on behalf of the shareholders. Retained earnings is directly affected by your net income (which is income minus expenses). An increase in income will result in an increase in retained earnings. This must be balanced somewhere. Usually an increase in an asset. It may also be balanced by a decrease in equity. Likewise, increase in expenses will result in a decrease in retained earnings, which must also be balanced.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c197ad441c09d2f3cfd1b2b06df90281",
"text": "I think the most concise way to understand EV is the value of the *operating assets* of the firm. It's most generally used when using income statement or cash flow ratios that are unlevered - before applying interest expense (which if the firm is optimally financed, in theory should only impact the equity). Examples include revenue, EBIT, EBITDA, unlevered FCF, etc. In your hypothetical scenario, you would expect the equity value of the firm to increase linearly as cash builds up. In other words, in some implausible, ceteris paribus formulation of the firm, the enterprise value should remain constant.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bcb6523e22504bb769d3d28f4eef746a",
"text": "It took me a while to understand the concept, so I'll break it down as best as I can. There are three parts to the accounting equation: Assets = Liabilities + Owner's Equity We'll look at this in two ways 1. As a business owner you invest (say) 10,000 USD into your bank. The entry would be: Debit: Assets: Cash for 10,000 Credit: Owner's Equity: Contributions for 10,000 In this case, you have assets of 10,000 from your deposit, but it is due to owner contributions and not business transactions. Another example (say a sale): Debit: Assets: Cash for 10,000 Credit: Owner's Equity: Sales for 10,000 Debit: Assets: Cash for 10,000 Credit: Liabilities: Deposits for 10,000 Deposits are a banking term to reflect a bank's obligation to return the amount on demand (though the bank has free reign with it, see fractional banking) You will NEVER debit or credit your bank as it is assumed you will be storing your money there, note bank reconciliation. Hope this helps, comment with any more questions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "973cb5be67f212b096e1480696eac5df",
"text": "Fuck managerial accounting to death. Anywho, I'm not sure what they mean by the variance being higher or lower in the budget. Variance in principle is the discrepancy from a budget and actual. I'll try to answer this from what I can see. The budget variance in this problem is unfavorable for Busy Community Support, mostly caused by a significant underestimating of your salaries expense in the budget.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c67f9190edaa707f619795e271b101db",
"text": "It doesn't change anything whatsoever about the underlying company. I had a discussion like this during a case study in my Financial Statement Analysis class. It was a discussion about revenue recognition from the sales of iPhones, and whether it would be better for Apple if the regulation was changed to allow immediate recognition rather than deferring the income. My argument is that it didn't matter one bit, because nothing is changing about how the company is actually run. Cash flow in and out of the company doesn't change. Maybe the accountants will have to work slightly shorter hours or something, but that's negligible. The Accounting majors largely disagreed with me, while the Finance majors largely agreed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "24edd62c7ed2bda08884eda0e9dcf42b",
"text": "\"In the US, and in most other countries, dividends are considered income when paid, and capital gains/losses are considered income/loss when realized. This is called, in accounting, \"\"recognition\"\". We recognize income when cash reaches our pocket, for tax purposes. So for dividends - it is when they're paid, and for gains - when you actually sell. Assuming the price of that fund never changes, you have this math do to when you sell: Of course, the capital loss/gain may change by the time you actually sell and realize it, but assuming the only price change is due to the dividends payout - it's a wash.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5b9bddfbc13053744ab668020e549954",
"text": "Yes that is the case for the public company approach, but I was referring to the transaction approach: Firm A and Firm B both have $100 in EBITDA. Firm A has $50 in cash, Firm B has $100 in cash. Firm A sells for $500, Firm B sells for $600. If we didn't subtract cash before calculating the multiple: Firm A: 5x Firm B: 6x If we DO subtract cash before calculating the multiple: Firm A: 4.5x Firm B: 5x So yea, subtracting cash does skew the multiple.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "388d68c4bbd62a93432eb56c917bba4e",
"text": "The sentence you quoted does not apply in the case where you sell the stock at a loss. In that case, you recognize zero ordinary income, and a capital loss (opposite of a gain) for the loss. Reference: http://efs.fidelity.com/support/sps/article/article2.html",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e6a86727ce2c1f10f9574097f583a59e",
"text": "Shareholders are the equity holders. They mean the same thing. A simplified formula for the total value of a company is the value of its equity, plus the value of its debt, less its cash (for reasons I won't get into). There are usually other things to add or subtract, but that's the basic formula.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "052392f5d66b263d95bf4d5e2838e319",
"text": "\"Equity does not represent production divisions in a company (i.e. chocolate, strawberry, and vanilla does not make sense). In Sole proprietorship, equity represents 1 owner. In Partnership, equity has at least two sub-accounts, namely Partner 1 and Partner 2. In Corporations, equity may have Common Stockholders and Preferred Stockholders, or even different class of shares for insiders and angel investors. As you can see, equity represents who owns the company. It is not what the company does or manufactures. First and foremost, define the boundary of the firm. Are your books titled \"\"The books of the family of Doe\"\", \"\"The books of Mr & Mrs Doe\"\", or \"\"The books of Mr & Mrs Doe & Sons\"\". Ask yourself, who \"\"owns\"\" this family. If you believe that a marriage is perpetual until further notice then it does not make any sense to constantly calculate which parent owns the family more. In partnership, firm profits are attributed to partner's accounts using previously agreed ratio. For example, (60%/40% because Partner 1 is more hard working and valuable to the firm. Does your child own this family? Does he/she have any rights to use the assets, to earn income from the assets, to transfer the assets to others, or to enforce private property rights? If they don't have a part of these rights, they are certainly NOT part of Equity. So what happens to the expenses of children if you follow the \"\"partnership\"\" model? There are two ways. The first way is to attribute the Loss to the parents/family since you do not expect the children to repay. It is an unrecoverable loss written off. The second way is to create a Debtor(Asset) account to aggregate all child expense, then create a separate book called \"\"The books Children 1\"\", and classify the expense in that separate book. I advise using \"\"The family of Doe\"\" as the firm's boundary, and having 1 Equity account to simplify everything. It is ultimately up to you to decide the boundaries.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e1ce8250eb72a7472e0fcb696d1dc384",
"text": "\"In general, when dealing with quantities like net income that are not restricted to being positive, \"\"percentage change\"\" is a problematic measure. Even with small positive values it can be difficult to interpret. For example, compare these two companies: Company A: Company B: At a glance, I think most people would come away with the impression that both companies did badly in Y2, but A made a much stronger recovery. The difference between 99.7 and 99.9 looks unimportant compared to the difference between 100,000 and 40,000. But if we translate those to dollars: Company A: Y1 $100m, Y2 $0.1m, Y3 $100.1m Company B: Y1 $100m, Y2 $0.3m, Y3 $120.3m Company B has grown by a net of 20% over two years; Company A by only 1%. If you're lucky enough to know that income will always be positive after Y1 and won't drop too close to zero, then this doesn't matter very much and you can just look at year-on-year growth, leaving Y1 as undefined. If you don't have that guarantee, then you may do better to look for a different and more stable metric, the other answers are correct: Y1 growth should be left blank. If you don't have that guarantee, then it might be time to look for a more robust measure, e.g. change in net income as a percentage of turnover or of company value.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f313648abe18b604213f4933b8a1916b",
"text": "No. Revenue is the company's gross income. The stock price has no contribution to the company's income. The stock price may be affected when the company's income deviates from what it was expected to be.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "998c6bb64e219b1c2a9fa3c93102ef7f",
"text": "If you were a business, all your assets would have a dollar value, so when you sold them you'd decrease the amount of assets by that amount and increase in cash, and if there was a profit on the sale it would go in as income, if there was loss it would count as a cost (or a loss)... so if there was a profit it would increase Equity, a loss then it would decrease Equity. Since it's not really worthwhile doing a estimated cost for everything that you have, I'd just report it as income like you are doing and let the amount of equity increase proportionately. So, implicitly you always had roughly that amount of equity, but some of it was in the form of assets, and now you're liquidating those assets so the amount shows up in GnuCash. When you buy new things you might sell later, you could consider adding them as assets to keep track of this explicitly (but even then you have problems-- the price of things changes with time and you might not want to keep up with those price changes, it's a lot of extra work for a family budget) -- for stuff you already have it's better to treat things as you are doing and just treat the money as income-- it's easier and doesn't really change anything-- you always had that in equity, some of it was just off the books and now you are bringing it into the books.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3ddaf7271004c475e64b50bd5c65277",
"text": "\"This formula is not calculating \"\"Earnings\"\". Instead, it is calculating \"\"Free Cash Flow from Operations\"\". As the original poster notes, the \"\"Earnings\"\" calculation subtracted out depreciation and amortization. The \"\"Free Cash Flow from Operations\"\" adds these values back, but for two different reasons:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1adf6bf3b115f70cb8d77a0be6e30f97",
"text": "\"Yes - this is exactly what it means. No losses (negative earnings). With today's accounting methods, you might want to determine whether you view earnings including or excluding extraordinary items. For example, a company might take a once-off charge to its earnings when revising the value of a major asset. This would show in the \"\"including\"\" but not in the \"\"excluding\"\" figure. The book actually has a nice discussion in Chapter 12 \"\"Things to Consider About Per-Share Earnings\"\" which considers several additional variables to consider here too. Note that this earnings metric is different from \"\"Stock Selection for the Defensive Investor\"\" which requires 10 years. PS - My edition (4th edition hardback) doesn't have 386 pages so your reference isn't correct for that edition. I found it on page 209 in Chapter 15 \"\"Stock Selection for the Enterprising Investor\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b693d1e182c3ed28bb173f8f81004e15",
"text": "\"There are probably many correct answers to this question, but for most people, the main reason is qualified dividends. To be a qualified dividend (and therefore eligible for lower tax rates), the dividend-paying stock or fund must be held for \"\"more than 60 days during the 121-day period that begins 60 days before the ex-dividend date\"\". Since many stocks and funds pay out dividends at the end of the year, that means it takes until mid- to late February to determine if you held them, and therefore made the dividend qualified. Brokerages don't want to send out 1099s in January and then possibly have to send out revised versions if you decide to sell something that paid a dividend in December that otherwise would have been qualified.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
9cca706cf21cbd87f790e822c22e5865
|
No transaction fee ETF trades - what's the catch?
|
[
{
"docid": "e6a5b1a28f9a16f547af83d7f15df226",
"text": "\"Banks often offer cash to people who open savings accounts in order to drive new business. Their gain is pretty much as you think, to grow their asset base. A survey released in 2008 by UK-based Age Concern declared that only 16% of the British population have ever switched their banks‚ while 45% of marriages now end in divorce. Yip, till death do most part. In the US, similar analysis is pointing to a decline in people moving banks from the typical rate of 15% annually. If people are unwilling to change banks then how much more difficult for online brokers to get customers to switch? TD Ameritrade is offering you 30 days commission-free and some cash (0.2% - 0.4% depending on the funds you invest). Most people - especially those who use the opportunity to buy and hold - won't make much money for them, but it only takes a few more aggressive traders for them to gain overall. For financial institutions the question is straightforward: how much must they pay you to overcome your switching cost of changing institutions? If that number is sufficiently smaller than what they feel they can make in profits on having your business then they will pay. EDIT TO ELABORATE: The mechanism by which any financial institution makes money by offering cash to customers is essentially one of the \"\"law of large numbers\"\". If all you did is transfer in, say, $100,000, buy an ETF within the 30-day window (or any of the ongoing commission-free ones) and hold, then sell after a few years, they will probably lose money on you. I imagine they expect that on a large number of people taking advantage of this offer. Credit card companies are no different. More than half of people pay their monthly credit balance without incurring any interest charges. They get 30 days of credit for free. Everyone else makes the company a fortune. TD Ameritrade's fees are quite comprehensive outside of this special offer. Besides transactional commissions, their value-added services include subscription fees, administration fees, transaction fees, a few extra-special value-added services and, then, when you wish to cash out and realise your returns, an outbound transfer fee. However, you're a captured market. Since most people won't change their online brokers any more often than they'd change their bank, TD Ameritrade will be looking to offer you all sorts of new services and take commission on all of it. At most they spend $500-$600 to get you as a customer, or, to get you to transfer a lot more cash into their funds. And they get to keep you for how long? Ten years, maybe more? You think they might be able to sell you a few big-ticket items in the interim? Maybe interest you in some subscription service? This isn't grocery shopping. They can afford to think long-term.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "70dd94ebee52e6a3aa1787f229346ce8",
"text": "\"AFAIK, It's also possible that the ETF company is paying Ameritrade for every trade you make. Even if your brokerage doesn't make you pay a fee to trade ETFs, the company that created and runs the ETF is still making money when you purchase and use their ETFs. See \"\"What motivates each player?\"\" at Yahoo Finance.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5aecb743b3b4ce1da86b2029b6d4bea6",
"text": "what is the mechanism by which they make money on the funds that I have in my account? Risk drives TD Ameritrade to look for profits, Turukawa's storytelling about 100,000$ and 500$ is trivial. The risk consists of credit risk, asset-liability risk and profit risk. The third, based on Pareto Principle, explains the loss-harvesting. The pareto distribution is used in all kind of decentralized systems such as Web, business and -- if I am not totally wrong -- the profit risk is a thing that some authorities require firms to investigate, hopefully someone could explain you more about it. You can visualize the distribution with rpareto(n, shape, scale) in R Statistics -program (free). Wikipedia's a bit populist description: In the financial services industry, this concept is known as profit risk, where 20% or fewer of a company's customers are generating positive income while 80% or more are costing the company money. Read more about it here and about the risk here.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "daeb68910f70be984d51f671d0e67cae",
"text": "The Creation/Redemption mechanism is how shares of an ETF are created or redeemed as needed and thus is where there can be differences in what the value of the holdings can be versus the trading price. If the ETF is thinly traded, then the difference could be big as more volume would be where the mechanism could kick in as generally there are blocks required so the mechanism usually created or redeemed in lots of 50,000 shares I believe. From the link where AP=Authorized Participant: With ETFs, APs do most of the buying and selling. When APs sense demand for additional shares of an ETF—which manifests itself when the ETF share price trades at a premium to its NAV—they go into the market and create new shares. When the APs sense demand from investors looking to redeem—which manifests itself when the ETF share price trades at a discount—they process redemptions. So, suppose the NAV of the ETF is $20/share and the trading price is $30/share. The AP can buy the underlying securities for $20/share in a bulk order that equates to 50,000 shares of the ETF and exchange the underlying shares for new shares in the ETF. Then the AP can turn around and sell those new ETF shares for $30/share and pocket the gain. If you switch the prices around, the AP would then take the ETF shares and exchange them for the underlying securities in the same way and make a profit on the difference. SEC also notes this same process.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3434f214ebf6ea235e1f6dc952df5914",
"text": "\"How does [FINRA's 5% markup policy] (http://www.investopedia.com/study-guide/series-55/commissions-and-trade-complaints/finra-5-markup-policy/) affect the expense/profit/value of an ETF/Mutual Fund? An extreme example to illustrate: If my fund buys 100 IBM @ 100, The fund would credit the broker $10,000 for those shares and the broker would give the fund 100 shares. Additionally there would be some sort of commission (say $10) paid on top of the transaction which would come out of the fund's expense ratio. But the broker is \"\"allowed\"\" to charge a 5% markup. So that means, that $100 price that I see could have hit the tape at $95 (assume 5% markup which is allowed). Thus, assuming that the day had zero volatility for IBM, when the fund gets priced at the end of the day, my 100 shares which \"\"cost\"\" 10,000 (plus $10) now has a market value of $9,500. Is that how it \"\"could\"\" work? That 500 isn't calculated as part of the expense of the fund is it? (how could it be, they don't know about the exact value of the markup).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a9de080444de75c710b8e60527623c7",
"text": "\"I'm trying to understand how an ETF manager optimized it's own revenue. Here's an example that I'm trying to figure out. ETF firm has an agreement with GS for blocks of IBM. They have agreed on daily VWAP + 1% for execution price. Further, there is a commission schedule for 5 mils with GS. Come month end, ETF firm has to do a monthly rebalance. As such must buy 100,000 shares at IBM which goes for about $100 The commission for the trade is 100,000 * 5 mils = $500 in commission for that trade. I assume all of this is covered in the expense ratio. Such that if VWAP for the day was 100, then each share got executed to the ETF at 101 (VWAP+ %1) + .0005 (5 mils per share) = for a resultant 101.0005 cost basis The ETF then turns around and takes out (let's say) 1% as the expense ratio ($1.01005 per share) I think everything so far is pretty straight forward. Let me know if I missed something to this point. Now, this is what I'm trying to get my head around. ETF firm has a revenue sharing agreement as well as other \"\"relations\"\" with GS. One of which is 50% back on commissions as soft dollars. On top of that GS has a program where if you do a set amount of \"\"VWAP +\"\" trades you are eligible for their corporate well-being programs and other \"\"sponsorship\"\" of ETF's interests including helping to pay for marketing, rent, computers, etc. Does that happen? Do these disclosures exist somewhere?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd78d8de100b0b96660b4880dbd1de17",
"text": "Almost all major no-load mutual fund families allow you to do the kind of thing you are talking about, however you may need an initial investment of between $1000 to $3000 depending on the fund. Once you have it however, annual fee's are usually very little, and the fees to buy that companies funds are usually zero if it's a no-load company (Vanguard, TRowPrice, etc) With the larger companies that means you have a pretty large selection of funds, but generally EACH fund has a minimum initial purchase, once that's met then you can buy additional amounts in small quantities without a problem. For someone on a smaller budget, many low cost brokers (ETrade as mentioned by Litteadv, Scottrade as mentioned by myself in another similar question today) allow you to start with smaller initial balances and have a small selection of funds or ETF's that you can trade from without commission. In the case of Scottrade, they have like 15 ETF's that you can trade comission free. Check with the various low cost brokerages such as ETrade, Scottrade, and TDAmeritrade, to see what their policies are, and what if any funds/ETF's they allow you to trade in without commissions. Keep in mind that for Mutual funds, there may still be a fund minimum initial investment that applies, be sure to check if that is the case or not. The lack of any minimum investment makes ETF's a slightly more attractive option for someone who doesn't have the 'buy in' that many funds require.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "59cf5efd93208588af4d31a00b6e7d2d",
"text": "NSCC illiquid charges are charges that apply to the trading of low-priced over-the counter (OTC) securities with low volumes. Open net buy quantity represents the total unsettled share amount per stock at any given time during a 3-day settlement cycle. Open net buy quantity must be less than 5,000,000 shares per stock for your entire firm Basically, you can't hold a long position of more than 5 million shares in an illiquid OTC stock without facing a fee. You'll still be assessed this fee if you accumulate a long position of this size by breaking your purchase up into multiple transactions. Open net sell quantity represents the total unsettled share amount per stock at any given time during a 3-day settlement cycle. Open net sell quantity must be less than 10% percent of the 20-day average volume If you attempt to sell a number of shares greater than 10% of the stock's average volume over the last 20 days, you'll also be assessed a fee. The first link I included above is just an example, but it makes the important point: you may still be assessed a fee for trading OTC stocks even if your account doesn't meet the criteria because these restrictions are applied at the level of the clearing firm, not the individual client. This means that if other investors with your broker, or even at another broker that happens to use the same clearing firm, purchase more than 5 million shares in an individual OTC stock at the same time, all of your accounts may face fees, even though individually, you don't exceed the limits. Technically, these fees are assessed to the clearing firm, not the individual investor, but usually the clearing firm will pass the fees along to the broker (and possibly add other charges as well), and the broker will charge a fee to the individual account(s) that triggered the restriction. Also, remember that when buying OTC/pink sheet stocks, your ability to buy or sell is also contingent on finding someone else to buy from/sell to. If you purchase 10,000 shares one day and attempt to sell them sometime in the future, but there aren't enough buyers to buy all 10,000 from you, you might not be able to complete your order at the desired price, or even at all.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6f178facbd7508300d25c48cbe0b2462",
"text": "If the company has a direct reinvestment plan or DRIP that they operate in house or contract out to a financial company to administer, yes. There can still be transaction fees, and none of these I know of offer real time trading. Your trade price will typically be defined in the plan as the opening or closing price on the trade date. Sometimes these plans offer odd lot sales at a recent running average price which could provide a hundred dollar or so arbitrage opportunity.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96316907f30923f52fde39c6eb9b971b",
"text": "Well on a levered fund it makes a lot of sense. If you lose 10% on day one and you are 2x levered you just lost 20%. Now on the next day if it corrects 10% you are still down because you've gone up 20% of a lesser amount then you went down by. Then even worse with oil or commodity funds they are forced to roll their futures since they don't want to take delivery, which allows them to be picked off by traders. This is referred to as levered ETF decay. If you do trade levered funds it should be on an intraday basis, and then you're dealing with serious transaction costs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d00dd5afb4e0e6968e4d1bf071575e6",
"text": "\"ETFs purchases are subject to a bid/ask spread, which is the difference between the highest available purchase offer (\"\"bid\"\") and the lowest available sell offer (\"\"ask\"\"). You can read more about this concept here. This cost doesn't exist for mutual funds, which are priced once per day, and buyers and sellers all use the same price for transactions that day. ETFs allow you to trade any time that the market is open. If you're investing for the long term (which means you're not trying to time your buy/sell orders to a particular time of day), and the pricing is otherwise equal between the ETF and the mutual fund (which they are in the case of Vanguard's ETFs and Admiral Shares mutual funds), I would go with the mutual fund because it eliminates any cost associated with bid/ask spread.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4c7e517d976445ea8fea5aa4c0baa1f4",
"text": "What bank, and is there restrictions on the trades? (i.e. they only go through once a week?) I do light medium term trading - maybe 5-10 trades per quarter - and would love to be able to cut out the fees.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "25e9d3853e7da184bc9830783254f614",
"text": "\"For a non-ETF mutual fund, you can only buy shares of the mutual fund from the mutual fund itself (at a price that the mutual fund will reveal only at the end of the day) and can only shares back to the mutual fund (again at a price that the mutual fund will reveal only at the end of the day). There is no open market in the sense that you cannot put in a bid to buy, say, 100 shares of VFINX at $217 per share through a brokerage, and if there is a seller willing to sell 100 shares of VFINX to you at $217, then the sale is consummated and you are now the proud owner of 100 shares of VFINX. The only buyer or seller of VFINX is the mutual find itself, and you tell it that you \"\"want to buy 100 shares of VFINX and please take the money out of my checking account\"\". If this order is entered before the markets close at 4 pm, the mutual fund determines its share price as of the end of the day, opens a new account for you and puts 100 shares of VFINX in it (or adds 100 shares of VFINX to your already existing pile of shares) and takes the purchase price out of your checking account via an ACH transfer. Similarly for redeeming/selling shares of VFINX that you own (and these are held in an account at the mutual fund itself, not by your brokerage): you tell the mutual fund to that you \"\"wish to redeem 100 shares and please send the proceeds to my bank account\"\" and the mutual fund does this at the end of the day, and the money appears in your bank account via ACH transfer two or three days later. Generally, these transactions do not need to be for round lots of multiples of 100 shares for efficiency; most mutual fund will gladly sell you fractional shares down to a thousandth of a share. In contrast, shares of an exchange-traded fund (ETF) are just like stock shares in that they can be bought and sold on the open market and your broker will charge you fees for buying and selling them. Selling fractional shares on the open market is generally not possible, and trading in round lots is less expensive. Also, trades occur at all times of the stock exchange day, not just at the end of the day as with non-ETF funds, and the price can fluctuate during the day too. Many non-ETF mutual funds have an ETF equivalent: VOO is the symbol for Vanguard's S&P 500 Index ETF while VFINX is the non-ETF version of the same index fund. Read more about the differences between ETFs and mutual funds, for example, here.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "35889a5546d6239548ae4eb8634a8426",
"text": "The way it is handled with ETF's is that someone has to gather a block of units and redeem them with the fund. So, with the mutual fund you redeem your unit directly with the fund, always, you never sell to another player. With the ETF - its the opposite, you sell to another player. Once a player has a large chunk of units - he can go to the fund and redeem them. These are very specific players (investment banks), not individual investors.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1fa9a19bf4ae1323db1fa31bb93c3932",
"text": "Its hard to write much in those comment boxes, so I'll just make an answer, although its really not a formal answer. Regarding commissions, it costs me $5 per trade, so that's actually $10 per trade ($5 to buy, $5 to sell). An ETF like TNA ($58 per share currently) fluctuates $1 or $2 per day. IXC is $40 per share and fluctuates nearly 50 cents per day (a little less). So to make any decent money per trade would mean a share size of 50 shares TNA which means I need $2900 in cash (TNA is not marginable). If it goes up $1 and I sell, that's $10 for the broker and $40 for me. I would consider this to be the minimum share size for TNA. For IXC, 100 shares would cost me $4000 / 2 = $2000 since IXC is marginable. If IXC goes up 50 cents, that's $10 for the broker and $40 for me. IXC also pays a decent dividend. TNA does not. You'll notice the amount of cash needed to capture these gains is roughly the same. (Actually, to capture daily moves in IXC, you'll need a bit more than $2000 because it doesn't vary quite a full 50 cents each day). At first, I thought you were describing range trading or stock channeling, but those systems require stop losses when the range or channel is broken. You're now talking about holding forever until you get 1 or 2 points of profit. Therefore, I wouldn't trade stocks at all. Stocks could go to zero, ETFs will not. It seems to me you're looking for a way to generate small, consistent returns and you're not seeking to strike it rich in one trade. Therefore, buying something that pays a dividend would be a good idea if you plan to hold forever while waiting for your 1 or 2 points. In your system you're also going to have to define when to get back in the trade. If you buy IXC now at $40 and it goes to $41 and you sell, do you wait for it to come back to $40? What if it never does? Are you happy with having only made one trade for $40 profit in your lifetime? What if it goes up to $45 and then dips to $42, do you buy at $42? If so, what stops you from eventually buying at the tippy top? Or even worse, what stops you from feeling even more confident at the top and buying bigger lots? If it gets to $49, surely it will cover that last buck to $50, right? /sarc What if you bought IXC at $40 and it went down. Now what? Do you take up gardening as a hobby while waiting for IXC to come back? Do you buy more at lower prices and average down? Do you find other stocks to trade? If so, how long until you run out of money and you start getting margin calls? Then you'll be forced to sell at the bottom when you should be buying more. All these systems seem easy, but when you actually get in there and try to use them, you'll find they're not so easy. Anything that is obvious, won't work anymore. And even when you find something that is obvious and bet that it stops working, you'll be wrong then too. The thing is, if you think of it, many others just like you also think of it... therefore it can't work because everyone can't make money in stocks just like everyone at the poker table can't make money. If you can make 1% or 2% per day on your money, that's actually quite good and not too many people can do that. Or maybe its better to say, if you can make 2% per trade, and not take a 50% loss per 10 trades, you're doing quite well. If you make $40 per trade profit while working with $2-3k and you do that 50 times per year (50 trades is not a lot in a year), you've doubled your money for the year. Who does that on a consistent basis? To expect that kind of performance is just unrealistic. It much easier to earn $2k with $100k than it is to double $2k in a year. In stocks, money flows TO those who have it and FROM those who don't. You have to plan for all possibilities, form a system then stick to it, and not take on too much risk or expect big (unrealistic) rewards. Daytrading You make 4 roundtrips in 5 days, that broker labels you a pattern daytrader. Once you're labeled, its for life at that brokerage. If you switch to a new broker, the new broker doesn't know your dealings with the old broker, therefore you'll have to establish a new pattern with the new broker in order to be labeled. If the SEC were to ask, the broker would have to say 'yes' or 'no' concering if you established a pattern of daytrading at that brokerage. Suppose you make the 4 roundtrips and then you make a 5th that triggers the call. The broker will call you up and say you either need to deposit enough to bring your account to $25k or you need to never make another daytrade at that firm... ever! That's the only warning you'll ever get. If you're in violation again, they lock your account to closing positions until you send in funds to bring the balance up to $25k. All you need to do is have the money hit your account, you can take it right back out again. Once your account has $25k, you're allowed to trade again.... even if you remove $15k of it that same day. If you trigger the call again, you have to send the $15k back in, then take it back out. Having the label is not all bad... they give you 4x margin. So with $25k, you can buy $100k of marginable stock. I don't know... that could be a bad thing too. You could get a margin call at the end of the day for owning $100k of stock when you're only allowed to own $50k overnight. I believe that's a fed call and its a pretty big deal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "620e0c7502c507567baca5005d36645a",
"text": "Some brokerages will allow you to enroll your account in a dividend reinvestment plan -- TD Ameritrade and I think Schwab for example. The way the plan works is that they would take your $4 and give you whatever fractional share of the ETF it is worth on the payment date. There are no fees associated with this purchase (or at least there are in the programs I've seen -- if you have to pay a fee, look for another brokerage). You may also be able to enroll specific securities instead of the entire account into dividend reinvestment. Call your brokerage to see what they offer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b611ab7be380f386dbf483a0cc9637eb",
"text": "I personally invest in 4 different ETFs. I have $1000 to invest every month. To save on transaction costs, I invest that sum in only one ETF each month, the one that is most underweight at the time. For example, I invest in XIC (30%), VTI (30%), VEA (30%), and VWO (10%). One month, I'll buy XIC, next month VTA, next month, VEA, then XIC again. Eventually I'll buy VWO when it's $1000 underweight. If one ETF tanks, I may buy it twice in a row to reach my target allocation, or if it shoots up, I may skip buying it for a while. My actual asset allocation never ends up looking exactly like the target, but it trends towards it. And I only pay one commission a month. If this is in a tax-sheltered account (main TFSA or RRSP), another option is to invest in no-load index mutual funds that match the ETFs each month (assuming there's no commission to buy them). Once they reach a certain amount, sell and buy the equivalent ETFs. This is not a good approach in a non-registered account because you will have to pay tax on any capital gains when selling the mutual funds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "639b9ab3d09b533aafdcc8760cf3fd09",
"text": "- ETFs make money through management fees. You can look it up: they all skim off a little bit of its profit, normally <1%. - It's all about cheap diversification. People generally don't have the capital to invest individually in each equity to mimic an ETF's portfolio. - Yes, but you need a lot of money. For example: You can't just invest $1 in GOOG if you want to buy a tech sector ETF.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
6eae650f4eb3d246ae11dd68006ac241
|
Over the long term, why invest in bonds?
|
[
{
"docid": "e2174f138c71e1504c17ffbbe56eb991",
"text": "\"If I don't need this money for decades, meaning I can ride out periodical market crashes, why would I invest in bonds instead of funds that track broad stock market indexes? You wouldn't. But you can never be 100% sure that you really won't need the money for decades. Also, even if you don't need it for decades, you can never be 100% certain that the market will not be way down at the time, decades in the future, when you do need the money. The amount of your portfolio you allocate to bonds (relative to stocks) can be seen as a measure of your desire to guard against that uncertainty. I don't think it's accurate to say that \"\"the general consensus is that your portfolio should at least be 25% in bonds\"\". For a young investor with high risk tolerance, many would recommend less than that. For instance, this page from T. Rowe Price suggests no more than 10% bonds for those in their 20s or 30s. Basically you would put money into bonds rather than stocks to reduce the volatility of your portfolio. If you care only about maximizing return and don't care about volatility, then you don't have to invest in bonds. But you probably actually do care about volatility, even if you don't think you do. You might not care enough to put 25% in bonds, but you might care enough to put 10% in bonds.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd4931e1968953260f3368e895dd5e48",
"text": "Bonds provide protections against stock market crashes, diversity and returns as the other posters have said but the primary reason to invest in bonds is to receive relatively guaranteed income. By that I mean you receive regular payments as long as the debtor doesn't go bankrupt and stop paying. Even when this happens, bondholders are the first in line to get paid from the sale of the business's assets. This also makes them less risky. Stocks don't guarantee income and shareholders are last in line to get paid. When a stock goes to zero, you lose everything, where as a bondholder will get some face value redemption to the notes issue price and still keep all the previous income payments. In addition, you can use your bond income to buy more shares of stock and increase your gains there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5b70a0767127af96e29b1b5b41b93e99",
"text": "\"I can think of a few reasons for this. First, bonds are not as correlated with the stock market so having some in your portfolio will reduce volatility by a bit. This is nice because it makes you panic less about the value changes in your portfolio when the stock market is acting up, and I'm sure that fund managers would rather you make less money consistently then more money in a more volatile way. Secondly, you never know when you might need that money, and since stock market crashes tend to be correlated with people losing their jobs, it would be really unfortunate to have to sell off stocks when they are under-priced due to market shenanigans. The bond portion of your portfolio would be more likely to be stable and easier to sell to help you get through a rough patch. I have some investment money I don't plan to touch for 20 years and I have the bond portion set to 5-10% since I might as well go for a \"\"high growth\"\" position, but if you're more conservative, and might make withdrawals, it's better to have more in bonds... I definitely will switch over more into bonds when I get ready to retire-- I'd rather have slow consistent payments for my retirement than lose a lot in an unexpected crash at a bad time!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "138baafde70878589e308c1b46610db7",
"text": "Many folks use bonds to diversify their portfolio since bonds rise and fall in value at different times and for different reasons than stocks. Bonds pay interest on a regular basis (usually monthly or quarterly) and so some people invest in bonds in order to match the interest payments to some regular expense they might have. The interest payment does not change (fixed income). For individual bonds, there is a maturity date at which you can expect to receive the face value of the bond (the issuer's creditworthiness is important here). You can make a little money on a bond by buying it when its value is lower than its face value and either selling later for a higher value, or waiting for it to mature. Often the minimum investment for a single bond is high, so if you don't have a large enough amount, you can still get the performance of bonds through a bond fund. These do not mature, so you don't have a guarantee of a return of your investment. However, they have access to more bonds than retail investors, so the funds can keep your money more fully invested. If you don't need the income, you can reinvest the dividends and have a little extra capital growth this way.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "132ecb257ac4664dc0b3037828419962",
"text": "You should definitely favor holding bonds in tax-advantaged accounts, because bonds are not tax-efficient. The reason is that more of their value comes in the form of regular, periodic distributions, rather than an increase in value as is the case with stocks or stock funds. With stocks, you can choose to realize all that appreciation when it is most advantageous for you from a tax perspective. Additionally, stock dividends often receive lower tax rates. For much more detail, see Tax-efficient fund placement.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7bbdff4b74a172dce539bd323e632508",
"text": "\"The time value of money is very important in understanding this issue. Money today is worth more than money next year, two years from now, etc. It's a well understood economics concept, and well worth reading about if you have some, well, time. Not only is money literally worth more now than later due to inflation, but there is the simple fact that, assuming you have money for the purpose of doing something, being able to do that thing today is better than doing that same thing tomorrow. \"\"A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush\"\" gets to this rather directly; having it now is better than probably having it later. Would you rather have a nice meal tonight, or eat beans and rice tonight and then have the same nice meal next year? That's why interest exists, in part: you're offered some money now, for more money later; or in the case of buying a bond, you're offered more money later for some money now. The fact that people have different discount rates for money later is why the loan market can exist: people with more money than they can use now have a lower discount for future money than people who really need money right now (to buy a house, to pay their rent, whatever). So when choosing to buy a bond, you look at the money you're going to get, both over the short term (the coupon rate) and the long term (the face value), and you consider whether $80 now is worth $100 in 20 years, plus $2 per year. For some people it is - for some people it isn't, and that's why the price is as it is ($80). Odds are if you have a few thousand USD, you're probably not going to be interested in this - or if you have a very long term outlook; there are better ways to make money over that long term. But, if you're a bank needing a secure investment that won't lose value, or a trust that needs high stability, you might be willing to take that deal.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a594531713f25db64f1f7048814d8604",
"text": "A stock is an ownership interest in a company. There can be multiple classes of shares, but to simplify, assuming only one class of shares, a company issues some number of shares, let's say 1,000,000 shares and you can buy shares of the company. If you own 1,000 shares in this example, you would own one one-thousandth of the company. Public companies have their shares traded on the open market and the price varies as demand for the stock comes and goes relative to people willing to sell their shares. You typically buy stock in a company because you believe the company is going to prosper into the future and thus the value of its stock should rise in the open market. A bond is an indebted interest in a company. A company issues bonds to borrow money at an interest rate specified in the bond issuance and makes periodic payments of principal and interest. You buy bonds in a company to lend the company money at an interest rate specified in the bond because you believe the company will be able to repay the debt per the terms of the bond. The value of a bond as traded on the open exchange varies as the prevailing interest rates vary. If you buy a bond for $1,000 yielding 5% interest and interest rates go up to 10%, the value of your bond in the open market goes down so that the payment terms of 5% on $1,000 matches hypothetical terms of 10% on a lesser principal amount. Whatever lesser principal amount at the new rate would lead to the same payment terms determines the new market value. Alternatively, if interest rates go down, the current value of your bond increases on the open market to make it appear as if it is yielding a lower rate. Regardless of the market value, the company continues to pay interest on the original debt per its terms, so you can always hold onto a bond and get the original promised interest as long as the company does not go bankrupt. So in summary, bonds tend to be a safer investment that offers less potential return. However, this is not always the case, since if interest rates skyrocket, your bond's value will plummet, although you could just hold onto them and get the low rate originally promised.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "db66be504a892bc3ea02c50fdb954cbc",
"text": "\"In the quoted passage, the bonds are \"\"risky\"\" because you CAN lose money. Money markets can be insured by the FDIC, and thus are without risk in many instances. In general, there are a few categories of risks that affect bonds. These include: The most obvious general risk with long-term bonds versus short-term bonds today is that rates are historically low.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7755f8c87469a7bce12e478865efa8ef",
"text": "When interest rates rise, the price of bonds fall because bonds have a fixed coupon rate, and since the interest rate has risen, the bond's rate is now lower than what you can get on the market, so it's price falls because it's now less valuable. Bonds diversify your portfolio as they are considered safer than stocks and less volatile. However, they also provide less potential for gains. Although diversification is a good idea, for the individual investor it is far too complicated and incurs too much transaction costs, not to mention that rebalancing would have to be done on a regular basis. In your case where you have mutual funds already, it is probably a good idea to keep investing in mutual funds with a theme which you understand the industry's role in the economy today rather than investing in some special bonds which you cannot relate to. The benefit of having a mutual fund is to have a professional manage your money, and that includes diversification as well so that you don't have to do that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "55a7bd36c545fb5229e6d80425af33a9",
"text": "This is a perfect example of why bonds are confusing at first glance. Think about it this way... You buy a 30-year Russian Bond at 4%. An event happens that makes Russia risky to invest in. You want to buy another bond but fuck 4%, you and the rest of the market want 6% to compensate you for the risk. Now let's say you want to sell your 4% bond... Well you're going to have to drop the price of that bond in order for it to appeal to an investor that could go out and get a 6%. On a 30-year bond of that kind, you're looking at about 75% of what you bought it for. So to wrap it up, high bond yields are great for buyers that don't already own them, but bad for sellers who want to get rid of their old ones. It is the opposite intuition as stocks and almost everything else.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2aaca1bc531b6eef0e29db9a819bcf72",
"text": "Bonds can increase in price, if the demand is high and offer solid yield if the demand is low. For instance, Russian bond prices a year ago contracted big in price (ie: fell), but were paying 18% and made a solid buy. Now that the demand has risen, the price is up with the yield for those early investors the same, though newer investors are receiving less yield (about 9ish percent) and paying higher prices. I've rarely seen banks pay more variable interest than short term treasuries and the same holds true for long term CDs and long term treasuries. This isn't to say it's impossible, just rare. Also variable is different than a set term; if you buy a 10 year treasury at 18%, that means you get 18% for 10 years, even if interest rates fall four years later. Think about the people buying 30 year US treasuries during 1980-1985. Yowza. So if you have a very large amount of money you will store it in bonds as its much less likely that the US treasury will go bankrupt than your bank. Less likely? I don't know about your bank, but my bank doesn't owe $19 trillion.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d1c127a3e9e3982f880d91565d518c2",
"text": "I recall similar strategies when (in the US) interest rates were quite a bit higher than now. The investment company put 75% or so into into a 5 year guaranteed bond, the rest was placed in stock index options. In effect, one had a guaranteed return (less inflation, of course) of principal, and a chance for some market gains especially if it went a lot higher over the next 5 years. The concept is sound if executed correctly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e431c2f9d469ccc33da64dbcf88180e7",
"text": "Short-term to intermediate-term corporate bond funds are available. The bond fund vehicle helps manage the credit risk, while the short terms help manage inflation and interest rate risk. Corporate bond funds will have fewer Treasuries bonds than a general-purpose short-term bond fund: it sounds like you're interested in things further out along the risk curve than a 0.48% return on a 5-year bond, and thus don't care for the Treasuries. Corporate bonds are generally safer than stocks because, in bankruptcy, all your bondholders have to be paid in full before any equity-holders get a penny. Stocks are much more volatile, since they're essentially worth the value of their profits after paying all their debt, taxes, and other expenses. As far as stocks are concerned, they're not very good for the short term at all. One of the stabler stock funds would be something like the Vanguard Equity Income Fund, and it cautions: This fund is designed to provide investors with an above-average level of current income while offering exposure to the stock market. Since the fund typically invests in companies that are dedicated to consistently paying dividends, it may have a higher yield than other Vanguard stock mutual funds. The fund’s emphasis on slower-growing, higher-yielding companies can also mean that its total return may not be as strong in a significant bull market. This income-focused fund may be appropriate for investors who have a long-term investment goal and a tolerance for stock market volatility. Even the large-cap stable companies can have their value fall dramatically in the short term. Look at its price chart; 2008 was brutal. Avoid stocks if you need to spend your money within a couple of years. Whatever you choose, read the prospectus to understand the risks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "714c109a6f73a24b52331fe0ecc0db3a",
"text": "If you want to spend all of your money in the next few years, then a CD protects you from the risk of a bear market. however, if your time horizon is longer than 10 years, then the stock market is a better bet, since it is less effected by inflation risk. also, as you point out average stock returns are much higher, ignoring volatility. On the whole, CD's appeal to people who would otherwise save their money in cash. generally, it seems these people are simply afraid of stocks and bonds because those securities can lose nominal value as well as real value. I suspect this is largely because these people don't understand inflation, nor the historical long-term index fund performance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "159fd918e0c65f68e6529b8c7b2f5907",
"text": "I found a comparison of stock and bond returns. The relevant portion here is that bonds went up by 10% in 2007 and 20% in 2008 (32% compounded). Stocks were already recovering in 2009, going up almost 26%. You don't mention what you were hoping to get from your gold investment, but bonds gave a very good return for those two years.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a16e38607c9d834e9d46ff63df423c5",
"text": "No I get that. But if you don’t want risk, then buy bonds. Long term an S&P Index has very low risk. On the other hand, actively managed funds have fees that take out a ton of the gain that could be had. I don’t have time to look for the study but I read recently that 97% of actively managed funds were outperformed by S&P Indexes after fees. Now I don’t know about you but I think the risk of not picking a top 3% fund is probably higher than the safe return of index’s.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1780c956b6e79156a96d46a6b5e1ce97",
"text": "\"Remind him that, over the long-term, investing in safe-only assets may actually be more risky than investing in stocks. Over the long-term, stocks have always outperformed almost every other asset class, and they are a rather inflation-proof investment. Dollars are not \"\"safe\"\"; due to inflation, currency exchange, etc., they have some volatility just like everything else.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ce6a9019ce22a1ff13282f68d93ca6f4",
"text": "\"A bond fund will typically own a range of bonds of various durations, in your specific fund: The fund holds high-quality long-term New York municipal bonds with an average duration of approximately 6–10 years So through this fund you get to own a range of bonds and the fund price will behave similar to you owning the bonds directly. The fund gives you a little diversification in terms of durations and typically a bit more liquidity. It also may continuously buy bonds over time so you get some averaging vs. just buying a bond at a given time and holding it to maturity. This last bit is important, over long durations the bond fund may perform quite differently than owning a bond to maturity due to this ongoing refresh. Another thing to remember is that you're paying management fees for the fund's management. As with any bond investment, the longer the duration the more sensitive the price is to change in interest rates because when interest rates change the price will track it. (i.e. compare a change of 1% for a one year duration vs. 1% yearly over 10 years) If I'm correct, why would anyone in the U.S. buy a long-term bond fund in a market like this one, where interest rates are practically bottomed out? That is the multi-trillion dollar question. Bond prices today reflect what \"\"people\"\" are willing to pay for them. Those \"\"people\"\" include the Federal Reserve which through various programs (QE, Operate Twist etc.) has been forcing the interest rates to where they want to see them. If no one believed the Fed would be able to keep interest rates where they want them then the prices would be different but given that investors know the Fed has access to an infinite supply of money it becomes a more difficult decision to bet against that. (aka \"\"Don't fight the Fed\"\"). My personal belief is that rates will come up but I haven't been able to translate that belief into making money ;-) This question is very complex and has to do not only with US policies and economy but with the status of the US currency in the world and the world economy in general. The other saying that comes to mind in this context is that the market can remain irrational (and it certainly seems to be that) longer than you can remain solvent.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2631eae9633f063f2dc1e9802e506444",
"text": "If you look at it from the hedging perspective, if you're unsure you're going to need to hedge but want to lock in an option premium price if you do need to do so, I could see this making sense.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ce03e3606c5fe078c9ec16eb5847daac
|
What debts are both partners liable for in a 'community property' state?
|
[
{
"docid": "72bcd4226812b442d53b84d2719e5408",
"text": "No two states have the same exact laws regarding community property. I would recommend asking a competent financial advisor in your area, as they would be more familiar with the local statutes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "305299bd0445f70b928a386809b620c3",
"text": "\"(Yes, I know this is a seven year old question.) Does this only apply to debts that were taken on during marriage Yes or to all debts of both partners? No. The important thing to remember is that it's both debts and assets acquired during the marriage which are shared. This comes from the reality that men in the olden times were the ones in business, accumulating wealth, etc while the woman \"\"made the home\"\". The working assumption was that the woman who made the home was an equal partner with the man, since he benefited from a good home, and she benefited from his income. The fact that pre-marriage debts and assets were not community property also protected the woman, because she was able to then take back her dowry and use that to support herself. (N.B. - I live in a CP state.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c5a5ed7bb766e7dc97275d21ffc8f2e",
"text": "I know one piece of information that can help you (in a macabe sort of way) - from what my wife has told me, if your partner dies, you are not responsible for paying for their debts, especially student loans. I expect the same thing for credit cards - if someone were to happen to charge $2,000 on their credit card and get hit by a bus, the credit card company can cajole and plead for you to pay for it, but you have no legal requirement to do so. Unfortunately I do not have as much information about as if you spouse is living.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "312a0b54124fbd8649a9f9aecd4b5b30",
"text": "I second (or fifth?) the answers of the other users in that this should have been foreseen and discussed prior to entering the partnership. But to offer a potential solution: If the mortgage company allows you to assume the whole mortgage (big if) you could buy the other partner out. To determine what a fair buyout would be, take the current value of the house less the remaining mortgage to get the current equity. Half that is each partner's current gain (or potentially loss), and could be considered a fair buyout. At this point the partner realizes any gains made in the last 5 years, and from now on the whole house (and any future gains or losses) will be yours. Alternatively your partner could remain a full partner (if s/he so desires) until the house sells. You would see the house as a separate business, split the cost as you have, and you would pay fair market rent each month (half of which would come back to you). A third option would be to refinance the house, with you as a sole mortgage holder. To factor in how much your partner should receive out of the transaction, you can take his/her current equity and subtract half of the costs associated with the refi. I would also recommend both of you seek out the help of a real estate lawyer at this point to help you draft an agreement. It sounds like you're still on good terms, so you could see a lawyer together; this would be helpful because they should know all the things you should look out for in a situation like this. Good luck!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a2fdf74a17ba25e4650efadf59e8b366",
"text": "The first and most important thing to consider is that this is a BUSINESS TRANSACTION, and needs to be treated as such. Nail down Absolutely All The Details, specifically including what happens if either of you decides it's time to move and wants to sell off your share of the property. Get at least one lawyer involved in drawing up that contract, perhaps two so there's no risk of conflict of interest. What's your recourse, or his, if the other stops making their share of the payments? Who's responsible for repairs and upkeep? If you make renovations, how does that affect the ownership percentage, and what kind of approval do you need from him first, and how do you get it, and how quickly does he have to respond? If he wants to do something to maintain his investment, such as reroofing, how does he negotiate that with you -- especially if it's something that requires access to the inside of the house? Who is the insurance paid by, or will each of you be insuring it separately? What are the tax implications? Consider EVERY possible outcome; the fact that you're friends now doesn't matter, and in fact arguments over money are one of the classic things that kill friendships. I'd be careful making this deal with a relative (though in fact I did loan my brother a sizable chunk of change to help him bridge between his old house and new house, and that's registered as a mortgage to formalize it). I'd insist on formalizing who owns what even with a spouse, since marriages don't always last. With someone who's just a co-worker and casual friend, it's business and only business, and needs to be both evaluated and contracted as such to protect both of you. If you can't make an agreement that you'd be reasonably comfortable signing with a stranger, think long and hard about whether you want to sign it at all. I'll also point out that nobody is completely safe from long-term unemployment. The odds may be low, but people do get blindsided. The wave of foreclosures during and after the recent depression is direct evidence of that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b2cf81c153c54c9234313f8aa4c5e512",
"text": "Get a lawyer to put this in contract form, with everything spelled out explicitly. What is fair is what the two of you agree upon. My own suggestion: Divide the property into things which are yours, his, and shared, then have each of you be responsible for all your costs plus half the shared costs, but get all the benefits of your half. That would mean that if he rents out his half, all the rental income is his; if you decide to live in your half, all the savings of not paying rent are yours. Each of you pays your half of mortgage, insurance, and other shared costs. Repairs to shared infrastructure should be done by someone both of you trust. If you agree the work is needed and he does it rather than your hiring someone, you owe him the appropriate percentage of the costs; the two of you will need to agree on whether you owe him for that percentage of his time as well. Make sure you agree on some mechanism for one person offering to buy the other out, or to sell their half to the other party... or potentially to someone else entirely. (Personally, I would try to do that at soonest opportunity, to avoid some of the ways this can go wrong -- see past comments about the hazards of guaranteeing a loan; this works or doesn't work similarly.) Does that address your question?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "28485e0d5f2e225bab5d6de3d6a31d45",
"text": "Definitely get a lawyer to write up all the details of the partnership in a formal agreement. If your ex does not want to do this, that is a bad sign. You both need to be clear about expectations and responsibilities in this partnership, and define an exit strategy in the case one of you wants out. This is the most fair to both parties. Generally, what is common is that property is split cleanly when the relationship ends. I would strongly recommend you both work towards a clean split with no joint property ownership. How this looks depends on your unique situation. To address your questions 2 and 3: You have two roles here - tenant and owner. As a 50% owner, you are running a business with a partner. That business will have assets (home), income, expenses, and profit. You basically need to run this partnership as a simple business. All the rent income (your rent and the other tenant's) should go into a separate account. The mortgage and all other housing expenses are then paid from only this account. Any excess is then profit that may be split 50/50. All expenses should be agreed upon by both of you, either by contract or by direct communication. You should see a financial professional to make sure accounting and taxes are set up properly. Under this system, your ex could do work on the house and be paid from the business income. However, they are responsible to you to provide an estimate and scope of work, just like any other contractor. If you as a joint owner agree to his price, he then could be paid out of the business income. This reduces the business cash flow for the year accordingly. You can probably see how this can get very complicated very fast. There is really no right or wrong answer on what both of you decide is fair and best. For the sake of simplicity and the least chance of a disaster, the usual and recommended action is to cleanly split all property. Good Luck!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9cd038c053f0255c2835037a6e81d46d",
"text": "The ownership of the house depends on what the original deed transferring title at the time of purchase says and how this ownership is listed in government records where the title transfer deed is registered. Hopefully the two records are consistent. In legal systems that descended from British common law (including the US), the two most common forms of ownership are tenancy in common meaning that, unless otherwise specified in the title deed, each of the owners has an equal share in the entire property, and can sell or bequeath his/her share without requiring the approval of the others, and joint tenancy with right of survivorship meaning that all owners have equal share, and if one owner dies, the survivors form a new JTWROS. Spouses generally own property, especially the home, in a special kind of JTWROS called tenancy by the entirety. On the other hand, the rule is that unless explicitly specified otherwise, tenancy in common with equal shares is how the owners hold the property. Other countries may have different default assumptions, and/or have multiple other forms of ownership (see e.g. here for the intricate rules applicable in India). Mortgages are a different issue. Most mortgages state that the mortgagees are jointly and severally liable for the mortgage payments meaning that the mortgage holder does not care who makes the payment but only that the mortgage payment is made in full. If one owner refuses to pay his share, the others cannot send in their shares of the mortgage payment due and tell the bank to sue the recalcitrant co-owner for his share of the payment: everybody is liable (and can be sued) for the unpaid amount, and if the bank forecloses, everybody's share in the property is seized, not just the share owned by the recalcitrant person. It is, of course, possible to for different co-owners to have separate mortgages for their individual shares, but the legalities (including questions such as whose lien is primary and whose secondary) are complicated. With regard to who paid what over the years of ownership, it does not matter as far as the ownership is concerned. If it is a tenancy in common with equal shares, the fact that the various owners paid the bills (mortgage payments, property taxes, repairs and maintenance) in unequal amounts does not change the ownership of the property unless a new deed is recorded with the new percentages. Now, the co-owners may decide among themselves as a matter of fairness that any money realized from a sale of the property should be divided up in accordance with the proportion that each contributed during the ownership, but that is a different issue. If I were a buyer of property titled as tenancy in common, I (or the bank who is lending me money to make the purchase) would issue separate checks to each co-seller in proportion to the percentages listed on the deed of ownership, and let them worry about whether they should transfer money among themselves to make it equitable. (Careful here! Gift taxes might well be due if large sums of money change hands).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1a9a715a99e75fda4a54ce531c8a5a61",
"text": "'If i co-sign that makes me 100% liable if for any reason you can't or won't pay. Also this shows up on a credit report just like it's my debt. This limits the amount i can borrow for any reason. I don't want to take on your debt, that's your business and i don't want to make it mine'.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6c72e9fc70147ec03d97b8e463320567",
"text": "The contract is not with the guests. The guests will not be paying the $500 fee, the people paying for the wedding have a contract and they will be required to pay the fee. That's reasonable to me. If an employee causes damage the employer can be liable; if I have guests at my home who cause damage I can be found liable. Why not wedding guests?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8cfb67b87411b8ab1a0a5d43f0907389",
"text": "In my view you are going through quite a bit of logistics to achieve this. Best is drop this idea. If all of you are paying equally, then there is virtually no gain. A better pact is not to gift each other on wedding. We want to open a joint fixed deposit account in name of each one of us which should be locked-in till 2020 Yes it is possible to have Joint Account with multiple names. Ideally all should be present or a Power of Attorney can be created to include names of people who are not present. We want our money to be risk free and secured. Risk free and secured will mean Fixed Deposits.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "394bc28a2c7d606a83f44eb928d11e84",
"text": "Are there any risks you're overlooking? I think if you're considering this at all you're overlooking all of the risks... namely, if you think the issue with him not paying on the loan is the procedure involved with initiating collections or taking him to court for a judgement you're severely underestimating actually collecting after you're awarded a judgement. Typically when people stop paying a debt, its because they don't have money. A judgement doesn't change that. Now you could include in the promissory note a lien on some piece of his property, if he has one. Even with the lien and a judgement against him you can't do much. There are laws related to lending by individuals, related to debt collection, maximum/minimum interest rates; there may even be a law that mandating individuals may only assess simple interest. I doubt you'll be able to find a formal institution that will take over as nothing more than an administrator, though you might as well start researching how to sell the debt once your colleague defaults. IF you can legally amortize the loan at 4% and $450 per month, you're not made whole until about month 78. Months 79 through about 90 will be your profit zone. At this rate of return I'd just buy a muni... If you're willing to kiss this money good bye, and lending it generates more amusement to you than setting it on fire, go for it!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e24b171d757ef9cc138878484923fbde",
"text": "\"You promised to pay the loan if he didn't. That was a commitment, and I recommend \"\"owning\"\" your choice and following it through to its conclusion, even if you never do that again. TLDR: You made a mistake: own it, keep your word, and embrace the lesson. Why? Because you keep your promises. (Nevermind that this is a rare time where your answer will be directly recorded, in your credit report.) This isn't moralism. I see this as a \"\"defining moment\"\" in a long game: 10 years down the road I'd like you to be wise, confident and unafraid in financial matters, with a healthy (if distant) relationship with our somewhat corrupt financial system. I know austerity stinks, but having a strong financial life will bring you a lot more money in the long run. Many are leaping to the conclusions that this is an \"\"EX-friend\"\" who did this deliberately. Don't assume this. For instance, it's quite possible your friend sold the (car?) at a dealer, who failed to pay off this note, or did and the lender botched the paperwork. And when the collector called, he told them that, thinking the collector would fix it, which they don't do. The point is, you don't know: your friend may be an innocent party here. Creditors generally don't report late payments to the credit bureaus until they're 30 days late. But as a co-signer, you're in a bad spot: you're liable for the payments, but they don't send you a bill. So when you hear about it, it's already nearly 30 days late. You don't get any extra grace period as a co-signer. So you need to make a payment right away to keep that from going 30 late, or if it's already 30 late, to keep it from going any later. If it is later determined that it was not necessary for you to make those payments, the lender should give them back to you. A less reputable lender may resist, and you may have to threaten small claims court, which is a great expense to them. Cheaper to pay you. They say France is the nation of love. They say America is the nation of commerce. So it's not surprising that here, people are quick to burn a lasting friendship over a temporary financial issue. Just saying, that isn't necessarily the right answer. I don't know about you, but my friends all have warts. Nobody's perfect. Financial issues are just another kind of wart. And financial life in America is hard, because we let commerce run amok. And because our obsession with it makes it a \"\"loaded\"\" issue and thus hard to talk about. Perhaps your friend is in trouble but the actual villain is a predatory lender. Point is, the friendship may be more important than this temporary adversity. The right answer may be to come together and figure out how to make it work. Yes, it's also possible he's a human leech who hops from person to person, charming them into cosigning for him. But to assume that right out of the gate is a bit silly. The first question I'd ask is \"\"where's the car?\"\" (If it's a car). Many lenders, especially those who loan to poor credit risks, put trackers in the car. They can tell you where it is, or at least, where it was last seen when the tracker stopped working. If that is a car dealer's lot, for instance, that would be very informative. Simply reaching out to the lender may get things moving, if there's just a paperwork issue behind this. Many people deal with life troubles by fleeing: they dread picking up the phone, they fearfully throw summons in the trash. This is a terrifying and miserable way to deal with such a situation. They learn nothing, and it's pure suffering. I prefer and recommend the opposite: turn into it, deal with it head-on, get ahead of it. Ask questions, google things, read, become an expert on the thing. Be the one calling the lender, not the other way round. This way it becomes a technical learning experience that's interesting and fun for you, and the lender is dreading your calls instead of the other way 'round. I've been sued. It sucked. But I took it on boldly, and and actually led the fight and strategy (albeit with counsel). And turned it around so he wound up paying my legal bills. HA! With that precious experience, I know exactly what to do... I don't fear being sued, or if absolutely necessary, suing. You might as well get the best financial education. You're paying the tuition!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c17aff7f263c74b9a7f8eb3c8981ca68",
"text": "Owing money to family members can create serious problems. Taking out a purchase-money mortgage to pay your sister for her share is the best way to avoid future friction and, possibly, outright alienation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b09536c018ae55f2e49ef12bf93dd070",
"text": "\"Both names are on the deed, so the property is jointly owned. You're going to need the second person's signature to be able to sell the property. Ideally the way to know \"\"what happens now\"\" is to consult the written agreement you made before you purchased the house together. The formula for dividing up assets when dissolving your partnership is whatever you agreed to up front. (Your up-front agreement could have said \"\"if you move out, you forfeit any claim to the property\"\".) It sounds like you don't have that, so you'll have to come to some (written) agreement with your partner before you proceed. If you can't come to an agreement, then you'll end up in court, a judge will split up the assets, and the only winners there are the lawyers...\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5f2563cad205c94298096d00029a66ad",
"text": "Depending on jurisdiction, the fact that you made some payments might give you an ownership share in the house in your own right. What share would be a complex question because you might need to consider both the mortgage payments made and maintenance. Your sister might also be able to argue that she was entitled to some recompense for the risk she describes of co-signing, and that's something that would be very hard to quantify, but clearly you would also be entitled to similar recompense in respect of that, as you also co-signed. For the share your mother owned, the normal rules of inheritance apply and by default that would be a 50-50 split as JoeTaxpayer said. You imply that the loan is still outstanding, so all of this only applies to the equity previously built up in the house prior to your mother's death. If you are the only one making the ongoing payments, I would expect any further equity built up to belong solely to you, but again the jurisdiction and the fact that your sister's name is on the deeds could affect this. If you can't resolve this amicably, you might need to get a court involved and it's possible that the cost of doing so would outweigh the eventual benefit to you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d2551584505861e4c97a7fe6477e8276",
"text": "I think I'm reading that you cosigned a loan with a friend, and they've stopped paying on their loan. Not a whole lot of options here. You'll have to pay the loan off by yourself or allow the loan to go into collections in hopes that you'll get more money later and pay it off then. Small claims court is definitely an option at that point. Next time, perhaps try not to cosign loans with friends unless you really trust them and are confident that you can pay the loan off if they cannot.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c586d75c50139784c3060279ab46c069",
"text": "Myself and my partner do things a little differently to most. We split accommodation and utilities payments by net income proportion to ensure that we both have the same amount of spending money. For example; The really important bit is net income. We take off a whole bunch of payments, e.g; Our contributions go into a joint account and the rest is our money to spend. The upshot is that we both get to enjoy the same minimum quality of life because we both get the same amount to spend at the bar.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
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
|
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
|
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
|
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
|
4bd8d2187b78d88bfb6b8d23eca3e650
|
Offshore bank account with online International wire-transfer facility for Indians
|
[
{
"docid": "2aebc3236bf05398c43612ad19dc8249",
"text": "Well first off, I would advice you to do this research yourself. You should not base your selection off someone's opinion such as mines. With that being said, these are some factors I suggest you consider and research before talking to an offshore bank account: Now, when opening an offshore account most offshore banks do not require you to be present at all. You can open an account simply by calling them or filling out their application online. However, be prepared to provide them with some information to verify who you are and the nature of your business such as a notarized passport along with other various forms of information that they may require. Just think of what your local bank requires is generally what they will ask as well. Here is a compiled list of offshore bank accounts to consider: These banks overall have a range between $0 - $1 million (domestic currency) minimum deposits. Most of them ranging from $1000-$5000. It all depends on the type of account, the nature of the account, and the business associated with the account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "33699ea0773d2f8560dc187dfcf52425",
"text": "India does allow Resident Indians to open USD accounts. Most leading National and Private Banks offer this. You can receive funds and send funds subject to some norms.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "513c294394934b6882b8506b9d15ffa4",
"text": "All Indian Banks are offering USD accounts known as multicurrency account, where you can hold your fund, this account also permits you to book the USD to INR rates in advance if you require. You can keep your money in this account and also can remit the same back to source or other destination country.",
"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": "8b8d065e69a98f74f817903bb272f219",
"text": "Is it liable for taxation in India? Taxation does not depend on whether to transfer money to India or keep it in GCC. It depends on your tax status. In a given Financial year; 1st April to 31st March, if you are outside of India for more than 182 days, your are Non-Resident Indian, NRI for tax purposes. If you are NRI, income earned outside of India is not taxable in India [even if you transfer the funds to India]. If you are not an NRI, you income in GCC will be taxable in India [Even if you keep the money in GCC]. We both send our salary into a friends account in India and then transfer an amount to our own accounts This is an incorrect practise, If you are NRI, you should not be holding a Savings account, it should be converted into NRO and you can if you want open an NRE account. For your friend where you are transferring money, if there is an income tax audit, there would be quite a few questions asked and your friend has to establish and keep records that this is not GIFT, but more of a convenience agreement.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "49b52fa20a3fd890838958f5ba4230e0",
"text": "I use xoom.com to transfer money to India. I've been using them for over 2 years now, they are the fastest and the cheapest for me (the funds are usually available the same day). They seem to have added a lot of European countries to their list. Definitely worth a shot.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2b0575f84d48dc745cabb99f48049fcd",
"text": "No, in your situation it is not possible. Mostly, only three types of accounts are available to individuals: So, a complete foreigner can open account in India, only if he is working in India, a type of Savings account, and that account too will be linked to his resident status. If he leaves work, he needs to close this account. Edit: There are business accounts, and current accounts, but those are available only to businesses. Further read at SBI gives a good snapshot",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "118b7cdb68dfddbd40d4ac3fb00c6b6b",
"text": "Yes, you can transfer money to your account, any bank will do it. The conversion charges will be there i.e. the diff between USD and the rate at which the bank sells it, usually Rs. 2/-, appx. In addition, transaction charge (not very high). As for taking from friends & repaying in India, check UAE tax treatement for taking money from friends (is it considered as your income & are you liable for taxes). As for giving back, get some documentation done as a loan, otherwise your friends may be considered to be taking gift/consideration/income from you and taxed. Most straight forward way is to transfer the money from your mother's account.",
"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": "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": "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": "f013f5a938fb5841e96cabab0961a6a8",
"text": "Most of the people need to remit the money to their precious persons like family, friends and also others. Now a days this type of transmission is simple by Etawakal online money transfer than other remittance services. Etawakal is reliable, safe and secure. http://tawakalexpress.net/Etawakal.aspx",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fb5105cef9bf56d1edb545ff9441e282",
"text": "The data provided in your question is irrelevant. The data that you provided in the comments (that you're physically present in the US while doing the work) is the only relevant information needed to answer your question. You will need to pay taxes in the US for the earnings. The company invoicing the US client will also need to pay taxes in the US for its earnings from these invoices. You can transfer between bank accounts and deposit whatever you want anywhere you want, no-one cares (with respect to the US taxes, check with Indian tax accountant about Indian requirements).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8cc0017f6aaccc478a622e3aece4e947",
"text": "very simple. RBI has stopped connecting Indian Bank's to Paypal, for deposit or withdrawal. You need to use a third party website (Online wallet etc) to send whatever money you have in the Paypal account. Connect your Bank account with the third party website, and withdraw the money",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "56a51834c97003723af0acd774fa6198",
"text": "My account is with Indian Bank, if that's relevant. Indian Bank already has SWIFT BIC. Is there any way I can receive such international transfers in my account if the bank branch itself is not SWIFT enabled? The Branch need not be SWIFT enabled. However the Bank needs to be SWIFT enabled. Indian Bank is SWIFT enabled and has several Correspondent Banks in US. See this link on Indian Bank Website Select USD as filter in bottom page. It will list quite a few Banks that are correspondent to the Indian Bank. Click on the Link and it will give you more details. For example with Citi Bank as Correspondent. In the Beneficiary account details fill in your account details etc and send this to the company and they should be able to send you a payment based on this.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b2fe749117d26a925f975f93acdcd93a",
"text": "\"For the financial year 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2015, as you have [or will be] spent more than 182 days outside India, you would be treated as \"\"Non-Resident\"\" [NRI] for tax purposes. If you are NRI Show my Kuwaiti Income in my Income Tax Return? Pay any tax on the money that I am sending to savings bank accounts in India You need not Pay Tax on your income outside India. i.e. there is no tax obligation created. It cannot be declared in Tax Returns. However any interest you earn on the money deposited in India would be subject to taxes. Will my wife have to show the income and/or pay the income tax on the money that I am sending to her savings bank accounts? There is no Income to you wife [Income is something you earn] and hence its out of scope from Income Tax act. It would fall under gift tax rules. As per Gift Tax one can transfer unlimited funds between close relatives. Hence there is No tax. It would be better if you open an NRO/NRE account and transfer funds into that account\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "486420b297d6d92642fa8c90ebcd3bc2",
"text": "\"Can you tell me please, is it really hard to make international wire transfer for payment my job and can i resolve this problem without using third party services? This is mostly a barrier, the form at times is quite complicated. For Russia, one has to enter \"\"Purpose of remittance\"\" ... at times select intermediate banks, give BIC and other details. This can become unnerving to people who are not used to it. The other option you can try is set-up a credit card gateway and get funds via cards.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cb65fbcda1058e07dad52530007dd1f5",
"text": "If you're in the UK, there's a free service here that lets you trace lost bank accounts. If you're in a different country, try Googling to see if that country has a similar service.",
"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
|
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
|
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
|
1b9ba2ddd9ff52c7fcb73e1e5b2cd9a6
|
How to calculate car insurance quote
|
[
{
"docid": "dc0f3b07ea6236f4f0c99ab99df27344",
"text": "First you should understand the basics of how insurance companies make money: In a simple scenario, assume 1,000 have car insurance. Assume that on average, 100 people have accidents per year, and that each accident costs $10,000. So, we can expect total costs to be $1,000,000 per year. Some of those costs will be paid by the drivers, who have some sort of 'deductible'. That is - the insurance company will only cover costs after the driver has themself paid some initial amount [something like, the first $1,000 of repairs is paid by the driver]. So now the insurance company expects to have to pay out $900,000 in total claims this year. If they want to pay those claims (and also pay their administrative costs, and earn a profit), they might want to have $1,250,000 in revenue. Across 1,000 people, that would be $1,250 / year in insurance premiums. Of course, the big question for the insurance company is: how much will they really need to pay out in insurance claims each year? The better they can predict that number, the more profitable they can be [because they can charge a much more accurate amount, which can earn them new customers and gives them insurance {pun} that each new customer is actually profitable to them on average]. So the insurance company spends a lot of time and money trying to predict your likelihood of a car accident. They use a lot of metrics to do this. Some might be statistical hogwash that they charge you because they feel they can [if every insurance company charges you extra for driving a 2-door instead of a 4-door, then they all will], and some might be based in reality. So they attempt to correlate all of the items in your list, to see if any of those items indicates that you should be charged more (or less) for your insurance. This is equal parts art and science, and a lot of it comes down to how they market themselves. ie: if an insurance company gives a discount for being in college, is that because college drivers are better drivers, or is it because they want to increase the number of young customers they have, so they can keep those customers for life? Therefore how each metric factors into your calculation will be based on the company using it. It would basically be impossible to 'come up with' the same answer as the insurance company by having the information you provided, because of how heavily dependant that answer is on statistics + marketing. As for how your state matters - some states may have different accident rates, and different payout systems. For example - is Hawaii driving more dangerous because of all the tourists driving rented cars faster than they should? Is New York less expensive to insure because better public health care means less cost is borne by the insurance company in the event of an accident [I have no idea if either of these things are the case, they are purely for hypothetical discussion purposes]. In short, make sure you get quotes from multiple providers, and understand that it isn't just the cost that changes. Check changes in coverage and deductibles as well [ie: if one company charges you $100 / month when everyone else charges $200 / month - make sure that the cheaper company doesn't limit its coverage in ways that matter to you].",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4c3516aa08cebd9b101fbf920ebe743b",
"text": "Does the Insurance value differ from state to state (for example I've a car in Hawaii and there is another car in Illinois with same model, make and same features), does the Insurance vary for both? Yes, quotes will vary based on where you live for various reasons, (propensity for accidents, value of cars, etc.), and state laws regarding required car insurance can vary. How is the insurance quote calculated? It's likely a proprietary formula that the insurance company will not disclose. If they did, they could be giving away a competitive advantage. However, like all insurance, the goal is to determine the probability of the insured having an accident, and the projected cost of such an accident. That will be based on actuarial tables for each of the risk factors you mention.",
"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": "2e118f7b494caf6f02add38f418a4ed4",
"text": "Question 1: Yes Question 2: There is no simple formula. Car insurance is mostly Statistics, because you have so many millions of cases that the variance is really low. This also means that, because the cost can be estimated so precisely, it is difficult to make an offer better than the competitors. For that reason every insurance company makes there own, arbitrary, segmentation of the data which leads them identify low risk groups they can offer a bonus to. Common ones are type of car or and driving experience, but it could be anything that is not forbidden by anti-discrimination-laws. Also additional perks like towing insurance etc. may give them an opportunity do differentiate themselves or to make easy profit. In fact it is a common tactic to offer prices that make close to no profit to fill up your book, then raise tariffs in then following years an make you profit with those who are to lazy to switch.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "71d7613dffbf77d038bc2d6ed139c3e2",
"text": "\"On top of the given answers, the type of referral will also factor in. When you're up for renewal and go to a comparison site (in the UK: CompareTheMarket, MoneySupermarket, Confused, GoCompare, ... ) and struggle accurately through all their lists of questions, you see that some of the data differs (e.g., not all the same jobs can be entered; if you have had an accident, not all ask whose fault it was and/or don't leave the option \"\"not yet resolved\"\" --possibly forcing you to guess which way it will be adjudicated,-- and/or what the total repair cost was). So as these referrers feed slightly different data to roughly the same set of insurance providers, you will get slightly different quotes on the same providers. And expect your own provider to offer a slightly better quote than you'll get in reality for renewing: The referrer's (one-time) cut has to be still taken off, but they count it as a new client so somebody gets a bonus for that --- you they disregard as a captive client and give what boils down to a loyalty penalty. [Case in point: I had an unresolved car accident, resolved months later in my favour. With all honest data including unresolved claim and its cost and putting my 'accident-free years' factor at 0 instead of 7, my old provider quoted about 8% more than the previous year on comparison sites; but my renewal papers quoted me 290% more, upon telephone enquiry the promised to refund the difference if court found in my favour though they refused to give this in writing. So: No thanks!] Then the other set of referrals they get is from you directly going to their website asking for a quote. They know what type of link you've followed (banner, or google result, etc), they may know some info from your browser's cookies (time spent where) or other tracking service, and from your data they may guess how tech-savvy and shop-wise you are, and scale your offer accordingly. [Comparison-site shoppers are lumped together at a relatively high savvy-level, of course!]. Companies breaking down your data and their own in a particular way can find advantages and hence offer you better terms, as said in the main answer (this is like Arbitration in stock exchanges, ensuring a certain amount of sanity: if there's something to exploit, somebody will, and everybody will follow). It may be that they find a certain group of people maybe more accident-prone but cheaper to deal with (more flexible in repair-times, or easy to bully in accepting shared-fault when they weren't at fault), or they want a certain client (for women, for civil servants, for sporty drivers, for homeowners --- often for cross-selling other insurance services). Or they claim to want pensioners because the company can offer them 'a familiar voice' (same account manager always contacting them) while they're easier to bamboozle and less likely to shop around when offered a rubbish deal. Also, 100% straight comparison of competing offers isn't possible as the fine details of the T&Cs (terms & conditions) would differ, as well as various little pinpricks in the claims handling process. And depreciation of a car, and various ways of dealing with it: You insure it for the buying prices, but two years later it's worth about 40% less on paper --- so in case of total loss, replacing like-for-like will cost you still at least 80% of the value for which you've been insuring it while they'll probably offer you the 100-40= 60%. Mostly because instead of your trusted car you have something unknown that may have hidden defects, or been mistreated and about to die. [Case in point: My 3-y-old dealer-bought car's gearbox died just outside the 6month warranty period, notwithstanding its \"\"150-item inspection you can rely on\"\". In the end the national brand agreed to refund the parts (15% of what I paid for the car) but not the labour (a few hours).] And any car model's value differs (in descending order) from its \"\"forecourt price\"\", \"\"private selling price\"\", \"\"part exchange price\"\", and \"\"auction price\"\". Depending on your ompanies may happily insure you for forecourt price (=what you paid to dealer) but then point out that the value of that car is the theoretical P/X value, i.e., the car without anybody's profit, far less than you've been paying for. [Conversely, if you crash it after insuring below market value, they can pay you your stupidly low figure.]\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "b54f359812447b459ce484e396958a5f",
"text": "Alright, IRS Publication 463: Travel, Entertainment, Gift, and Car Expenses Business and personal use. If you use your car for both business and personal purposes, you must divide your expenses between business and personal use. You can divide your expense based on the miles driven for each purpose. Example. You are a sales representative for a clothing firm and drive your car 20,000 miles during the year: 12,000 miles for business and 8,000 miles for personal use. You can claim only 60% (12,000 ÷ 20,000) of the cost of operating your car as a business expense Obviously nothing helpful in the code. So I would use option 1, weight the maintenance-related mileage by the proportion of business use. Although if you use your car for business a lot (and perhaps have a spouse with a car), an argument could be made for 3. So I would consider my odds of being audited (even lower this year due to IRS budget cuts) and choose 1 or 3. And of course never throw anything away until you're room temperature.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "52fc427159b58caa5be7a0b7f7f92bb0",
"text": "Credit scores, or at least components of them, can sometimes factor into how much you pay for car insurance. Source: Consumer Reports: How a Credit Score Increases your Premium",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "11fdb9cf51cdcb86c5b993bc0d90627b",
"text": "The question states :- Our insurance company is offering a 30% discount on an $8200/year commercial policy, if we install sprinklers. The insurance is paid in two installments. ... This appears to mean six-monthly payments, so I'll make some comparison calculations using six-monthly loan repayments to keep things simple. Without the loan or sprinklers the insurance costs $4100 every six months. Using this loan payment formula, the calculation below shows, with the 30% discounted insurance, sprinkler maintenance and loan repayment, you would be paying $4655.28 every six months. The discount required to break even is 43.5%. I.e. rearranging the equation :- Alternatively, with the discount of 30% you would break even if the six-monthly repayment amount was $1030. Solving the payment equation for s gives an equation for the loan :- So with the 30% discount you would break even if the loan required was $25989. Checking by back-calculating the periodic payment amount, a :- Likewise we can keep the loan at $40000 and solve for t to find the break-even loan term :- (Note, in this formula Log denotes the natural logarithm.) Now we can set some values :- So with break-even payments the $40000 loan is paid off in just under 65.5 years. I.e. checking :- This just beats the $4100 cost of proceeding without the sprinklers. Notes If your loan repayment was monthly it would reduce the cost of the loan slightly. The periodic interest rate is calculated from the APR according to the method used in the EU and in some cases in US. The calculations above were run using Mathematica.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c2d60a42e03da9edd8d234615f34b442",
"text": "\"An answer from a psychological viewpoint: money does not have a linear value to people. If you have $10.000, losing one dollar doesn't really matter. Losing all $10.000 is more than 10.000 times as bad. As a simple example of a non-linear function, let's use the \"\"square root\"\" function. Let's say that having $100 is ten times as good as having $1, and having $10000 is ten times as good as having $100. Now, this means that an insurance may have a negative expectation when expressed in dollars (since the insurance company is making a profit), but the expected value still can be positive. Let's assume the premium is $150 and there's a 1% chance it will pay $10.000. Clearly in dollars the expected loss is $50. But in the value to you (using that same square root function), the premium is just -0.75 (sqrt(9850)-sqrt(10000) and the expected payout is 1 (sqrt(10000)*1%). Intuitive: you won't notice the premium, if you're rich enough that you don't need the insurance. But once you do need the insurance, you could now be so poor that you appreciate the payout. As a side effect - this also shows that you want an insurance with a fairly high deductible. If a $10.000 loss is a risk you can bear, then you don't need insurance for losses in the order of $100. And that's even ignoring the fact that such small payouts have relatively high administrative costs for insurance companies, which is why the premium discount for high deductibles can be disproportionally high.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac7c06f974f47305b96191c629a5ffa5",
"text": "Here's an example (US, not Canada) that shows up to a 30% increase for first 6 months after a >30 day lapse, but the best data will come from actual quotes from insurers. If you can do without driving for 2 years it's almost certainly worth dropping coverage and a car for that duration and paying an increased insurance rate for a spell after the lapse. I'm not sure how it works in Canada, but when living with my parents they could not exclude me from their insurance once I was a licensed driver. The insurance company considered me to have access to all vehicles, so my presence increased insurance rates. If you live with your mother, you'll have to check with your insurer to see how that works.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "035ef6883a6d27a73557547ce22e2096",
"text": "Why do I need to put her information into these quotes? Because you are getting your quote through a website instead of via a human being. They likely programmed their system for the most likely scenarios. Doesn't her insurance cover her driving other people's cars? Yes, it should. The big questions: for how much damage and is it liability only? My advice: don't be lazy, make the calls and find out the details. Not everything can be answered on the internet. :)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab252f1dce22980b61eddfe374b686c3",
"text": "\"> Let's just say the insurance industry knows a lot more about underwriting than you do. I'm sorry, but that is a meaningless statement. I work in insurance (first as a consultant, before 'retiring' to work in insurance distribution a few years ago), and I know that our industry frequently uses flawed or outdated methodologies due to the simple fact that insurance companies are very conservative and *very* resistant to change when it comes to changes to their core business. Unless you can show a direct, negative impact on the bottom line caused by the currently used method, you are unlikely to make any changes at all. In this case, if the entire US car insurance industry is using the same flawed system, it won't affect a single company if they also stick to it. Until 1996, before the current system was introduced, insurance companies in Germany used to rate liability insurance for cars (almost) exclusively by engine power output. The industry had known that this method was fundamentally flawed since at least the late 1980s (comprehensive and partial coverage had been rated by the 'new' system for a few years at this point, which had also taken years to work out), but it took additional years of planning, negotiations and cooperation by the entire industry to change to the new system for liability. So please, do not ever assume that \"\"the insurance companies are the experts, they know what they are doing!\"\". It might very well be the case that they are stuck with flawed/outdated systems simply because there is no sufficiently strong impulse to change what they do. The current Tesla rate adjustment situation is a wonderful example of this - it apparantly took AAA *5 years* since the Model S first came out to realise that their initial estimate was wrong (it seems unlikely that the accident rate or repair costs have suddenly changed over the last year) and take appropriate actions. By late 2013, there were easily enough Teslas on the road (about 20,000) to get realiable data, yet nothing happened for nearly another 4 years.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "06368952a7b7b595f78c3934c853bbcd",
"text": "The best way to determine how much it will cost you is to call the insurance companies to get a quote from them for all the vehicles that you are planning on purchasing. They will have a set amount depending on the year/make/model of the car combined with all your personal details like where you live, age, sex, occupation. There are many online sites where you an get quotes as well, though talking with a rep may be the better option since you have a lot of questions. If you are still living with your parents, you may be able to get a cheaper rate with that company as you might qualify for a multi-vehicle discount or combined property/vehicle insurance with them. You might also be able to get a better rate since you were probably insured as a secondary driver with that company for several years. The cost of your auto insurance will depend also on what type of premium you choose. For instance, it will be cheaper if you opt to only purchase 3rd party liability insurance (which only covers the cost of repairing the 3rd party's vehicle - ie the person you hit). You may also get discounts for having certain (optional) safety equipment/options - like snow tires. You will need to have your insurance purchased and sorted out before you are able to drive your car out of the dealership. For a male with ~10 years driving experience and a clean record. You could probably find something good for about $120 a month. Of course, this depends on the many factors listed above.",
"title": ""
},
{
"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": "1f79e57b1d86b5de06f91f3c14f674b8",
"text": "As for a formula, there isn't a simple one that you can apply to every type insurance. I'll try my best for a simple answer. Is the event devastating enough to change your lifestyle (looking at life necessities, not wants and nice to haves)? Is the event very likely to happen? Do you have enough emergency funds to cover such an event? Once that emergency fund is utilized, how long does it take you to restore that fund to be ready for the next event? If the event is devastating enough and is very likely to happen and you do not have the cash to cover the event, and/or it would take too long to restore that emergency fund, then it makes sense to consider insurance. Then you would have to examine if the benefit(s) outweight cost of the premium paid for the insurance. If it is pennies of premium for a dollar of benefit, then it makes sense.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2f3358b29eec782ddab5b1b3b864a075",
"text": "\"Your wife is probably not going to be able to get a policy until all tests are complete and the doctors give her a clean bill of health. A change in your health could make your premiums 50% to 75% higher than they would be if you applied for a policy in perfect health. Health history is one of the biggest factor in calculating an LTCi premium. The average age for purchasing a policy is 59. Including all rate increases, the average long-term care insurance premium is $1,591 per year, based on my calculations from a 2015 National Association of Insurance Commissioners report with 2014 data. Because of new consumer protections designed to prevent rate increases, policies purchased today do cost more than older policies. In 2015, the average premium for a new policy was $2,532 per year, according to a LIMRA survey of most companies selling long-term care insurance. (Couples can get discounts as high as 30 percent when purchasing policies at the same time.) Do NOT work with just a local insurance agent who sells many different types of insurance. ONLY work with an insurance agent who specializes in LTC insurance and that represents at least 7 of the top companies. There are probably a couple of hundred agents in the country that specialize in LTC, are independent agents representing a lot of companies AND have a lot of experience. Interview at least 3 different agents. Get quotes from every agent you speak with and ask each of them their opinion about which policy you should get. Go with the agent who seems the most knowledgeable and professional. Do NOT buy LTC insurance from a \"\"financial advisor\"\". They are usually limited to offering only a few companies (because of their broker/dealer arrangements) and they rarely understand LTC underwriting. Do NOT buy LTC insurance from the company you get auto insurance or home insurance with. And do NOT buy a policy just because your retirement association or alumni association recommends it. SHOP around. In your wife's case it would probably be wise to apply to more than one company at the same time in case one of them denies her application. Here is an article I wrote for NextAvenue.org (a website owned by PBS) which answers some of the most common misconceptions about LTC insurance: An Insurance Agent’s Case for Buying Long-Term Care Insurance.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf6049ea982c6dc34eeb8fa8d6e68ac1",
"text": "Some proportion of the costs of a policy have little to no relationship to miles driven. Think of costs of underwriting, and more especially sales/marketing/client acquisition costs (auto insurance isn't in the same league as non-term life insurance (where the commissions and other selling expenses typically exceed the first year's worth of premiums), but the funny TV ads and/or agent commissions aren't free), as well as general business overhead. Also, as noted by quid, some proportion of claim risk isn't correlated to distance covered (think theft, flood, fire, etc.). There are also differences in the miles that are likely to be driven by a non-commercial/vehicle-for-hire driver who puts 25k miles a year vs. one who puts 7k per year. The former is generally going to be doing more driving at higher speeds on less-congested freeways while the latter will be doing more of their driving on crowded urban roads. The former pattern generally has a lower expected value of claims both due to having fewer cars per road-mile, fewer intersections and driveways, and also having any given collision be more likely to result in a fatality (paralysis or other lifetime disability claims are generally going to exceed what the insurer would pay out on a fatality).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "322d5a6f7c2a8f2b67dd39abd2e76531",
"text": "Insurance rates are about assessing risk. If the insurer has no way to reliably and easily assess usage, they will not reduce the premiums. Many companies are providing tracking devices that connect to the OBD-II port. This not only tracks actual miles driven, but can typically track aggressive driving, time of day, length of trips, and other information. Unless you are using this kind of device to give the insurer actionable feedback on your driving habits, do not expect any discounts for mileage or usage.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b08e15959e01191e6cf76c05c4b50af0",
"text": "The problem you'll have is that premium income is a vague term so you have to figure out what they mean by a) premium and b) income. Gross or net of reinsurance and acquisition costs? Written or earned basis? Combined ratios are also a pig, very commonly they are loss ratio + expense ratio --- but of course loss ratio is losses incurred / premium earned while expense ratio is expenses paid / premium written so it's a self-inconsistent measure. And then there's investment income, and then there's reserve releases...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9df8d0c8d093cd3767f3871e8c58682e",
"text": "Real Estate potentially has two components of profit, the increase in value, and the ongoing returns, similar to a stock appreciating and its dividends. It's possible to buy both badly, and in the case of stocks, there are studies that show the typical investor lags the market by many percent. Real estate is not a homogeneous asset class. A $200K house renting for $1,000 is a far different investment than a $100K 3 family renting for $2,000 total rents. Both exist depending on the part of the country you are in. If you simply divide the price to the rent you get either 16.7X or 4.2X. This is an oversimplification, and of course, interest rates will push these numbers in one direction or another. It's safe to say that at any given time, the ratio can help determine if home prices are too high, a bargain, or somewhere in between. As one article suggests, the median price tracks inflation pretty closely. And I'd add, that median home prices would track median income long term. To circle back, yes, real estate can be a good investment if you buy right, find good tenants, and are willing to put in the time. Note: Buying to rent and buying to live in are not always the same economic decision. The home buyer will very often buy a larger house than they should, and turn their own 'profit' into a loss. e.g. A buyer who would otherwise be advised to buy the $150K house instead of renting is talked into a bigger house by the real estate agent, the bank, the spouse. The extra cost of the $225K house is the 1/3 more cost of repair, utilities, interest, etc. It's identical to needing a 1000 sq ft apartment, but grabbing one that's 1500 sq ft for the view.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
5acf210ad6ddae9c075bee76042c926c
|
Can I force him to pay?
|
[
{
"docid": "5ea861f03b1140742cd3d0e3a18b8b69",
"text": "\"Its best to seek a lawyer, but it is unlikely you can force him to pay. You probably know couples, that are in some part of the divorce process, that have trouble obtaining court ordered payments. In your case you have less of a legal standing (exception: if you have children together). As far as the house goes, the two of you entered into some sort of business arrangement and it will be difficult to \"\"force\"\" him to pay. One thing that works for you is that he has excellent credit. If he is interested in keeping a high credit rating he will ensure that no payments are late on the home. Your question suggests that the two of you are not getting along very well right now, and that needs to stop. The best financial decision you can make right now is to get along with him. It seems that the two of you have not officially broken up. If you do decide to depart ways, do so as amicably as possible. You will have to work to get the home in your name only, and him off the deed. This benefits both of you as you will have sole control of the house and this ill advised business decision can end. He will have the home off his credit and will not be responsible if you miss a payment and can also buy a home or whatever of his own. Good luck and do your best to work this out. Seeking peace will cost you a lot less money in the long run. Fighting in court cost a lot of money. Giving in to semi-reasonable demands are far cheaper then fighting. Here is an example. Lets say he normally contributes $500 to the mortgage, and he decides to move out. I would ask him to contribute $200 until you can get his name off the loan, say 6 months at the most. After that you will put the house up for sale if you cannot obtain a mortgage in your own name and will split any profits.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "471cf77dadff4da873d468a9f47e4634",
"text": "Trying to forcefully reclaim the money will ruin the relationship. In general it's bad practice to loan money to family.",
"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": "93b4633bc4b31002b95efa381173b0bd",
"text": "Ordinarily a cosigner does not appear on the car's title (thus, no ownership at all in the vehicle), but they are guaranteeing payment of the loan if the primary borrower does not make the payment. You have essentially two options: Stop making payments for him. If he does not make them, the car will be repossessed and the default will appear on both his and your credit. You will have a credit ding to live with, but he will to and he won't have the car. Continue to make payments if he does not, to preserve your credit, and sue him for the money you have paid. In your suit you could request repayment of the money or have him sign over the title (ownership) to you, if you would be happy with either option. I suspect that he will object to both, so the judge is going to have to decide if he finds your case has merit. If you go with option 1 and he picks up the payments so the car isn't repossessed, you can then still take option 2 to recover the money you have paid. Be prepared to provide documentation to the court of the payments you have made (bank statements showing the out-go, or other form of evidence you made the payment - the finance company's statements aren't going to show who made them).",
"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": "9ebd671b4714aa27f60e4d0084603bad",
"text": "You absolutely can be put in jail in America for debt... if that debt is to a government or government agency (like a municipal government). If you have unpaid court costs, fines, etc., it's common practice in most municipalities to issue an arrest warrant for those, even if non-payment is due to being indigent. In a lot of cases, even if you show up to explain why you can't pay or make a partial payment on the due date, you'll be arrested and jailed until a judge is available to hear your explanation, if one isn't available right when you go in. What's supposed to happen is that if you're indigent (can't pay), a judge will hear your explanation and, provided it's determined that you're indigent, make adjustments to what you owe (cancel or reduce the amount, extend the due date, setup a payment plan, etc.) and send you on your way. It bears mentioning that even in cases where the system works like it should, there's still a very real chance of being put in jail, which isn't harmless - people can and do lose their jobs while they're sitting in jail waiting to plead indigence to a judge. And of course, what's supposed to happen isn't what always does. The police shootings of the past couple years in Missouri have shone some light in a lot of dark corners down there, where there are, in fact, de-facto debtor prisons in many municipalities. In addition to civil rights groups filing suit over this in many Missouri municipalities, the US Department of Justice has filed suit against the city of Ferguson over their municipal practices (including their use of the courts and jails to generate municipal revenue). Some forms of private debt (like child support) also fall under this umbrella where an arrest warrant will be issued for failure to pay for any reason, and this was determined to be a factor in the Walter Scott shooting - Walter Scott ran to avoid being put in jail over child support debt, and losing his job while in jail. The New York Times highlighted his case in an article titled: Skip Child Support. Go to Jail. Lose Job. Repeat. Rodney Scott said that he sometimes thought his brother did not do everything he could to catch up, but that Walter seemed to consider it a hopeless cause. He recalled seeing his brother plead to a judge that he just did not make enough money. “He asked the judge, ‘How am I supposed to live?’ ” Mr. Scott said. “And the judge said something like, ‘That’s your problem. You figure it out.’ ”",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "76ef434980e501e5c6eca6d295ecc6a9",
"text": "What's the primary factor keeping a consumer from handing out fees as liberally as corporations or small businesses do? Power. Can an individual, or more appropriately, what keeps an individual from being able to charge, fine or penalize a Business? If it could be accomplished, but at a high cost, let's assume it's based on principal and not monetary gain. And have a legal entitlement to money back? No. You are of course welcome to send your doctor a letter stating that you would like $50 to make up for your two hour wait last time around, but there's no legal obligation for him to pay up, unless he signed a contract stating that he would do so. Corporations also cannot simply send you a fine or fee and expect you to pay it; you must have either agreed to pay it in the past, or now agree to pay it in exchange for something. In these cases, the corporations have the power: you have to agree to their rules to play ball. However, consumers do have a significant power as well, in well-competed markets: the power to do business with someone else. You don't like the restocking fee? Buy from Amazon, which offers free shipping on returns. You don't like paying a no-show fee from the doctor? Find a doctor without one (or with a more forgiving fee), or with a low enough caseload that you don't have to make appointments early. Your ability to fine them exists as your ability to not continue to patronize them. In some markets, though, consumers don't have a lot of power - for example, cable television (or other utilities). The FCC has a list of Customer Service Standards, which cable companies are required to meet, and many states have additional rules requiring penalties for missed or late appointments tougher than that. And, in the case of the doctor, if your doctor is late - find one that is. Or, try sending him a bill. It does, apparently, work from time to time - particularly if the doctor wants to keep your business.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f3cc07afc72563ecf7740e84bc54c8f",
"text": "Well, if someone who owes me money defaults, I lose the money he promised to pay me. To me that would be a huge moral obstacle for declaring myself bankrupt. I was raised in believing that you keep your promises.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6deab0b0a73d54fc96fce6a32d886ccb",
"text": "I'm not a lawyer, and am certainly not familiar with your jurisdiction, but the general guidelines I've seen around this kind of situation are: If all else fails, you could just cancel the card, though I'm not sure what liability you have to honour the contract. I cancelled a card once to stop being charged by a particularly annoying company and had no problems, but I'm not sure if that is a good way to deal with it in general.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7a5872092a2fbc51f4ee6e4ea1f9aa2a",
"text": "\"First of all, the only thing they can do to force you to pay is sue you. If they don't sue you, then they can't force you to do anything. All they have right now is just a written agreement you signed promising to pay. That by itself doesn't have legal power to take money from you. The worst they can do without suing you is put negative information on your credit report (which has probably already happened anyway). If they sue you within the \"\"statute of limitations\"\", they will almost certainly win and get a judgment against you, because you did agree to pay. With that judgment, the court can force you to reveal your income and asset information, and they can take the judgment to do things like seize money from your bank accounts and/or garnish your wages. And the judgment does not go away. However, if you have no money in the bank and/or income, they can't take any money from you, because you have none. They can't take more from you than you have. In other words, if you have no money or income, and won't have money or income soon, the judgment they can get by suing you and winning isn't worth the paper it's on. Since serving you and suing you takes money and effort, they will make a calculation on whether it is worth suing you based on the amount of debt and what amount of money they think they can get from you based on what they know about you. This is the reason why you may not be sued at all (if they calculate that it is not worth it), and also why they may offer you a settlement for a lesser amount (because is saves the cost of suing and the risk that they won't be able to get you to pay). The amount you mentioned (several thousand dollars) may be small enough for it to be not worth it. Another thing is the statute of limitations I mentioned earlier, which varies by state and is several years long. If they sue you after the statute of limitations passes, then you can raise the statute of limitations and get the lawsuit dismissed. So basically, after this amount of time passes, you are pretty much free from this debt. Note that the statute of limitations \"\"resets\"\" if you acknowledge the debt, which includes paying any amount on the debt or agreeing that you owe them this debt. So if the collection agency ever offers you benefits if you just sign a promissory note, or just pay a token amount, don't fall for the trap -- they are trying to reset the statute of limitations. Even though it's true that you owe them the debt, never let them hear you acknowledging it, unless it's part of a final settlement. Finally, if they get a judgment against you and you don't want them to have the ability to take your money indefinitely in the future until the debt is satisfied, there may be the option of bankruptcy. However, a few thousand dollars may not be worth the cost and negative consequences of bankruptcy, since as a young man you should be able to earn that amount quickly whenever you start working.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "77d68c4c385e2b0976f34774793c60e0",
"text": "\"Short answer: No, not normally. Long Answer: It depends on the contract. If the 14% is some sort of special offer, with conditions, then if you violate those conditions, they can jack you up to whatever the 'normal' rate is. But outside of that condition, I can't see any reason why they would wish to penalize you for making a payment. You will note that there is no \"\"maximum\"\" payment on the bill. Secondly, even if they do jack up the rate to 28%, you're still better off paying $70 on 3000, than you are paying ~120 on 10k. Then tell them where to stick their card and get a new one.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5fa642b6d1699325bda825d5440788e0",
"text": "Make sure I am reading this correctly. You signed the car over to you BF, he took a loan against it and gave you the money? If so, you sold him the car and any use you have had of it since was at his consent. Outside of a written contract saying otherwise (and possibly even with one) it is now his car to do with as he pleases. It sucks that things are not working out in the manner you intended at the time, but that is the reality of the situation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e36c25e1dba1eb52f81421c5381ad65",
"text": "File a small claims lawsuit in the city that the person resides. The court will charge you a small fee and give you a date. They will also summons the other person to appear. Bring all the documentation that shows the following BONUS - Bring the documentation that shows them saying they will not pay you back I had to sue someone once for a very similar problem. I lent them a 6 month interest free loan. They told me to shove it after 6 months and 1 day. So I sued them. The court should accept facebook messages as proof. More than likely though your friend wont even show up which means you win by default. Here's the bad news, that was the easy part. Just because you win in court doesn't mean the money appears the next day. There are a couple ways you may have to recover your money. Best of luck to you!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e04a6a482c4d33b7cb0fdf8682ac7c1c",
"text": "Send a well-documented payment to the original creditor. Do it in such a way that you would have the ability to prove that you sent a payment if they reject it. Should they reject it, demonstrate that to the credit reporting bureaus.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f1ff502edeca8b9aa55cce01a654cb0e",
"text": "\"A business can refuse cash (paper currency) payment pretty much in all cases provided it's a reasonable policy and/or notified during/in advance of contracting. Details in this link. \"\"all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services.\"\" Even if the payment is being made to settle a debt or other obligation, the creditor may refuse payment if their rationale is reasonable (as determined by the courts).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e90318700f267d3ac2266af3c35b7fbb",
"text": "Perhaps it seems harsh, but I would get separate accounts: credit cards, savings, retirement, all the way down the line. Your only joint account should be for paying mortgage/rent and other bills. And as another poster said, delete all your saved info from browsers &c. Perhaps you even need to set up separate user ids. If this really is a case of compulsive spending, curing it is likely to be a long, hard process, if it's even possible. You need to put yourself in a position where you won't be dragged down with him.",
"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
|
359b388b160abc442aad1c38734d8a44
|
What's a normal personal debt / equity ratio for a highly educated person?
|
[
{
"docid": "4017ca6b13d7bf76f6d0c566f69265b6",
"text": "\"Average person's life I'm going to say there is no normal debt level. Here's the standard life pattern: So it really depends on your situation, it's way too spread out to quote a \"\"normal\"\" figure. Cost of debt vs Gain from assets and Risk of income You need to strike a sweet spot based on: Someone who is more educated in finance will probably be able to run a tighter and more aggressive financial strategy, whereas someone who is educated in, say, creative media may not be able to do as good of a job. Running your life as a business Someone here mentioned this, I think it's very true. Unless you intend on living day to day, with no financial strategies, much of our lives parallel businesses. Both need to pay tax, both look for low risk high growth strategies, and both will (hopefully) have a purpose that goes beyond bringing in $$$.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8cacfa26102b736a50d8bc1bed41ad7c",
"text": "\"Curious, are you asking about average, or the good numbers? The median family doesn't have $2500 to address an emergency. We are a nation of debtors, and spenders. A young couple at .8 is doing well. It means they saved 20% for a down payment, and just bought a house. Not too tough to buy with 5% down, have no other savings, and a student loan to put the debt to equity over 100%. Older people should be shooting for zero. I semi-retired at 50, and my mortgage is at about 8% of my net worth. 50% would be too high. Others 50+ should have at least 50% equity in their home and nearly half their \"\"number,\"\" the amount needed to retire. So, a target is 25% maximum. These numbers shouldn't impact you at all. You should plan wisely, spend frugally, and prioritize your goals. There are 'zero debt' people out there who make me look reckless, and others who invest in rentals with a goal of keeping them highly leveraged. Neither group is wrong, what's right for you is what lets you sleep at night.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "02796cad037fa47f7f1dc2560189d293",
"text": "\"What is your biggest wealth building tool? Income. If you \"\"nerf\"\" your income with payments to banks, cable, credit card debt, car payments, and lattes then you are naturally handicapping your wealth building. It is sort of like trying to drive home a nail holding a hammer right underneath the head. Normal is broke, don't be normal. Normal obtains student loans while getting an education. You don't have to. You can work part time, or even full time and get a degree. As an example, here is one way to do it in Florida. Get a job working fast food and get your associates degree using a community college that are cheap. Then apply for the state troopers. Go away for about 5 months, earning an income the whole time. You automatically graduate with a job that pays for state schools. Take the next three years (or more if you want an advanced degree) to get your bachelors. Then start your desirable career. What is better to have \"\"wasted\"\" approx 1.5 years being a state trooper, or to have a student loan payment for 20 years? There is not even pressure to obtain employment right after graduation. BTW, I know someone who is doing exactly what I outlined. Every commercial you watch is geared toward getting you to sign on the line that is dotted, often going into debt to do so. Car commercials will tell you that you are a bad mom or not a real man if you don't drive the 2015 whatever. Think differently, throw out your numbers and shoot for zero debt. EDIT: OP, I have a MS in Comp Sci, and started one in finance. My wife also has a masters. We had debt. We paid that crap off. Work like a fiend and do the same. My wife's was significant. She planned on having her employer pay it off for each year she worked there. (Like 20% each year or something.) Guess what, that did not work out! She went to work somewhere else! Live like you are still in college and use all that extra money to get rid of your debt. Student loans are consumer debt.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "021a1011b701558cdab82b4690cd727f",
"text": "The problem with having no debt at all and relying totally on your income from working is that if you lose your job you'll have no income. Now there are 2 types of debt: good debt and bad debt. You should stay away from bad debt. But good debt is good — it should produce an income higher than the interest payments on the debt. Good debt will help you supplement your income from work and eventually replace your income from work. I have over $2M in good debt, have been semi-retired since 42, and sleep very well at night. By the way I also have zero bad debt. As Joe says, you have to be at a level you are comfortable with, can sleep at night, and try to limit your bad debt by showing some delayed gratification when you are starting off.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "2e959870c0aeb1d4a8e82a765275f23b",
"text": "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": "be1457dce52fb089a066c59174891798",
"text": "\"First, I'd like to congratulate you on your financial discipline in paying off your loans and living well within your means. I have friends who make more than twice your salary with similar debt obligations, and they barely scrape by month to month. If we combine your student loan debt and unallocated income each month, we get about $1,350. You say that $378 per month is the minimum payment for your loans, which have an average interest rate of about 3.5%. Thus, you have about $1,350 a month to \"\"invest.\"\" Making your loan payments is basically the same as investing with the same return as the loan interest rate, when it comes down to it. An interest rate of 3.5% is...not great, all things considered, and barely above inflation. However, that's a guaranteed return of 3.5%, more or less like a bond. As noted previously, the stock market historically averages 10% before inflation over the long run. The US stock market is right around its historic high at this point (DJIA is at 20,700 today, April 6th, 2017 - historic high hit just over 21,000 on March 1, 2017). Obviously, no one can predict the future, but I get the feeling that a market correction may be in order, especially depending on how things go in Washington in the next weeks or months. If that's the case (again, we have no way of knowing if it is), you'd be foolish to invest heavily in any stocks at this point. What I would do, given your situation, is invest the $1,350/month in a \"\"portfolio\"\" that's 50/50 stocks and \"\"bonds,\"\" where the bonds here are your student loans. Here, you have a guaranteed return of ~3.5% on the bond portion, and you can still hedge the other 50% on stocks continuing their run (and also benefiting from dividends, capital gains, etc. over time). I would apply the extra loan payments to the highest-interest loan first, paying only the minimum to the others. Once the highest-interest loan is paid off, move onto the next one. Once you have all your loans paid off, your portfolio will be pretty much 100% stocks, at which point you may want to add in some actual bonds (say a 90/10 or 80/20 split, depending on what you want). I'm assuming you're pretty young, so you still have plenty of time to let the magic of compounding interest do its work, even if you happen to get into the market right before it drops (well, that, and the fact that you won't really have much invested anyway). Again, let me stress that neither I nor anyone else has any way of knowing what will happen with the market - I'm just stating my opinion and what my course of action would be if I were in your shoes.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1fcac1ce4d2a4f8740916dc1f20ad772",
"text": "\"> sofi This is most definitely not what we're (I'm) talking about; to wit: The loans tend to be debt for law school, business school and medical school. And while these grad students carry a median $77,000 in debt, they are also bringing in an average of $140,000 in salary a year. (*See correction below.) Their average FICO credit score? 776. It's another sign of how the credit market is only open to a select few. This is \"\"privatizing the gains\"\". The sub-prime student loan losses will be \"\"socialized\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f4cd363cf536a3eef1149f92f8e59f62",
"text": "Nah, you're thinking top 0.1% - they are very different than the top 1%. Top 1% tends to be salaried professionals who work hard every day - doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc. Top 0.1% makes their $$ off interest, dividends, etc., and these people own more wealth than the bottom 90%. I'm on vacation, so all you're gonna get is a google link, but here's lots of sources of info on it: https://www.google.com.mx/search?q=top+1%25+vs+top+0.1%25&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari&gfe_rd=cr&ei=daSDWb7dEZL08Aeg55bQDw",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2f40189b9cd717786307791d9cf438e9",
"text": "\"I'd like to see a credible source for \"\"the highest\"\", but it's certainly fairly high. Household debt could be broadly categorized as debt for housing and debt for consumption. Housing prices seem very high compared to equivalent rental income. This is generating a great deal of debt. Keynes(?) said that \"\"if something cannot go on forever, it will stop.\"\" Just when it will stop, and whether it will stop suddenly or gradually is a matter of great interest. Obviously there are huge vested interests, including the large fraction of the population who already own property and do not wish to see it fall. Nobody really knows; my guess would be on a very-long-term plateau in nominal prices and decline in real prices. The Australian stock market is unlike the US: since it's a small country, a lot of the big companies are export-driven, either by directly exporting physical goods (miners, agriculture) or by FDI (property trusts, banks). So a local recession will hurt the stock market, but not across the board. A decline in the value of the Australian dollar would be very good news for some of these companies. Debt for consumption I think is the smaller fraction. Arguably it's driven by a wealth effect of Australia having had a reasonably good crisis with low unemployment and increasing international purchasing power. If this tops out, you'd expect to see reduced earnings for consumer discretionary companies.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "60107ac23bd15c65c2221bab687a1a2b",
"text": "What are your goals in life? If one of them is to appear wealthy then buying a high price import is a great place to start. You certainly have the salary for it (congratulations BTW). If one of your goals is to build wealth, then why not buy a ~5000 to ~6000 car and have a goal to zero out that student loan by the end of the year? You can still contribute to your 401k, and have a nice life style living on ~60K (sending 30 to the student loan). Edit: I graduated with a CS degree in '96 and have been working in the industry since '93. When I started, demand was like it is now, rather insane. It probably won't always be like that and I would prepare for some ups and downs in the industry. One of the things that encouraged me to lead a debt free lifestyle happened in 2008. My employer cut salaries by 5%...no big deal they said. Except they also cut support pay, bonuses, and 401K matching. When the dust cleared my salary was cut 22%, and I was lucky as others were laid off. If you are in debt a 22% pay cut hurts bad.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "98befa696835ac9629bee772926ca11a",
"text": "I don't have a reference, but I think it depends on when you entered the workforce: If you finished school at age 24, your primary goals are to pay down expensive debt and to save up enough for a down payment. So essentially not much. Maybe $5k to $10k at the most. On the other hand if you entered the workforce at age 20, with no debts and no significant expenses, it should have been easy to sock away 20% of your income for 6 years, so $40k to $50k would be reasonable. The difference is that the first person's income earning potential should be higher, so eventually they'd be able to make up the difference and pass them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9075a1b90b624b7d2e67c5e63436e91f",
"text": "Pro tip (I'm a financial advisor): some people aren't lucky enough to have rich parents or relatives who will pay for their education. Those who aren't poor or wealthy are caught in the middle, unable to pay their way and unable to get enough grants to pay their way. Scholarships are never a given. Using debt to increase your intrinsic value is a wise investment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e8c5450e3d1e6e492f587ae662fb9d9e",
"text": "\"I kind of understand the \"\"basics\"\", and have done a couple (with the assistance of pre-made excel sheets haha), I just don't feel that I'm creating an actual valuable valuation when I do one. While on the topic though, do you know where an individual investor can calculate the cost of debt for the WACC? I've been looking on morningstar and search up that public company and take the average of the coupon on all outstanding bonds. I don't feel like that's very correct though :(\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c89af4372c5a95e112336d2e3e9f3f8a",
"text": "\"This is an example from another field, real estate. Suppose you buy a $100,000 house with a 20 percent down payment, or $20,000, and borrow the other $80,000. In this example, your \"\"equity\"\" or \"\"market cap\"\" is $20,000. But the total value, or \"\"enterprise value\"\" of the house, is actually $100,000, counting the $80,000 mortgage. \"\"Enterprise value\"\" is what a buyer would have to pay to own the company or the house \"\"free and clear,\"\" counting the debt.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4c24d597a1d6a8df6092e568a551f05b",
"text": "What's your opinion of the rising student loan debt? It keeps going up, is that realistic and sustainable? It looks like it could be a possible bubble to me, especially considering private investors take on little risk because the loans cannot be discharged in bankruptcy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8560f07934dc5abea6412aee757ff03f",
"text": "I'm no financial advisor, but I do have student loans and I do choose to pay them off as slowly as I can. I will explain my reasoning for doing so. (FWIW, these are all things that pertain to government student loans in the US, not necessarily private student loans, and not necessarily student loans from other countries) So that's my reasoning. $55 per month for the rest of my life adds up to a large amount of money over the course of my life, but the impact month-to-month is essentially nonexistent. That combined with the low interest and the super-low-pressure-sales-tactics means I just literally don't have any incentive to ever pay it all off. Like I said before, I'm just a guy who has student loans, and not even one who is particularly good with money, but as someone who does choose not to pay off my student loans any faster than I have to, this is why.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2e85d88ad21e1699ca36b822cb209fa9",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fed-debt-idUSKCN1AV1PY) reduced by 62%. (I'm a bot) ***** > NEW YORK - Americans&#039; debt level notched another record high in the second quarter, after having earlier in the year surpassed its pre-crisis peak, on the back of modest rises in mortgage, auto and credit card debt, where delinquencies jumped. > Total U.S. household debt was $12.84 trillion in the three months to June, up $552 billion from a year ago, according to a Federal Reserve Bank of New York report published on Tuesday. > Student loan debt was $1.34 trillion, up $85 billion, while auto loan debt came in at $1.19 trillion, up $55 billion. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6tvdvk/americans_debt_level_notches_a_new_record_high/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~191392 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **debt**^#1 **credit**^#2 **trillion**^#3 **billion**^#4 **card**^#5\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "265037578cdab0b7451ac8c392a5a67d",
"text": "> If your studies are, say, 150K Why? You could spend that much but you could spend a lot less. [Room and board plus tuition and fees averages 21.5K / year at a state university](http://youngadults.about.com/od/finances/qt/publicschcosts.htm) So 90K would be a much better estimate. > and you forego another 60K/y during 4 years of university, Why that number? [Median annual earnings for someone with a high school diploma was 25K.](http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/26/pf/college/college_tuition_cost/index.htm) Your estimate is almost 2 1/2 times the median. Also, many college students work while going to college, reducing that differential further. But even if we take your numbers, they add up to a differential of 390K (150 + 4 * 60), although 185 (85 + 4 * 25) would be closer to the median. > you will need to make roughly 39K more per year until you retire than you otherwise would have, 39K * 40+ years is roughly 390K? I don't know where the 39K per year comes from.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "597fbba980d57f15eb40096d787f787b",
"text": "There's still a paper trail for every transaction. There's gotta be a debit and credit in there somewhere. Plus these companies are supposed to be audited by an *independent* auditor who, if they're worth their salt, should be able to track down every penny.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
04d0df62f202aa061d1fb3fd8cb7b20d
|
Using financial news releases to trade stocks?
|
[
{
"docid": "f0681a6e39199fc97f9881b1bd449ca6",
"text": "In the U.S., publicly traded companies are under the rules of Regulation Fair Disclosure, which says that a company must release information to all investors at the same time. The company website and social media both count as fair disclosure, because every investor has access to those outlets, but a press release newswire service could also be the first outlet. (What is forbidden by this regulation is the practice of releasing news first to the brokers, who could inform certain customers of the news early.) I think that the first outlet for press releases could be different for each company, depending on the internal procedures of the company. Some would update their website first, and others would wait to update the site until the press release hits the newswire first.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "86b35b25f883dbda4f6626fba74a404f",
"text": "Yes, there are very lucrative opportunities available by using financial news releases. A lot of times other people just aren't looking in less popular markets, or you may observe the news source before other people realize it, or may interpret the news differently than the other market participants. There is also the buy the rumor, sell the news mantra - for positive expected information (opposite for negative expected news), which results in a counterintuitive trading pattern.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7883e2d280b6f58e8966be6b1ae7cdc3",
"text": "No matter how a company releases relevant information about their business, SOMEBODY will be the first to see it. I mean, of all the people looking, someone has to be the first. I presume that professional stock brokers have their eyes on these things closely and know exactly who publishes where and when to expect new information. In real life, many brokers are going to be seeing this information within seconds of each other. I suppose if one sees it half a second before everybody else, knows what he's looking for and has already decided what he's going to do based on this information, he might get a buy or sell order in before anybody else. Odds are that if you're not a professional broker, you don't know when to expect new information to be posted, and you probably have a job or a family or like to eat and sleep now and then, so you can't be watching somebody's web site constantly, so you'll be lagging hours or days behind the full-time professionals.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "4fb6acd2508554abfaf8439d0fc89a4a",
"text": "\"There are many different kinds of SEC filings with different purposes. Broadly speaking, what they have in common is that they are the ways that companies publicly disclose information that they are legally required to disclose. The page that you listed gives brief descriptions of many types, but if you click through to the articles on individual types of filings, you can get more info. One of the most commonly discussed filings is the 10-K, which is, as Wikipedia says, \"\"a comprehensive summary of a company's financial performance\"\". This includes info like earnings and executive pay. One example of a form that some people believe has potential utility for investors is Form 4, which is a disclosure of \"\"insider trading\"\". People with a privileged stake in a company (executives, directors, and major shareholders) cannot legally buy or sell shares without disclosing it by filing a Form 4. Some people think that you can make use of this information in the sense that if, for instance, the CEO of Google buys a bunch of Twitter stock, they may have some reason for thinking it will go up, so maybe you should buy it too. Whether such inferences are accurate, and whether you can garner a practical benefit from them (i.e., whether you can manage to buy before everyone else notices and drives the price up) is debatable. My personal opinion would be that, for an average retail investor, readng SEC filings is unlikely to be useful. The reason is that an average retail investor shouldn't be investing in individual companies at all, but rather in mutual funds or ETFs, which typically provide comparable returns with far less risk. SEC filings are made by individual companies, so it doesn't generally help you to read them unless you're going to take action related to an individual company. It doesn't generally make sense to take action related to an individual company if you don't have the time and energy to read a large number of SEC filings to decide which company to take action on. If you have the time and energy to read a large number of SEC filings, you're probably not an average retail investor. If you are a wheeler dealer who plays in the big leagues, you might benefit from reading SEC filings. However, if you aren't already reading SEC filings, you're probably not a wheeler dealer who plays in the big leagues. That said, if you're a currently-average investor with big dreams, it could be instructive to read a few filings to explore what you might do with them. You could, for instance, allocate a \"\"play money\"\" fund of a few thousand dollars and try your hand at following insider trades or the like. If you make some money, great; if not, oh well. Realistically, though, there are so many people who make a living reading SEC filings and acting on them every day that you have little chance of finding a \"\"diamond in the rough\"\" unless you also make a living by doing it every day. It's sort of like asking \"\"Should I read Boating Monthly to improve my sailing skills?\"\" If you're asking because you want to rent a Hobie Cat and go for a pleasure cruise now and then, sure, it can't hurt. If you're asking because you want to enter the America's Cup, you can still read Boating Monthly, but it won't in itself meaningfully increase your chances of winning the America's Cup.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dfd8a1a50537d16df5f1e082ddfefc2d",
"text": "I'm answering in a perspective of an End-User within the United Kingdom. Most stockbrokers won't provide Real-time information without 'Level 2' access, however this comes free for most who trade over a certain threshold. If you're like me, who trade within their ISA Holding each year, you need to look elsewhere. I personally use IG.com. They've recently began a stockbroking service, whereas this comes with realtime information etc with a paid account without any 'threshold'. Additionally, you may want to look into CFDs/Spreadbets as these, won't include the heavy 'fees' and tax liabilities that trading with stocks may bring.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d6785de13ddb0dbb31dddee8e6ca16c9",
"text": "Reuters has a service you can subscribe to that will give you lots of Financial information that is not readily available in common feeds. One of the things you can find is the listing/delist dates of stocks. There are tools to build custom reports. That would be a report you could write. You can probably get the data for free through their rss feeds and on their website, but the custom reports is a paid feature. FWIW re-listing(listings that have been delisted but return to a status that they can be listed again) is pretty rare. And I can not think of too many(any actually) penny stocks that have grown to be listed on a major exchange.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9daac524bddb7ad59fcf8b78ff44ab6f",
"text": "Since you seem determined to consider this, I'd like to break down for you why I believe it is an incredibly risky proposition: 1) In general, picking individual stocks is risky. Individual stocks are by their nature not diversified assets, and a single company-wide calamity (a la Volkswagen emissions, etc.) can create huge distress to your investments. The way to mitigate this risk is of course to diversify (invest in other types of assets, such as other stocks, index funds, bonds, etc.). However, you must accept that this first step does have risks. 2) Picking stocks on the basis of financial information (called 'fundamental analysis') requires a very large amount of research and time dedication. It is one of the two main schools of thought in equity investing (as opposed to 'technical analysis', which pulls information directly from stock markets, such as price volatility). This is something that professional investors do for a living - and that means that they have an edge you do not have, unless you dedicate similar resources to this task. That information imbalance between you and professional traders creates additional risk where you make determinations 'against the grain'. 3) Any specific piece of public information (and this is public information, regardless of how esoteric it is) may be considered to be already 'factored into' public stock prices. I am a believer in market efficiency first and foremost. That means I believe that anything publically known related to a corporation ['OPEC just lowered their oil production! Exxon will be able to increase their prices!'] has already been considered by the professional traders currently buying and selling in the market. For your 'new' information to be valuable, it would need to have the ability to forecast earnings in a way not already considered by others. 4) I doubt you will be able to find the true nature of the commercial impact of a particular event, simply by knowing ship locations. So what if you know Alcoa is shipping Aluminium to Cuba - is this one of 5 shipments already known to the public? Is this replacement supplies that are covering a loss due to damaged goods previously sent? Is the boat only 1/3 full? Where this information gets valuable, is when it gets to the level of corporate espionage. Yes, if you had ship manifests showing tons of aluminum being sold, and if this was a massive 'secret' shipment about to be announced at the next shareholders' meeting, you could (illegally) profit from that information. 5) The more massive the company, the less important any single transaction is. That means the super freighters you may see transporting raw commodities could have dozens of such ships out at any given time, not to mention news of new mine openings and closures, price changes, volume reports, etc. etc. So the most valuable information would be smaller companies, where a single shipment might cover a month of revenue - but such a small company is (a) less likely to be public [meaning you couldn't buy shares in the company and profit off of the information]; and (b) less likely to be found by you in the giant sea of ship information. In summary, while you may have found some information that provides insight into a company's operations, you have not shown that this information is significant and also unknown to the market. Not to mention the risks associated with picking individual stocks in the first place. In this case, it is my opinion that you are taking on additional risk not adequately compensated by additional reward.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b9c03882d1e19d4e0b3727e7d63177ea",
"text": "\"There are many ways to trade. Rules based trading is practiced by professionals. You can indeed create a rule set to make buy and sell decisions based on the price action of your chosen security. I will direct you to a good website to further your study: I have found that systemtradersuccess.com is a well written blog, informative and not just a big sales pitch. You will see how to develop and evaluate trading systems. If you decide to venture down this path, a good book to read is Charles Wright's \"\"Trading As A Business.\"\" It will get a little technical, as it discusses how to develop trading systems using the Tradestation trading platform, which is a very powerful tool for advanced traders and comes with a significant monthly usage fee (~$99/mo). But you don't have to have tradestation to understand these concepts and with an intermediate level of spreadsheet skills, you can run your own backtests. Here is a trading system example, Larry Connors' \"\"2 period RSI system\"\", see how it is evaluated: http://systemtradersuccess.com/connors-2-period-rsi-update-2014/, and this video teaches a bit more about this particular trading system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_h9P8dqN4Y IMPORTANT: This is not a recommendation to use this or any specific trading system, nor is it a suggestion that using these tools or websites is a path to guaranteed profits. Trading is a very risky endeavor. You can easily lose huge sums of money. Good luck!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bff3fef09ee5bd2fb14dbdb7c3e95eb9",
"text": "To supplement Ben's answer: Following 'smart money' utilizes information available in a transparent marketplace to track the holdings of professionals. One way may be to learn as much as possible about fund directors and monitor the firms holdings closely via prospectus. I believe certain exchanges provide transaction data by brokers, so it may be possible for a well-informed individual to monitor changes in a firms' holdings in between prospectus updates. An example of a play on 'smart money': S&P500 companies are reviewed for weighting and the list changes when companies are dropped or added. As you know there are ETFs and funds that reflect the holdings of the SP500. Changes to the list trigger 'binary events' where funds open or close a position. Some people try to anticipate the movements of the SP500 before 'smart money' adjusts their positions. I have heard some people define smart money as people who get paid whether their decisions are right or wrong, which in my opinion, best captures the term. This Udemy course may be of interest: https://www.udemy.com/tools-for-trading-investing/",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb7297662734c48964eb593b905aee35",
"text": "Another one I have seen mentioned used is Equity Feed. It had varies levels of the software depending on the markets you want and can provide level 2 quotes if select that option. http://stockcharts.com/ is also a great tool I see mentioned with lots of free stuff.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ae140b6307f4e621e74d4a2184730378",
"text": "Companies release their earnings reports over news agencies like Reuters, Dow Jones and Bloomberg before putting them on their website (which usually occurs a few minutes after the official dissemination of the report). This is because they have to make sure that all investors get the news at the same time (which is kind of guaranteed when official news channels are used). The conference call is usually a few hours after the earnings report release to discuss the results with analysts and investors.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2af07b740b87613ecc580fd8f8e59ced",
"text": "\"I am assuming you mean derivatives such as speeders, sprinters, turbo's or factors when you say \"\"derivatives\"\". These derivatives are rather popular in European markets. In such derivatives, a bank borrows the leverage to you, and depending on the leverage factor you may own between 50% to +-3% of the underlying value. The main catch with such derivatives from stocks as opposed to owning the stock itself are: Counterpart risk: The bank could go bankrupt in which case the derivatives will lose all their value even if the underlying stock is sound. Or the bank could decide to phase out the certificate forcing you to sell in an undesirable situation. Spread costs: The bank will sell and buy the certificate at a spread price to ensure it always makes a profit. The spread can be 1, 5, or even 10 pips, which can translate to a the bank taking up to 10% of your profits on the spread. Price complexity: The bank buys and sells the (long) certificate at a price that is proportional to the price of the underlying value, but it usually does so in a rather complex way. If the share rises by €1, the (long) certificate will also rise, but not by €1, often not even by leverage * €1. The factors that go into determining the price are are normally documented in the prospectus of the certificate but that may be hard to find on the internet. Furthermore the bank often makes the calculation complex on purpose to dissimulate commissions or other kickbacks to itself in it's certificate prices. Double Commissions: You will have to pay your broker the commission costs for buying the certificate. However, the bank that issues the derivative certificate normally makes you pay the commission costs they incur by hiding them in the price of the certificate by reducing your effective leverage. In effect you pay commissions twice, once directly for buying the derivative, and once to the bank to allow it to buy the stock. So as Havoc P says, there is no free lunch. The bank makes you pay for the convenience of providing you the leverage in several ways. As an alternative, futures can also give you leverage, but they have different downsides such as margin requirements. However, even with all the all the drawbacks of such derivative certificates, I think that they have enough benefits to be useful for short term investments or speculation.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "707b61081a6c7cf8ec495fe81bd48389",
"text": "Reading financial statements is important, in the sense that it gives you a picture of whether revenues and profits are growing or shrinking, and what management thinks the future will look like. The challenge is, there are firms that make computers read filings for them and inform their trading strategy. If the computer thinks the stock price is below the growth model, it's likely to bid the stock up. And since it's automated it's moving it faster than you can open your web browser. Does this mean you shouldn't read them? In a sense, no. The only sensible trading strategy is to assume you hold things for as long as their fundamentals exceed market value. Financial statements are where you find those fundamentals. So you should read them. But your question is, is it worth it for investors? My answer is no; the market generally factors information in quickly and efficiently. You're better off sticking to passive mutual funds than trying to trade. The better reason to learn to read these filings is to get a better sense of your employer, potential employers, competitors and even suppliers. Knowing what your margins are, what your suppliers margins and acquisitions are, and what they're planning can inform your own decision making.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d89bd3e78032df761450cc9d31c8f68e",
"text": "The Greek Piraeus Bank offers such services for trading stocks in Athens Stock Exchange (ASE) and in addition 26 other markets including NASDAQ, NYSE and largest European ones (full list, in Greek). Same goes for Eurobank with a list of 17 international markets and the ability to trade bonds. BETA Securities has also an online platform, but I think it's only for ASE. Some other banks (like National Bank of Greece) do have similar online services, but are usually restricted to ASE.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d21c1340705ac92ff3ff9454d231cd7d",
"text": "Speaking from stock market point of view, superficially, TA is similarly applicable to day trading, short term, medium term and long term. You may use different indicators in FX compared to the stock market, but I would expect they are largely the same types of things - direction indicators, momentum indicators, spread indicators, divergence indicators. The key thing with TA or even when trading anything, is that when you have developed a system, that you back test it, to prove that it will work in bear, bull and stagnant markets. I have simple systems that are fine in strong bull markets but really poor in stagnant markets. Also have a trading plan. Know when you are going to exit and enter your trades, what criteria and what position size. Understand how much you are risking on each trade and actively manage your risk. I urge caution over your statement ... one weakened by parting the political union but ought to bounce back ... We (my UK based IT business) have already lost two potential clients due to Brexit. These companies are in FinServ and have no idea of what is going to happen, so I would respectfully suggest that you may have less knowledge than professionals, who deal in currency and property ... but one premise of TA is that you let the chart tell you what is happening. In any case trade well, and with a plan!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b150e9c76963f936b4a6cfa0b2a5ae48",
"text": "\"I'll skip the \"\"authorizing....\"\" and go right to uses of new shares: Companies need stock as another liquid asset for a variety of purposes, and if not enough stock is available, then may be forced to the open market to acquire, either by exchanging cash or taking on debt to get the cash.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cb7a295dd66a62cf18a6b8763ed80268",
"text": "I know it may not last longer but i was able to 2.5x my wealth over last 2 years.(2016, 2017 cont) I was successfully able to convert 70k into 452k in 21months. Now at this amount, I am really worried and want to take all the profit. I agree that I have been lucky with these returns but it was not all outright luck. Now my plan is to take 100k of it and try high risk investments while investing 350k in index funds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4e2f45c23e571baea4581cfc708711d9",
"text": "\"For any accounts where you have a wish to keep track of dividends, gains and losses, etc., you will have to set up a an account to hold the separately listed securities. It looks like you already know how to do this. Here the trading accounts will help you, especially if you have Finance:Quote set up (to pull security prices from the internet). For the actively-managed accounts, you can just create each managed account and NOT fill it with the separate securities. You can record the changes in that account in summary each month/year as you prefer. So, you might set up your chart of accounts to include these assets: And this income: The actively-managed accounts will each get set up as Type \"\"Stock.\"\" You will create one fake security for each account, which will get your unrealized gains/losses on active accounts showing up in your trading accounts. The fake securities will NOT be pulling prices from the internet. Go to Tools -> Securities Editor -> Add and type in a name such as \"\"Merrill Lynch Brokerage,\"\" a symbol such as \"\"ML1,\"\" and in the \"\"Type\"\" field input something like \"\"Actively Managed.\"\" In your self-managed accounts, you will record dividends and sales as they occur, and your securities will be set to get quotes online. You can follow the general GnuCash guides for this. In your too-many-transactions actively traded accounts, maybe once a month you will gather up your statements and enter the activity in summary to tie the changes in cost basis. I would suggest making each fake \"\"share\"\" equal $1, so if you have a $505 dividend, you buy 505 \"\"shares\"\" with it. So, you might have these transactions for your brokerage account with Merrill Lynch (for example): When you have finished making your period-end summary entries for all the actively-managed accounts, double-check that the share balances of your actively-managed accounts match the cost basis amounts on your statements. Remember that each fake \"\"share\"\" is worth $1 when you enter it. Once the cost basis is tied, you can go into the price editor (Tools -> Price Editor) and enter a new \"\"price\"\" as of the period-end date for each actively-managed account. The price will be \"\"Value of Active Acct at Period-End/Cost of Active Acct at Period-End.\"\" So, if your account was worth $1908 but had a cost basis of $505 on Jan. 31, you would type \"\"1908/505\"\" in the price field and Jan. 31, 2017 in the date field. When you run your reports, you will want to choose the price source as \"\"Nearest in Time\"\" so that GnuCash grabs the correct quotes. This should make your actively-managed accounts have the correct activity in summary in your GnuCash income accounts and let them work well with the Trading Accounts feature.\"",
"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
|
0cd541fe09348e691f56dd1e2494f2d6
|
What tax advantage should I keep an eye for if I am going to relocate?
|
[
{
"docid": "3fca4003e45a73f2484e59a1c9047e12",
"text": "\"Look for states that have no income tax. A lot of these states supplement their revenue with higher property taxes, but if you rent and do not own property in the state, then you will have no state tax liability. Similarly, many states treat capital gains no differently than income tax, so if you make your earnings due to a large nest egg, then way you will still incur no tax liability on the state level Look for \"\"unincorporated\"\" areas, as these are administrative divisions of states that do not have a municipal government, and as such do not collect local taxes. Look for economic development perks of the new jurisdiction. Many states have some kind of formal tax credit for people that start business or buy in certain areas, but MONEY TALKS and you can make an individual arrangement with any agency, municipality etc. If the secretary at city hall doesn't know about a prepackaged formal arrangement that is offered to citizens, then ask for the \"\"expedited development package\"\" which generally has a \"\"processing fee\"\" involved. This is something you make up ie. \"\"What is the processing fee for the expedited development package, quote on quote\"\" States like Maryland and Nevada have formalized this process, but you are generally paying off the Secretary of State for favorable treatment. You'll always be paying off someone.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd4828eae5fcc94632df84f5418fc8fd",
"text": "\"Depends. If you can choose where to relocate to, then I second the \"\"no income tax\"\" states. But even of these chose wisely, some have no income taxes at all, others have taxes on some kinds of income. Some don't have neither individual nor corporate taxes, some tax businesses in some ways. Some compensate with higher property taxes, others compensate with higher sales taxes. On the other hand, you might prefer states with income taxes but no sales taxes. It can happen if your current income is going to be low, but you'll be spending your savings. If you don't have a choice (for example, your employer wants you to move closer to their office), then you're more limited. Still, you can use the tax break on moving expenses (read the fine print, there are certain employment requirements), and play with the state taxes (if you're moving to a state with less/no taxes - move earlier, if its the other way - move later). Check out for cities that have income taxes. In some states it cannot happen by law (for example, in California only the state is allowed to collect income taxes), in others it is very common (Ohio comes to mind). Many things to consider in New York. New York City has its own income tax (as well as Yonkers, as far as I remember these are the only ones in the State of New York). So if you want to save on taxes in NYS but live close to the city, consider White Plains etc. If you work in NYC its moot, you're going to pay city taxes anyway. That is also true if you live in NJ but work in the city, so tax-wise it may be more efficient not to live across state lines from your place of work.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "b13237716708f98ebcff94c5faa2671e",
"text": "Good deal - glad to help. It seems little is discussed and even less is actually known about this part of the back office. I've found a bit of recon and certain other ops exposure is invaluable no matter where you want to end up in a firm. [FINRA 4523 \\(pdf\\)](http://www.finra.org/web/groups/industry/@ip/@reg/@notice/documents/notices/p123733.pdf) was the latest buzz at the office earlier this year.",
"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": "bae6e8d76b98b2ba96a5520be36c2c8f",
"text": "I believe moving reimbursement has to be counted as income no matter when you get it. I'd just put it under miscellaneous income with an explanation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee21749916f89670ecfa90cfb2e9c360",
"text": "\"While the question is very localized, I'll answer about the general principle. My main question is with how far away it is (over 1000 miles), how do I quantify the travel expenses? Generally, \"\"necessary and ordinary\"\" expenses are deductible. This is true for business and also true for rentals. But what is necessary and what is ordinary? Is it ordinary that a landlord will manage the property 1000 miles away by himself on a daily basis? Is it ordinary for people to drive 1000 miles every week? I'd say \"\"no\"\" to both. I'd say it would be cheaper for you to hire a local property manager, thus the travel expense would not be necessary. I would say it would be cheaper to fly (although I don't know if its true to the specific situation of the OP, but as I said - its too localized to deal with) rather than drive from Texas to Colorado. If the OP thinks that driving a thousand miles is indeed ordinary and necessary he'll have to justify it to the IRS examiner, as I'm sure it will be examined. 2 trips to the property a year will be a nearly 100% write-off (2000 miles, hotels, etc). From what I understood (and that is what I've been told by my CPA), IRS generally allows 1 (one) trip per year per property. If there's an exceptional situation - be prepared to justify it. Also, keep all the receipts (like gas, hotel, etc.... If you claim mileage but in reality you took a flight - you'll get hit hard by the IRS when audited). Also while I'm up there am I allowed to mix business with pleasure? You cannot deduct personal (\"\"pleasure\"\") expenses, at all. If the trip is mainly business, but you go out at the evening instead of staying at the hotel - that's fine. But if the trip is \"\"business\"\" trip where you spend a couple of hours at your property and then go around having fun for two days - the whole trip may be disallowed. If there's a reasonable portion dedicated to your business/rental, and the rest is pleasure - you'll have to split some of the costs and only deduct the portion attributed to the business activities. You'll have to analyze your specific situation, and see where it falls. Don't stretch the limits too much, it will cost you more on the long run after all the audits and penalties. Can I also write off all travel involved in the purchase of the property? Although, again, the \"\"necessary and ordinary\"\" justification of such a trip is arguable, lets assume it is necessary and ordinary and generally justified. It is reasonable to expect you to go and see the property with your own eyes before the closing (IMHO, of course, I'm not an authority). Such an expense can be either business or investment expense. If its a business expense - its deductible on schedule C. If its an investment expense (if you do buy the property), its added to the cost of the property (capitalized). I'm not a tax adviser or a tax professional, and this is not a tax advice. This answer was not written or intended to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding any tax related penalties that may be imposed on you or any other person under the Internal Revenue Code. You should seek a professional consultation with a CPA/Attorney(tax) licensed in your State(s) or a Federally licensed Enrolled Agent (EA).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc8fdf6bcac77214fec7114b7698d509",
"text": "Citizenship matter for US reporting, but not for Canadian taxes. If you are an American resident then you need only worry about US taxes and rules. s",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6931b28ed497d53fd8dcf1995532c920",
"text": "\"Also within Germany the tax offices usually determine which tax office is responsible for you by asking where you were more than 180 days of the year (if e.g. you have a second flat where you work). That's a default value, though: in my experience you can ask to be handled by another tax office. E.g. I hand my tax declaration to my \"\"home\"\" tax office (where also my freelancing adress is), even though my day-job is 300 km away. So if you work mostly from Poland and just visit the German customer a few times, you are fine anyways. Difficulties start if you move to Germany to do the work at your customer's place. I'm going to assume that this is the situation as otherwise I don't think the question would have come up. Close by the link you provided is a kind of FAQ on this EU regulation About the question of permanent vs. temporary they say: The temporary nature of the service is assessed on a case-by-case basis. Here's my German-Italian experience with this. Background: I had a work contract plus contracts for services and I moved for a while to Italy. Taxes and social insurance on the Italian contracts had to be paid to Italy. Including tax on the contract for services. Due to the German-Italian tax treaty, there is no double taxation. Same for Poland: this is part of EU contracts. By the way: The temporary time frame for Italy seemed to be 3 months, then I had to provide an Italian residence etc. and was registered in the Italian health care etc. system. Due to the German-Italian tax treaty, there is no double taxation. Same for Poland: this is part of EU contracts. Besides that, the German tax office nevertheless decided that my \"\"primary center of life\"\" stayed in Germany. So everything but the stuff related to the Italian contracts (which would probably have counted as normal work contracts in Germany, though they is no exact equivalent to those contract types) was handled by the German tax office. I think this is the relevant part for your question (or: argumentation with the German tax office) of temporary vs. permanent residence. Here are some points they asked: There is one point you absolutely need to know about the German social insurance law: Scheinselbständigkeit (pretended self-employment). Scheinselbständigkeit means contracts that claim to be service contracts with a self-employed provider who is doing the work in a way that is typical for employees. This law closes a loophole so employer + employee cannot avoid paying income tax and social insurance fees (pension contributions and unemployment insurance on both sides - health insurance would have to be paid in full by the self-employed instead of partially by the employer. Employer also avoids accident insurance, and several regulations from labour law are avoided as well). Legally, this is a form of black labour which means that the employer commits a criminal offense and is liable basically for all those fees. There is a list of criteria that count towards Scheinselbständigkeit. Particularly relevant for you could be\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f55d808ccf87a99e2a6100e95f2e63ec",
"text": "\"New York State is one of a few states that will go after telecommuter taxes (such that some people may end up paying double tax even if they don't live in NY). There are a few ways that you can avoid this. If you NEVER come to NY for work, and your employer can stipulate that your position is only available to be filled remotely, you will likely be covered. But there are a myriad of factors relating to this such as whether the employer reimburses you for your home office and whether you keep \"\"business records\"\" at your office. Provided you can easily document the the factors in TSB-M-06(5)I, you shouldn't have to pay NYS taxes. (source: I've worked with a NYS tax attorney as an employer to deal with this exact scenario).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c2355fd290d4917d14f57a1c73572a49",
"text": "Not as you suggest. Since you are sole prop, you are taxed on a cash basis. Within reason, you can prepay vendors - so temp to hire through an agency might appear more attractive than direct hire. But there needs to be a justification other than avoidance of taxes. So pre-paying 100k on 12/25 would look fishy as fuck. Plus your quality of candidate will suffer if you need anything other than low skill labor. Look at your other fully deductible expenses - anything you can prepay-prepay. For example, I set my liability insurance renewal January 15 to provide optionality. But it just shifts one year into another .. Means fuckall if you are in the same marginal bracket next year. The IRS has also relaxed depreciation on office technology. Computers are now fully deductible rather than being capitalized. @ 500k revenue you should have a CPA and legal counsel. Simply incorporating isn't tax magic. The purpose is to limit yourersonal liability, not a tax shelter - but shitty things happen once you have employees, don't create the potential for a disgruntled employee lawsuit put your shelter at risk of court judgment. That said, assuming you aren't dumping a hypothetical on the Internet, congrats - for all the headaches, having employees is the ultimate leverage .. it's like a xerox machine for your labor (including loss of fidelity with each copy) ..",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "087574949c594b657988e98071e4749e",
"text": "\"There are ways to mitigate, but since you're not protected by a tax-deferred/advantaged account, the realized income will be taxed. But you can do any of the followings to reduce the burden: Prefer selling either short positions that are at loss or long positions that are at gain. Do not invest in stocks, but rather in index funds that do the rebalancing for you without (significant) tax impact on you. If you are rebalancing portfolio that includes assets that are not stocks (real-estate, mainly) consider performing 1031 exchanges instead of plain sale and re-purchase. Maximize your IRA contributions, even if non-deductible, and convert them to Roth IRA. Hold your more volatile investments and individual stocks there - you will not be taxed when rebalancing. Maximize your 401K, HSA, SEP-IRA and any other tax-advantaged account you may be eligible for. On some accounts you'll pay taxes when withdrawing, on others - you won't. For example - Roth IRA/401k accounts are not taxed at all when withdrawing qualified distributions, while traditional IRA/401k are taxed as ordinary income. During the \"\"low income\"\" years, consider converting portions of traditional accounts to Roth.\"",
"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": ""
},
{
"docid": "b069d22b7c968294f963f273dd8ee0a9",
"text": "Yes, if you can split your income up over multiple years it will be to your advantage over earning it all in one year. The reasons are as you mentioned, you get to apply multiple deductions/credits/exemptions to the same income. Rather than just 1 standard deduction, you get to deduct 2 standard deductions, you can double the max saved in an IRA, you benefit more from any non-refundable credits etc. This is partly due to the fact that when you are filing your taxes in Year 1, you can't include anything from Year 2 since it hasn't happened yet. It doesn't make sense for the Government to take into account actions that may or may not happen when calculating your tax bill. There are factors where other year profit/loss can affect your tax liability, however as far as I know these are limited to businesses. Look into Loss Carry Forwarded/Back if you want to know more. Regarding the '30% simple rate', I think you are confusing something that is simple to say with something that is simple to implement. Are we going to go change the rules on people who expected their mortgage deduction to continue? There are few ways I can think of that are more sure to cause home prices to plummet than to eliminate the Mortgage Interest Deduction. What about removing Student Loan Interest? Under a 30% 'simple' rate, what tools would the government use to encourage trade in specific areas? Will state income tax deduction also be removed? This is going to punish those in a state with a high income tax more than those in states without income tax. Those are all just 'common' deductions that affect a lot of people, you could easily say 'no' to all of them and just piss off a bunch of people, but what about selling stock though? I paid $100 for the stock and I sold it for $120, do I need to pay $36 tax on that because it is a 'simple' 30% tax rate or are we allowing the cost of goods sold deduction (it's called something else I believe when talking about stocks but it's the same idea?) What about if I travel for work to tutor individuals, can I deduct my mileage expenses? Do I need to pay 30% income tax on my earnings and principal from a Roth IRA? A lot of people have contributed to a Roth with the understanding that withdrawals will be tax free, changing those rules are punishing people for using vehicles intentionally created by the government. Are we going to go around and dismantle all non-profits that subsist entirely on tax-deductible donations? Do I need to pay taxes on the employer's cost of my health insurance? What about 401k's and IRA's? Being true to a 'simple' 30% tax will eliminate all 'benefits' from every job as you would need to pay taxes on the value of the benefits. I should mention that this isn't exactly too crazy, there was a relatively recent IRS publication about businesses needing to withhold taxes from their employees for the cost of company supplied food but I don't know if it was ultimately accepted. At the end of the day, the concept of simplifying the tax law isn't without merit, but realize that the complexities of tax law are there due to the complexities of life. The vast majority of tax laws were written for a reason other than to benefit special interests, and for that reason they cannot easily be ignored.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6848e7ec4c1f2dd2f1436826fa588d0b",
"text": "I'll start with the bottom line. Below the line I'll address the specific issues. Becoming a US tax resident is a very serious decision, that has significant consequences for any non-American with >$0 in assets. When it involves cross-border business interests, it becomes even more significant. Especially if Switzerland is involved. The US has driven at least one iconic Swiss financial institution out of business for sheltering US tax residents from the IRS/FinCEN. So in a nutshell, you need to learn and be afraid of the following abbreviations: and many more. The best thing for you would be to find a good US tax adviser (there are several large US tax firms in the UK handling the US expats there, go to one of those) and get a proper assessment of all your risks and get a proper advice. You can get burnt really hard if you don't prepare and plan properly. Now here's that bottom line. Q) Will I have to submit the accounts for the Swiss Business even though Im not on the payroll - and the business makes hardly any profit each year. I can of course get our accounts each year - BUT - they will be in Swiss German! That's actually not a trivial question. Depending on the ownership structure and your legal status within the company, all the company's bank accounts may be reportable on FBAR (see link above). You may also be required to file form 5471. Q) Will I need to have this translated!? Is there any format/procedure to this!? Will it have to be translated by my Swiss accountants? - and if so - which parts of the documentation need to be translated!? All US forms are in English. If you're required to provide supporting documentation (during audit, or if the form instructions require it with filing) - you'll need to translate it, and have the translation certified. Depending on what you need, your accountant will guide you. I was told that if I sell the business (and property) after I aquire a greencard - that I will be liable to 15% tax of the profit I'd made. Q) Is this correct!? No. You will be liable to pay income tax. The rate of the tax depends on the kind of property and the period you held it for. It may be 15%, it may be 39%. Depends on a lot of factors. It may also be 0%, in some cases. I also understand that any tax paid (on selling) in Switzerland will be deducted from the 15%!? May be. May be not. What you're talking about is called Foreign Tax Credit. The rules for calculating the credit are not exactly trivial, and from my personal experience - you can most definitely end up being paying tax in both the US and Switzerland without the ability to utilize the credit in full. Again, talk to your tax adviser ahead of time to plan things in the most optimal way for you. I will effectively have ALL the paperwork for this - as we'll need to do the same in Switzerland. But again, it will be in Swiss German. Q) Would this be a problem if its presented in Swiss German!? Of course. If you need to present it (again, most likely only in case of audit), you'll have to have a translation. Translating stuff is not a problem, usually costs $5-$20 per page, depending on complexity. Unless a lot of money involved, I doubt you'll need to translate more than balance sheet/bank statement. I know this is a very unique set of questions, so if you can shed any light on the matter, it would be greatly appreciated. Not unique at all. You're not the first and not the last to emigrate to the US. However, you need to understand that the issue is very complex. Taxes are complex everywhere, but especially so in the US. I suggest you not do anything before talking to a US-licensed CPA/EA whose practice is to work with the EU/UK expats to the US or US expats to the UK/EU.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "14606435ffca2ab722f43bb037338f54",
"text": "Reading about the [Bring Jobs Home Act](http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/239029-republicans-blocked-the-democrats-insourcing-bill) it talks about how the (filibustered in July) bill would end the ability of companies to take a tax deduction for the costs of off-shoring labor(moving people and equipment overseas). The blog/newspaper articles don't really say much more than that.",
"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
|
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
|
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
|
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
|
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
|
5b878ee113f8899e729c66ada9fc7b51
|
Idea for getting rich using computers to track stocks
|
[
{
"docid": "0742672d02cfccdb4f5d353d0b45f498",
"text": "The main reason I'm aware of that very few individuals do this sort of trading is that you're not taking into account the transaction costs, which can and will be considerable for a small-time investor. Say your transaction costs you $12, that means in order to come out ahead you'll have to have a fairly large position in a given instrument to make that fee back and some money. Most smaller investors wouldn't really want to tie up 5-6 figures for a day on the chance that you'll get $100 back. The economics change for investment firms, especially market makers that get special low fees for being a market maker (ie, offering liquidity by quoting all the time).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e4e05e49e26aa1ad784cf0a3d54fbf5a",
"text": "\"I (and probably most considering trading) had a similar thought as you. I thought if I just skimmed the peaks and sold before the troughs, perhaps aided by computer, I'd be able to make a 2% here, 2% there, and that would add up quickly to a nice amount of money. It almost did seem \"\"foolproof\"\". Then I realized that sometimes a stock just slides...down...and there is no peak higher than what I bought it for. \"\"That's OK,\"\" I'd think, \"\"I'm sure it will recover and surpass the price I bought it for...so now I play the waiting game.\"\" But then it continues sliding, and my $10k is now worth $7k. Do I sell? Did I build a stop loss point into my computer program? If so, what is the right place to put that stop? What if there is a freak dip down and it triggers the stop loss but THEN my stock recovers? I just lost $14,000 like this last week--luckily, only virtually! The point is, your idea only has half a chance to work when there is a mildly volatile stock that stays around some stable baseline, and even then it is not easy. And then you factor in fees as others mentioned... People do make money doing this (day traders), and some claim you can use technical analysis to time orders well, so if you want to try that, read about technical analysis on this site or elsewhere.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b9c03882d1e19d4e0b3727e7d63177ea",
"text": "\"There are many ways to trade. Rules based trading is practiced by professionals. You can indeed create a rule set to make buy and sell decisions based on the price action of your chosen security. I will direct you to a good website to further your study: I have found that systemtradersuccess.com is a well written blog, informative and not just a big sales pitch. You will see how to develop and evaluate trading systems. If you decide to venture down this path, a good book to read is Charles Wright's \"\"Trading As A Business.\"\" It will get a little technical, as it discusses how to develop trading systems using the Tradestation trading platform, which is a very powerful tool for advanced traders and comes with a significant monthly usage fee (~$99/mo). But you don't have to have tradestation to understand these concepts and with an intermediate level of spreadsheet skills, you can run your own backtests. Here is a trading system example, Larry Connors' \"\"2 period RSI system\"\", see how it is evaluated: http://systemtradersuccess.com/connors-2-period-rsi-update-2014/, and this video teaches a bit more about this particular trading system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_h9P8dqN4Y IMPORTANT: This is not a recommendation to use this or any specific trading system, nor is it a suggestion that using these tools or websites is a path to guaranteed profits. Trading is a very risky endeavor. You can easily lose huge sums of money. Good luck!\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "bb7297662734c48964eb593b905aee35",
"text": "Another one I have seen mentioned used is Equity Feed. It had varies levels of the software depending on the markets you want and can provide level 2 quotes if select that option. http://stockcharts.com/ is also a great tool I see mentioned with lots of free stuff.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e67e45b5854d2f1613136954e4faf30",
"text": "\"There's a few layers to the Momentum Theory discussed in that book. But speaking in general terms I can answer the following: Kind of. Assuming you understand that historically the Nasdaq has seen a little more volatility than the S&P. And, more importantly, that it tends to track the tech sector more than the general economy. Thus the pitfall is that it is heavily weighted towards (and often tracks) the performance of a few stocks including: Apple, Google (Alphabet), Microsoft, Amazon, Intel and Amgen. It could be argued this is counter intuitive to the general strategy you are trying to employ. This could be tougher to justify. The reason it is potentially not a great idea has less to do with the fact that gold has factors other than just risk on/off and inflation that affect its price (even though it does!); but more to do with the fact that it is harder to own gold and move in and out of positions efficiently than it is a bond index fund. For example, consider buying physical gold. To do so you have to spend some time evaluating the purchase, you are usually paying a slight premium above the spot price to purchase it, and you should usually also have some form of security or insurance for it. So, it has additional costs. Possibly worth it as part of a long-term investment strategy; if you believe gold will appreciate over a decade. But not so much if you are holding it for as little as a few weeks and constantly moving in and out of the position over the year. The same is true to some extent of investing in gold in the form of an ETF. At least a portion of \"\"their gold\"\" comes from paper or futures contracts which must be rolled every month. This creates a slight inefficiency. While possibly not a deal breaker, it would not be as attractive to someone trading on momentum versus fundamentals in my opinion. In the end though, I think all strategies are adaptable. And if you feel gold will be the big mover this year, and want to use it as your risk hedge, who am I or anyone else to tell you that you shouldn't.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4e2f45c23e571baea4581cfc708711d9",
"text": "\"For any accounts where you have a wish to keep track of dividends, gains and losses, etc., you will have to set up a an account to hold the separately listed securities. It looks like you already know how to do this. Here the trading accounts will help you, especially if you have Finance:Quote set up (to pull security prices from the internet). For the actively-managed accounts, you can just create each managed account and NOT fill it with the separate securities. You can record the changes in that account in summary each month/year as you prefer. So, you might set up your chart of accounts to include these assets: And this income: The actively-managed accounts will each get set up as Type \"\"Stock.\"\" You will create one fake security for each account, which will get your unrealized gains/losses on active accounts showing up in your trading accounts. The fake securities will NOT be pulling prices from the internet. Go to Tools -> Securities Editor -> Add and type in a name such as \"\"Merrill Lynch Brokerage,\"\" a symbol such as \"\"ML1,\"\" and in the \"\"Type\"\" field input something like \"\"Actively Managed.\"\" In your self-managed accounts, you will record dividends and sales as they occur, and your securities will be set to get quotes online. You can follow the general GnuCash guides for this. In your too-many-transactions actively traded accounts, maybe once a month you will gather up your statements and enter the activity in summary to tie the changes in cost basis. I would suggest making each fake \"\"share\"\" equal $1, so if you have a $505 dividend, you buy 505 \"\"shares\"\" with it. So, you might have these transactions for your brokerage account with Merrill Lynch (for example): When you have finished making your period-end summary entries for all the actively-managed accounts, double-check that the share balances of your actively-managed accounts match the cost basis amounts on your statements. Remember that each fake \"\"share\"\" is worth $1 when you enter it. Once the cost basis is tied, you can go into the price editor (Tools -> Price Editor) and enter a new \"\"price\"\" as of the period-end date for each actively-managed account. The price will be \"\"Value of Active Acct at Period-End/Cost of Active Acct at Period-End.\"\" So, if your account was worth $1908 but had a cost basis of $505 on Jan. 31, you would type \"\"1908/505\"\" in the price field and Jan. 31, 2017 in the date field. When you run your reports, you will want to choose the price source as \"\"Nearest in Time\"\" so that GnuCash grabs the correct quotes. This should make your actively-managed accounts have the correct activity in summary in your GnuCash income accounts and let them work well with the Trading Accounts feature.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3bf230205bb1a357e7a52292f2a695eb",
"text": "\"There's several approaches to the stock market. The first thing you need to do is decide which you're going to take. The first is the case of the standard investor saving money for retirement (or some other long-term goal). He already has a job. He's not really interested in another job. He doesn't want to spend thousands of hours doing research. He should buy mutual funds or similar instruments to build diversified holdings all over the world. He's going to have is money invested for years at a time. He won't earn spectacular amazing awesome returns, but he'll earn solid returns. There will be a few years when he loses money, but he'll recover it just by waiting. The second is the case of the day trader. He attempts to understand ultra-short-term movements in stock prices due to news, rumors, and other things which stem from quirks of the market and the people who trade in it. He buys a stock, and when it's up a fraction of a percent half an hour later, sells it. This is very risky, requires a lot of attention and a good amount of money to work with, and you can lose a lot of money too. The modern day-trader also needs to compete with the \"\"high-frequency trading\"\" desks of Wall Street firms, with super-optimized computer networks located a block away from the exchange so that they can make orders faster than the guy two blocks away. I don't recommend this approach at all. The third case is the guy who wants to beat the market. He's got long-term aspirations and vision, but he does a lot more research into individual companies, figures out which are worth buying and which are not, and invests accordingly. (This is how Warren Buffett made it big.) You can make it work, but it's like starting a business: it's a ton of work, requires a good amount of money to get going, and you still risk losing lots of it. The fourth case is the guy who mostly invests in broad market indexes like #1, but has a little money set aside for the stocks he's researched and likes enough to invest in like #3. He's not going to make money like Warren Buffett, but he may get a little bit of an edge on the rest of the market. If he doesn't, and ends up losing money there instead, the rest of his stocks are still chugging along. The last and stupidest way is to treat it all like magic, buying things without understanding them or a clear plan of what you're going to do with them. You risk losing all your money. (You also risk having it stagnate.) Good to see you want to avoid it. :)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7503085ce49c8242851ea5cf345ffa1f",
"text": "\"You can have a look at betabrokers. It's an simulated stock trading platform which is entirely email-based. You start with 10 000$ and you make transactions with commands in the subject line of the email (e.g. \"\"buy 250$ AAPL\"\" or \"\"cover 20 shares of AAPL\"\"). It should be straightforward to add an email interface to your python script.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6cb2c4190cb3e351268127302ed066cc",
"text": "That doesn't sound like valid logic. If there were sufficient roi for the automation work, it will happen sooner or later. They would hire more people, full time or consultants, to do it. Wouldn't algorithmic trading be a separate and more specialized skill set than robotic process automation?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "58508326ca40b024e9d896173d8c4094",
"text": "Take a look at this: http://code.google.com/p/stock-portfolio-manager/ It is an open source project aimed to manage your stock portfolio.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "59ed460e51c03b18119d4006de23a159",
"text": "Similar premise, yes. It's an investment so you're definitely hoping it grows so you can sell it for a profit/gain. Public (stock market) vs. private (shark tank) are a little different though in terms of how much money you get and the form of income. With stocks, if you buy X number of shares at a certain price, you definitely want to sell them when they are worth more. However, you don't get, say 0.001% (or whatever percentage you own, it would be trivial) of the profits. They just pay a dividend to you based on a pre-determined amount and multiply it by the number of shares you own and that would be your income. Unless you're like Warren Buffet and Berkshire who can buy significant stakes of companies through the stock market, then they can likely put the investment on the balance sheet of his company, but that's a different discussion. It would also be expensive as hell to do that. With shark tank investors, the main benefit they get is significant ownership of a company for a cheap price, however the risk can be greater too as these companies don't have a strong foundation of sales and are just beginning. Investing in Apple vs. a small business is pretty significant difference haha. These companies are so small and in such a weak financial position which is why they're seeking money to grow, so they have almost no leverage. Mark Cuban could swoop in and offer $50k for 25% and that's almost worth it relative to what $50k in Apple shares would get him. It's all about the return. Apple and other big public companies are mature and most of the growth has already happened so there is little upside. With these startups, if they ever take off then and you own 25% of the company, it can be worth billions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e1b383fd0db28de0e0948544e307d5f",
"text": "Yes, add the stocks/mutual funds that you want and then you would just need to add all the transactions that you theoretically would have made. Performing the look up on the price at each date that you would have sold or bought is quite tedious as well as adding each transaction.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3749bd9223d2080c026d8c67c9ac9201",
"text": "\"Translation : Funds managers that use traditionnal methods to select stocks will have less success than those who use artificial intelligence and computer programs to select stocks. Meaning : The use of computer programs and artificial intelligence is THE way to go for hedge fund managers in the future because they give better results. \"\"No man is better than a machine, but no machine is better than a man with a machine.\"\" Alternative article : Hedge-fund firms, Wall Street Journal. A little humour : \"\"Whatever is well conceived is clearly said, And the words to say it flow with ease.\"\" wrote Nicolas Boileau in 1674.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "daeeb14027f41c5f88d2279f2b4837d5",
"text": "nice work! really enjoyed looking through your website. do you see any possible application of Machine Learning (specifically tensorflow) to this? I was thinking about building a trading bot that uses data from various APIs as a strategy just as an experiment but I'm wondering what your insights are.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "adeb80ddb87ca61ed1643fd255493a12",
"text": "Candlesticks and TA are a relic of pre-computer trading, period. Market makers use sophisticated algorithms not for trading, but manipulations.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e518dc8abac3f5ab685656cd8efff5b7",
"text": "\"Largely, because stock markets are efficient markets, at least mostly if not entirely; while the efficient market hypothesis is not necessarily 100% correct, for the majority of traders it's unlikely that you could (on the long term) find significant market inefficiencies with the tools available to an individual of normal wealth (say, < $500k). That's what frequent trading intends to do: find market inefficiencies. If the market is efficient, then a stock is priced exactly at what it should be worth, based on risk and future returns. If it is inefficient, then you can make more money trading on that inefficiency versus simply holding it long. But in stating that a stock is inefficient, you are stating that you know something the rest of the market doesn't - or some condition is different for you than the other million or so people in the market. That's including a lot of folks who do this for a living, and have very expensive modelling software (and hardware to run it on). I like to think that I'm smarter than the far majority of people, but I'm probably not the smartest guy in the room, and I certainly don't have that kind of equipment - especially with high frequency trading nowadays. As such, it's certainly possible to make a bit of money as a trader versus as a long-term investor, but on the whole it's similar to playing poker for a living. If you're smarter than most of the people in the room, you might be able to make a bit of money, but the overhead - in the case of poker, the money the house charges for the game, in the case of stocks, the exchange fees and broker commissions - means that it's a losing game for the group as a whole, and not very many people can actually make money. Add to that the computer-based trading - so imagine a poker game where four of the eight players are computer models that are really good (and actively maintained by very smart traders) and you can see where it gets to be very difficult to trade at a profit (versus long term investments, which take advantage of the growth in value in the company). Finally, the risk because of leverage and option trading (which is necessary to really take advantage of inefficiencies) makes it not only hard to make a profit, but easy to lose everything. Again to the poker analogy, the guys I've known playing poker for a living do it by playing 10-20 games at once - because one game isn't efficient enough, you wouldn't make enough money. In poker, you can do that fairly safely, especially in limit games; but in the market, if you're leveraging your money you risk losing a lot. Every action you take to make it \"\"safer\"\" removes some of your profit.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4cf75cc35ece65ec6ebd8065d546b909",
"text": "This is going to be a bit of a shameless plug, but I've build a portfolio tracking website to track your portfolio and be able to share it (in read-only mode) as well. It is at http://frano.carelessmusings.com and currently in beta. Most portfolio trackers are behind a login wall and thus will lack the sharing function you are looking for. Examples of these are: Yahoo Finance, Google Finance, Reuters Portfolios, MorningStart Portfolios, and many others. Another very quick and easy solution (if you are not trading too often) is a shared google docs spreadsheet. Gdocs has integration with google finance and can retrieve prices for stocks by symbol. A spreadsheet can contain the following: Symbol, Quantity, Avg. Buy Price, Price, P/L, P/L% and so on. The current price and P/L data can be functions that use the google finance API. Hope this helps, and if you check out my site please let me know what you think and what I could change.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "495399b295f2a543d63c1288582a78bb",
"text": "\"A \"\"stock price\"\" is nothing but the price at which some shares of that stock were sold on an exchange from someone willing to sell those shares at that price (or more) to someone willing to buy them at that price (or less). Pretty much every question about how stock prices work is answered by the paragraph above, which an astonishingly large number of people don't seem to be aware of. So there is no explicit \"\"tracking\"\" mechanism at all. Just people buying and selling, and if the current going price on two exchanges differ, then that is an opportunity for someone to make money by buying on one exchange and selling on the other - until the prices are close enough that the fees and overhead make that activity unprofitable. This is called \"\"arbitrage\"\" and a common activity of investment banks or (more recently) hedge funds and specialized trading firms spun off by said banks due to regulation.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
70f1af606e12e677ce8a11042b3b353d
|
Online Foreign Exchange Brokerages: Which ones are good & reputable for smaller trades?
|
[
{
"docid": "dd4e634b0f9b679dc87584cab48a1ecd",
"text": "\"For \"\"smaller trades\"\", I'm not sure you can beat FXCM.com, a large, dedicated FX trading shop with extremely tight spreads, and a \"\"Micro\"\" account that you can open for as little as $25(US). Their \"\"main\"\" offering has a minimum account size of $2k (US), but recommends an account size of $10k or more. But they also have a \"\"micro\"\" account, which can be opened for as little as $25, with a $500 or higher recommended size. I haven't used them personally, but they're well known in the discount FX space. One strong positive indicator, in my opinion, is that they sell an online FX training course for $19.99. Why is that positive? It means that their margins on your activity are small, and they're not trying to get you \"\"hooked\"\". If that were not the case, they'd give the course away, since they'd be able to afford to, and they would expect to make so much of your subsequent activity. They do have some free online materials, too, but not the video stuff. Another plus is that they encourage you to use less leverage than they allow. This does potentially serve their interests, by getting more of your deposits with them, but a lot of FX shops advertise the leverage to appeal to users' hope to make more faster, which isn't a great sign, in my opinion. Note that the micro account has no human support; you can only get support via email. On the other hand, the cost to test them out is close to nil; you can literally open an account for $25.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "68bec031f7a21d023816981423ba9160",
"text": "I used XE trade once several years ago. I found them quite easy to use after the slightly fiddly account setup process (needed for security/anti-money laundering I think). I trusted them because I'd been using their online FX rates for a long time. I can't really comment on the specific questions you ask though as this was a long time ago and I haven't needed one since.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2438c8da62edf50437db72d42fd7f996",
"text": "Like Ganesh, I've used XE Trade - however I still do, fairly often. I have never had a single problem with them regardless of the method I used to move money -- Draft, Wire, ACH, bill payment through online banking, etc. The type of trade I do most often is online bill payment to ACH -- i.e. I pay through my banking site and they pay through ACH. There's no fee and it takes 2 business days to go through. I do mainly CAD to USD conversions and I lose about 1.25 cents on the rate -- for example, if the CAD is worth 95 cents US, converting $100 CAD would get me $92.75 USD. The banks usually take 2.5% or so, so it's 50% savings. It was free and pretty simple to sign up, all online -- and besides the standard info all they required was for me to upload a scan of a bank statement. As for an API, I have no idea if they have one.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4fcf665ffa10c9f80ce5d25907cfd42c",
"text": "The following have been recommended to me for the UK: When I was doing my investigations, all had good reputations but Interactive Investor looked to have the nicer service and their fees seemed a bit more reasonable. TD Waterhouse has the advantage of a number of sites serving local markets (TD Ameritrade for the US, for instance).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6ce35d03492be82ba637153265746f74",
"text": "I used Oanda.com for Forex trading a couple years ago. I am in the US but I think it's available in the UK as well. At the time, they had no commissions and their spreads were comparable or better than other brokers. The spreads would just quite considerably when a big event like a Fed meeting or the unemployment figures come out, but I suspect that that is the same everywhere (or they have constant spreads and reject trades). They did not push the high leverages like other brokers were at the time. I considered this to be very reputable, because though the profits to be gotten through 100:1 leverage are great advertising, the reality is that one unexpected spike and a newbie would lose a bunch of money in a margin call.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "32083eb5e2abf447420fbab4061f292d",
"text": "There are many good brokers available in the market and many spammers too. Personally I have been associated with FXCM since 2001 and have never faced any problem. But everyone has their own personal choice and I recommend you to make your own. But the question is how to find out which broker is a good broker and would provide you with a timely and reliable service? Online google check? Not really. There is so much competition between brokerage firms that they keep writing rubbish about each other on blogs and websites. Best thing is to is check with regulator's website. For US: NFA is a regulator for all forex firms. Information about any regulated forex firm could be found here. http://www.nfa.futures.org/basicnet/welcome.aspx For UK: Its FSA. Information on all regulated Uk based firm could be found here. http://www.fsa.gov.uk/register/firmSearchForm.do Remember in many countries its not compulsory for a forex firm to be regulated but being regulated ensure that the govt. has a watch on the operations of the firm. Also most of the firms out there provide accounts for large as well as small traders so there is nothing much to look for even if you are a small trader. Do keep in mind that if you are a US Citizen you are restricted by the US Govt. to trade only with a broker within US. You are not allowed to trade with any brokerage firm that is based outside the country. Forex Trading involves a significant amount of risk make sure you study the markets well and get yourself educated properly before risking your money. While I have made a lot of money trading forex I have seen a lot of people loosing everything. Please understand the risk and please make sure you only trade with the money which you can afford to loose.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d488865526296e2db4fd5227db813131",
"text": "If you want the cheapest online broker in Australia, you can't go past CMC Markets, they charge $9.90 upto a $10,000 trade and 0.1% above that. There is no ongoing fees unless you choose to have dynamic data (stock prices get updated automatically as they change). However, the dynamic data fee does get waived if you have about 10 or more trades per month. You don't really need the dynamic data unless you are a regular trader anyway. They also provide some good research tools and some basic charting. Your funds with them are kept segragated in a Bankwest Account, so are resonably safe. They don't provide the best interest on funds kept in the account, so it is best to just deposit the funds when you are looking to buy, and move your funds elswhere (earning higher interest) when selling. Hopes this helps, regards Victor. Update They have now increased their basic brokerage to a minimum of $11 per trade unless you are a frequent trader.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0da918b800de4d65fda74dc3184b1060",
"text": "Discount brokers come and go. They tend to come with ridiculously cheap prices, and they go when they fail to gain traction, or raise their prices, at which point they can be undercut by a new player. Some brokers are nicer to people with more money, while others cater to small traders on simple low commissions. No matter which broker you choose, you aren't liable to make much money doing frequent trades with a small account. You either risk most of your money on every trade, or several small trades get sapped by commissions. It is understandable that you want to pay less given the disadvantages of a small account. Just2Trade, USAA, Sogotrade, etc. have each been reasonable options in the < $4 a trade range. Many websites will give you a list of the top discount brokers of the year. As with any heavy discounter/deal that is too good to be true, find reputable referrals from people who use the service, and complaints from customers who have been burned.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "430961d780438b43287f18127a74b772",
"text": "For self-service type online customers, OptionsXpress gives me far better trading features(like technicals advanced conditions) and tools, ACH money management & scheduling, fullfillment too. $9 stock trades. I don't know if they yet share Schwab's (their new parent company?) commission-free ETFs getting so trendy nowadays.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "baeda48ad38b88a95a6cbfd626419096",
"text": "I've looked into Thinkorswim; my father uses it. Although better than eTrade, it wasn't quite what I was looking for. Interactive Brokers is a name I had heard a long time ago but forgotten. Thank you for that, it seems to be just what I need.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "04cd9e2f3c0426c8c70786dd6d8dc665",
"text": "If I buy VUSA from one exchange, can I sell it in a different exchange, assuming my brokerage account lets me trade in both exchanges? Or is it somehow tied to the exchange I bought it from? This doesn't happen for all securities and between all stock exchanges. So that is dependent on broker and country. I checked for VUSA with Selftrade. They categorically refused allowing me to trade in VUSA in different exchanges. I can only buy and sell in same currency only, albeit sell(buy) in the same exchange where I buy(sell) from. Should be the same behaviour for all brokers for us mere mortals, if you are a bank or a millionaire than that might be a different question. The VUSA you quote is quoted in GBP in LSE and in EUR in AEX, and the ETF has been created by an Irish entity and has an Irish ISIN. As Chris mentioned below, happens between US and Canadian exchanges, but not sure it happens across all exchanges. You cannot deal in inter-listed stocks in LSE and NYSE. Since it's the same asset, its value should not vary across exchanges once you compensate for exchange rates, right? Yes, else it opens up itself for arbitrage (profit without any risk) which everybody wants. So even if any such instance occurs, either people will exploit it to make the arbitrage profit zero (security reflects the equilibrium price) or the profit from such transaction is so less, compared with the effort involved, that people will tend to ignore it. Anyways arbitrage profit is very difficult to garner nowadays, considering the super computers at work in the market who exploit these discrepancies, the moment they see them and bring the security right to the zero arbitrage profit point. If there's no currency risk because of #2, what other factors should I consider when choosing an exchange to trade in? Liquidity? Something else? Time difference, by the time you wake up to trade in Japan, the Japanese markets would have closed. Tax implications across multiple continents. Law of the land, providing protection to investors. Finding a broker dealing in markets you want to explore or dealing with multiple brokers. Regulatory headaches.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f7a562f90e6e5ccb498f28c8ecf5cb6a",
"text": "I'm answering this from a slightly different angle, but there are people (individuals) who will do this for you. I know private Forex traders who are 'employed' to manage Forex trading accounts for wealthy individuals. The trader takes a percentage of the wins but is also responsible for a percentage of the loss (if there is a loss in a particular month). However the fact that the trader is able to prove that they have a consistent enough trading history to be trusted with the large accounts generally means that losses are rare (one would hope!). Obviously they have contracts in place (and the terms of the contract are crucial to the responsibility of losses) etc. but I don't know what the legalities are of offering or using this kind of service. I just wanted to mention it, while perhaps not being the best option for you personally, it does exist and matches your requirements. You would just have to be extremely careful to choose someone respectable and responsible, as it would be much easier to get ripped off while looking for a respected individual to trade your account than it would be while looking for a respected firm (I would imagine).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e8d00d25fc080b968a4da21485d99698",
"text": "Timothy Sykes specializes in this type of trade, according to his website. He has some recommendations for brokers that allow shorting low-priced stocks:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "116c17b0185831018526406ebd813464",
"text": "The right answer to this question really depends on the size of the transfer. For larger transfers ($10k and up) the exchange rate is the dominant factor, and you will get the best rates from Interactive Brokers (IB) as noted by Paul above, or OANDA (listed by user6714). Under $10k, CurrencyFair is probably your best bet; while the rates are not quite as good as IB or OANDA, they are much better than the banks, and the transaction fees are less. If you don't need to exchange the currency immediately, you can put in your own bids and potentially get better rates from other CurrencyFair users. Below $1000, XE Trade (also listed by user6714) has exchange rates that are almost as good, but also offers EFT transfers in and out, which will save you wire transfer fees from your bank to send or receive money to/from your currency broker. The bank wire transfer fees in the US can be $10-$30 (outgoing wires on the higher end) so for smaller transfers this is a significant consideration you need to look into; if you are receiving money in US, ING Direct and many brokerage accounts don't charge for incoming wires - but unless you have a commercial bank account with high balances, expect to spend $10-$20 minimum for outgoing. European wire transfer fees are minimal or zero in most cases, making CurrencyFair more appealing if the money stays in Europe. Below $100, it's rarely worth the effort to use any of the above services; use PayPal or MoneyBookers, whatever is easiest. Update: As of December 2013, CurrencyFair is temporarily suspending operations for US residents: Following our initial assessment of regulatory changes in the United States, including changes arising from the Dodd-Frank Act, CurrencyFair will temporarily withdraw services for US residents while we consider these requirements and how they impact our business model. This was a difficult and very regretful decision but we are confident we will be able to resume services in the future. The exact date of re-activation has not yet been determined and may take some time. We appreciate your patience and will continue communicating our status and expected return.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f913c481b6e6bedab9ea544c959e216",
"text": "You're going to have a hard time finding a legit investment planner that is willing to do things like take short-term positions in shorts, etc for a small investor. Doing so would put them at risk of getting sued by you for mismanagement and losing their license or affiliation with industry associations.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e08c5193bd2f96d4df8c7e62bd9a506",
"text": "All the things you suggest are good, but I think like everything else the key is practice. Study some topics, then try them out. There are many many sites out there that have free or cheap virtual trading.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "212b89c0dfad33c644815e8141a0949d",
"text": "With your experience, I think you'd agree that trading over a standardized, regulated exchange is much more practical with the amount of capital you plan to trade with. That said, I'd highly advise you to consider FX futures at CME, cause spot forex at the bucket shops will give you a ton of avoidable operational risks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6c281f1428b353322422c8364bfe4bf2",
"text": "You will likely need to open an account in another EU country, like a broker operating out of France, Britain or Germany, to get the best options. If you are comfortable using an english language site and interface, I highly recommend Interactive Brokers as they let you trade in many markets simultaneously, have simple currency conversion, and great tools. But, they are geared toward active traders so you might be better with a more retail oriented broker if you are new to trading stocks. There are many options. Here is a list to start with:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2041307b762fa5e48cadb6e57334b1bc",
"text": "You can use interactive brokers. It allows you to have a single account to trade stocks and currencies from several countries.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b047dc87c3ad4c48201382f49eba180a",
"text": "Oanda.com is a very respectable broker. They don't offer ridiculous leverage options of 200 to 1 that prove the downfall of people starting out in Forex. When I used them a few years back, they had good customer service and some nice charting tools.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "92174efaea066aa7b16d666a6d03c5b8",
"text": "\"I think I understand what you're trying to achieve. You just want to see how it \"\"feels\"\" to own a share, right? To go through the process of buying and holding, and eventually selling, be it at a loss or at a gain. Frankly, my primary advice is: Just do it on paper! Just decide, for whatever reason, which stocks to buy, in what amount, subtract 1% for commissions (I'm intentionally staying on the higher side here), and keep track of the price changes daily. Instead of doing it on mere paper, some brokers offer you a demo account where you can practice your paper trading in the same way you would use a live account. As far as I know, Interactive Brokers and Saxo Bank offer such demo accounts, go look around on their web pages. The problem about doing it for real is that many of the better brokers, such as the two I mentioned, have relatively high minimum funding limits. You need to send a few thousand pounds to your brokerage account before you can even use it. Of course, you don't need to invest it all, but still, the cash has to be there. Especially for some younger and inexperienced investors, this can seduce them to gambling most of their money away. Which is why I would not advise you to actually invest in this way. It will be expensive but if it's just for trying it on one share, use your local principal bank for the trade. Hope this gets you started!\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
4307059068f100f940dd6cd94f4ce144
|
In what category would I put a loan I took to pay an expense
|
[
{
"docid": "845b0104a1698b092c1d865f1661ebdc",
"text": "A loan is most generally a liability, a part of the balance sheet. Expenses & income are part of the income statement. Income is the net of revenues after expenses. The interest is an expense on the income statement, but the loan itself does not reside there unless if it is defaulted and forgiven. Then it would become a revenue or contra-expense, depending on the methodology. The original purpose of the income statement is to show the net inflows of short term operational accruals which would exclude new borrowing and repaid loans. The cash flow statement will better show each cash event such as borrowing debt, repaying debt, or paying off a bill. To show how a loan may have funded a bill, which in theory it directly did not because an entity, be it a person or business, is like a single tank of water with multiple pipes filling and multiple pipes extracting, so it is impossible to know which exact inflow funded which exact outflow unless if there is only one inflow per period and one outflow per the same period. That being said, with a cash flow statement, the new loan will show a cash inflow when booked under the financing portion, and paying a bill will show a cash outflow when booked under the operating portion. With only those two transactions booked and an empty balance sheet beforehand, it could be determined that a new loan funded a bill payment.",
"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": "f31db5acfc76067558fb64fe71b7f964",
"text": "I'd finance the car (for 60 or 48 months), but stash enough money in a separate account so to guarantee the ability to pay it off in case of job loss. The rationales would be: Note that I'd only do this if the loan rate were very low (under 2%).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6441b2846cb858fac0043e741626b0d1",
"text": "You walk into the finance company with a written quote from the supplier for the equipment you want to buy. You then fill out forms and sign a promissory note. The finance company then writes out a check to the supplier for the amount of the quoted equipment. Usually you need to provide at least 3 things: They will require you to provide your social security number and sign a document allowing them to check your credit history which they will look up using the social security number. Note that banks will generally give better rates on a personal loan than a finance company. People usually only use finance companies when their credit is so bad that a bank will not loan them money. Heating and cooling companies that provide equipment will often loan the money to buy that equipment. As a point of advice, it is generally poor financial management to take out personal loans and may indicate a person that is wasting money or be in financial difficulties. For personal loan items (furniture, cars, clothing, jewelry, etc) you are far better off saving money to buy the item, not borrowing beyond your means. If you need a new furnace and it is an emergency, for example, if it were winter (which it is not) and your furnace could not be repaired, then that might justifiable. But borrowing money at a high rate to just upgrade a furnace or get a luxury like AC is unwise.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9998fe5551fdcc7029672487e60cc40f",
"text": "The loan is private, so the business is more of a red-herring. The fact that you're closing it and lost a lot of money explains the loan, but is rather irrelevant otherwise as the loan is personal. Do consider potential tax benefits on writing off a loss, talk to a local tax adviser on that. Pros: Cons: I'm sure there are more considerations, of course, and I'm not familiar with the Canadian social safety nets to understand how much of a damage con #1 would be.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc21ff450a0a0809f018f1758627b97f",
"text": "\"Sometimes when you are trying to qualify for a loan, the lender will ask for proof of your account balances and costs. Your scheme here could be cause for some questions: \"\"why are you paying $20-30k to your credit card each month, is there a large debt you haven't disclosed?\"\". Or perhaps \"\"if you lost your job, would you be able to afford to continue to pay $20-30k\"\". Of course this isn't a real expense and you can stop whenever you want, but still as a lender I would want to understand this fully before loaning to someone who really does need to pay $20-30k per month. Who knows this might hiding some troublesome issues, like perhaps a side business is failing and you're trying to keep it afloat.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "dbb1cccd1b4441b98a23745c915152d9",
"text": "As a personal advice, its best avoided to take a loan for a vacation. Having said that it would also depend on the amount of loan that one is planning to take and the duration for repaying the loan and the rate of interest. One has to also consider if you borrow; when you are paying the loan back, is that money comming out of something else that was budgeted. Say paying this loan means that you can't save enough for the downpayment for your house you plan to buy next year or will mean less contributions to retirement savings. If so then its definately advisable to forego the vacation travel. You can still take the holiday and enjoy at home doing something else that of meaning.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "75546585b13b415f40ba7b912437fc1a",
"text": "\"Depending on the nature of the expenses, you will enter them under Deductions, on lines 9 through 20. Did you rent an office? Add the rental expense to line 13. Fee for a business license? Line 14. Everything else that doesn't fall into any specific category goes on line 20 (You'll need to attach a small statement that breaks out the expense categories, e.g. office supplies, phone, legal fees, etc.) Expenses that are entered in the Income section are costs directly related to sales, such as merchant fees that you pay to a bank if you take payments by credit card. Since you said the partnership has \"\"zero money coming in,\"\" I assume that it currently has no revenues, so all the fields in the Income section would be zero.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4e22f6e1009285612eebc28166d5956d",
"text": "As observed, there is no answer that will fit all, but below are some considerations: Your monthly requirement is 5000, so you have 3000 left to pay the monthly instalments (EMI). However, if you do pay 3000, you will have no money left for any other activities (holidays etc.) till your EMI is finished Set off a sum, let us say 500-1000, per month (you shall have to decide), for other expenses The rest of the money, in this case 2000-2500, you can pay as monthly EMI If you indicate that your monthly EMI to the bank, they will be able to tell you how much of loan you are eligible for and for how long the EMI would last. This is your benchmark If this loan amount is 750,000 or more, you do not need to put in your own money. So the decision then becomes how fast you want to pay off your loan and as accordingly you shall utilize your 500,000 However, if the EMI will not cover a loan of 750,000 (more likely case), you have options between the following: a. Max out on your loan that 2000-2500 EMI/month (in terms of years as well as amount) can get you and put the rest from 500,000. b. Min your loan in terms of amount and time and put your entire 500,000 c. The middle ground is to balance between the loan and your own money, which is the best approach, there is no figure here that works for all, you have to take the decision based on your circumstances. However, in general, the shorter the loan term (in years) better it is as in aggregate you pay less money to the bank. If you are 1-2 months away from buying the house, one exercise you could do is to keep the EMI money in a separate bank account and see how you fare with the residual cash, this would give you a good reality check. Hope this helps, thanks",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ccd5231b27144cc325ae0292bc69d661",
"text": "\"I started storing and summing all my receipts, bills, etc. It has the advantage of letting me separate expenses by category, but it's messy and it takes a long time. It sounds from this like you are making your summaries far too detailed. Don't. Instead, start by painting with broad strokes. For example, if you spent $65.17 at the grocery store, don't bother splitting that amount into categories like toiletries, hygiene products, food, and snacks: just categorize it as \"\"grocery spending\"\" and move on to the next line on your account statement. Similarly, unless your finances are heavily reliant on cash, don't worry about categorizing each cash expense; rather, just categorize the withdrawal of cash as miscellaneous and don't spend time trying to figure out exactly where the money went after that. Because honestly, you probably spent it on something other than savings. Because really, when you are just starting out getting a handle on your spending, you don't need all the nitty-gritty details. What you need, rather, is an idea of where your money is going. Figure out half a dozen or so categories which make sense for you to categorize your spending into (you probably have some idea of where your money is going). These could be loans, cost of living (mortgage/rent, utilities, housing, home insurance, ...), groceries, transportation (car payments, fuel, vehicle taxes, ...), savings, and so on -- whatever fits your situation. Add a miscellaneous category for anything that doesn't neatly fit into one of the categories you thought of. Go back something like 3-4 months among your account statements, do a quick categorization for each line on your account statements into one of these categories, and then sum them up per category and per month. Calculate the monthly average for each category. That's your starting point: the budget you've been living by (intentionally or not). After that, you can decide how you want to allocate the money, and perhaps dig a bit more deeply into some specific category. Turns out you are spending a lot of money on transportation which you didn't expect? Look more closely at those line items and see if there's something you can cut. Are you spending more money at the grocery store than you thought? Then look more closely at that. And so on. Once you know where you are and where you want to be (such as for example bumping the savings category by $200 per month), you can adjust your budget to take you closer to your goals. Chances are you won't realistically be able to do an about-face turn on the spot, but you can try to reduce some discretionary category by, say, 10% each month, and transfer that into savings instead. That way, in 6-7 months, you have cut that category in half.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9369686ff9624d06b4a4d5eeb8a3d237",
"text": "When you pay interest on a loan used to fund a legitimate investment or business activity, that interest becomes an expense that you can deduct against related income. For example, if you borrowed $10k to buy stocks, you could deduct the interest on that $10k loan from investment gains. In your case, you are borrowing money to invest in the stock of your company. You would be able to deduct the interest expense against investment gain (like selling stock or receiving dividends), but not from any income from the business. (See this link for more information.) You do not have to pay taxes on the interest paid to your father; that is an expense, not income. However, your father has to pay taxes on that interest, because that is income for him.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "baf9d55a3c1cb700d5e66ed474161839",
"text": "\"Stripping away the minutia, your question boils down to this: Should I take a loan for something that I may not be able to repay? The correct answer, is \"\"No\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b9c8be20e94c5eaf3c1e14bc9a5ab8d",
"text": "Judgement, settlement, insurance proceeds, etc etc. These would probably be recorded as a negative expense in the same category where the original expense was recorded.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b11f4fa7e336955f0eea0451f70dcdc",
"text": "This is dumb. The sub company will lose money but the parent company will pay taxes on the income they made off of expenses to the subcompany. This doesn't systematically reduce their risk either. Banks will loan more money if the parent company is liable to pay the bills if the sub company can't. So yes, a bank may make a loan to the sub company without any liability on the parent company, but its going to be a very small loan compared to what they would've given the parent company.",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
89e24403827b4a514f1042db54607d38
|
Payroll reimbursments
|
[
{
"docid": "653e490ace6c1b315324cea013d7d9ef",
"text": "Not correct. First - when you say they don't tax the reimbursement, they are classifying it in a way that makes it taxable to you (just not withholding tax at that time). In effect, they are under-withholding, if these reimbursement are high enough, you'll have not just a tax bill, but penalties for not paying enough all year. My reimbursements do not produce any kind of pay stub, they are a direct deposit, and are not added to my income, not as they occur, nor at year end on W2. Have you asked them why they handle it this way? It's wrong, and it's costing you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd2b03ed3cd4d1e068eb182200ec4848",
"text": "\"What they are doing is wrong. The IRS and the state might not be happy with what they are doing. One thing you can ask for them to do is to give you a credit card for business and travel expenses. You will still have to submit receipts for expenses, but it will also make it clear to the IRS that these checks are not income. Keep the pay stubs for the year, or the pdf files if they don't give you a physical stub. Pay attention to the YTD numbers on each stub to make sure they aren't sneaking in the expenses as income. If they continue to do this, ask about ownership of the items purchased, since you will be paying the tax shouldn't you own it? You can in the future tell them \"\"I was going to buy X like the customer wanted, but I just bought a new washer at home and their wasn't enough room on the credit card. Maybe next month\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fae69e7d322207780b9156a7653b9a3e",
"text": "As @Dilip suggested in the comments, the problem is the accountability of the reimbursement plans. In order for the reimbursement to be non-taxable, there has to be a reimbursement plan and policy set up by the employer, it has to be done per receipt, and accounted for correctly. If the employer just cuts you a check - the conditions may not be met, and as such - the reimbursement becomes taxable. In your case, it seems like the employer has not set up a proper (accountable) reimbursement plan, thus your reimbursements are taxable. @Joe pointed out that since the employer also doesn't withhold taxes (as he should), you may have an unexpected tax bill on April 15. This Chron article describes the distinction between the accountable and non-accountable plans. Only with the accountable plans the reimbursements are non-taxable.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "edb005ea7461d6a53124407aca06bab5",
"text": "After reading OP Mark's question and the various answers carefully and also looking over some old pay stubs of mine, I am beginning to wonder if he is mis-reading his pay stub or slip of paper attached to the reimbursement check for the item(s) he purchases. Pay stubs (whether paper documents attached to checks or things received in one's company mailbox or available for downloading from a company web site while the money is deposited electronically into the employee's checking account) vary from company to company, but a reasonably well-designed stub would likely have categories such as Taxable gross income for the pay period: This is the amount from which payroll taxes (Federal and State income tax, Social Security and Medicare tax) are deducted as well as other post-tax deductions such as money going to purchase of US Savings Bonds, contributions to United Way via payroll deduction, contribution to Roth 401k etc. Employer-paid group life insurance premiums are taxable income too for any portion of the policy that exceeds $50K. In some cases, these appear as a lump sum on the last pay stub for the year. Nontaxable gross income for the pay period: This would be sum total of the amounts contributed to nonRoth 401k plans, employee's share of group health-care insurance premiums for employee and/or employee's family, money deposited into FSA accounts, etc. Net pay: This is the amount of the attached check or money sent via ACH to the employee's bank account. Year-to-date amounts: These just tell the employee what has been earned/paid/withheld to date in the various categories. Now, OP Mark said My company does not tax the reimbursement but they do add it to my running gross earnings total for the year. So, the question is whether the amount of the reimbursement is included in the Year-to-date amount of Taxable Income. If YTD Taxable Income does not include the reimbursement amount, then the the OP's question and the answers and comments are moot; unless the company has really-messed-up (Pat. Pending) payroll software that does weird things, the amount on the W2 form will be whatever is shown as YTD Taxable Income on the last pay stub of the year, and, as @DJClayworth noted cogently, it is what will appear on the W2 form that really matters. In summary, it is good that OP Mark is taking the time to investigate the matter of the reimbursements appearing in Total Gross Income, but if the amounts are not appearing in the YTD Taxable Income, his Payroll Office may just reassure him that they have good software and that what the YTD Taxable Income says on the last pay stub is what will be appearing on his W2 form. I am fairly confident that this is what will be the resolution of the matter because if the amount of the reimbursement was included in Taxable Income during that pay period and no tax was withheld, then the employer has a problem with Social Security and Medicare tax underwithholding, and nonpayment of this tax plus the employer's share to the US Treasury in timely fashion. The IRS takes an extremely dim view of such shenanigans and most employers are unlikely to take the risk.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1ead9519c377d41cada5b7e5d4c8af17",
"text": "You should be recording the reimbursement as a negative expense on the original account the expense was recorded. Let's assume you have a $100 expense and $100 salary. Total $200 paycheck. You will have something like this In the reports, it will show that the expense account will have $0 ($100 + ($100)), while income account will have $100 (salary).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1c6d48e3499de5fc9f80e01ed4ebc9b0",
"text": "It depends on the size of the payroll, not on the number of employees. Probably you need to file Form 941 quarterly under this scenario. You may or may not need to deposit taxes more frequently. If you must deposit, then you need to do it electronically. I excerpted this from the instructions for Form 941: If your total taxes (line 10) are less than $2,500 for the current quarter or the preceding quarter, and you did not incur a $100,000 next-day deposit obligation during the current quarter. You do not have to make a deposit. To avoid a penalty, you must pay the amount in full with a timely filed return or you must deposit the amount timely. ... If you are not sure your total tax liability for the current quarter will be less than $2,500 (and your liability for the preceding quarter was not less than $2,500), make deposits using the semiweekly or monthly rules so you won't be subject to failure to deposit penalties. If your total taxes (line 10) are $2,500 or more for the current quarter and the preceding quarter. You must make deposits according to your deposit schedule. See section 11 of Pub. 15 (Circular E) for information and rules about federal tax deposits. I would say that probably for two employees, you need to deposit by the 15th of each month for the prior month, but you really need to check the limits above and the deposit schedule in Pub 15 (as referenced above) based on your actual payroll size. Note that if you have a requirement to deposit, that must be done either through EFTPS or by wire-transfer. The former is free but requires registration in advance of your first payment (they snail-mail you a PIN that you need to log-in) and it requires that you get your payment in by the night before. The latter does not incur a charge from the IRS, but your bank will likely charge you a fee. You can do the wire-transfer on the due date, however, so it's handy if don't get into ETFPS in time. This is all for federal. You may also need to deposit for your state, and then you'll need to check the state's rules.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "16fe0dbb757bc0480bbc021032418c6a",
"text": "Publication 15 is the IRS guide for business. https://www.irs.gov/uac/about-publication-15 They will be deposited electronically at https://www.eftps.com/eftps/ Form 941 is the one you will be using: https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/depositing-and-reporting-employment-taxes The other ones are for special circumstances. I would recommend that you have a chat with an accountant.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5cbb996244fc60be4ce51aa99ccabc02",
"text": "The short Answer is NO, HMRC do not like disguised employment which is what this is as you fall under IR35 you can bill them via an umbrella company and you should be charging the contractor rate not a permie rate. http://www.contractoruk.com/",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a403d7de68675f08817c02e9104ea567",
"text": "If you're correct that it's not taxable because it's non-taxable reimbursement (which is supported by your W-2), then it should not go on your 1040 at all. If it is taxable, then it really should have appeared on your W-2 and would probably end up on Line 7 of your Form 1040.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "071f7252ad58078526431800146394df",
"text": "\"When you say \"\"set aside,\"\" you mean you saved to pay the tax due in April? That's underpaying. It's a rare exception the IRS makes for this penalty, hopefully it wasn't too large, and you now know how much to withhold through payroll deductions. Problem is, this wasn't unusual, it was an oversight. You have no legitimate grounds to dispute. Sorry.\"",
"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": "a90eba7df1e05c2d0b73a98ba3ababf1",
"text": "Nope pay the employer back the due does not involve any tax. Just keep a record of the transaction so that its available as reference.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8951eceea45c81755e69e3b3caad8785",
"text": "\"I used Quicken, so this may or may not be helpful. I have a Cash account that I call \"\"Temporary Assets and Liabilities\"\" where I track money that I am owed (or that I owe in some cases). So if I pay for something that is really not my expense, it is transferred to this account (\"\"transferred\"\" in Quicken terms). The payment is then not treated as an expense and the reimbursement is not treated as income--the two transactions just balance out.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "57ecc3cc87544cb382c000d2dd1e6e58",
"text": "One piece of documentation that might help here is a confirmation of your benefit selections through your employer for each year since the expenses in question were incurred, assuming you have a job with eligibility for benefits. If you can prove which accounts you maintained through your/your spouse's (if applicable) employer(s), then it is relatively simple to go back through the records for those specific accounts and see if a specific expense was ever reimbursed. Obviously, you can't prove through documentation that you didn't have accounts that don't exist. This seems like it would be more important for the accounts elected by a significant other, since I believe reimbursements from an account in your name would typically be reported to the IRS on your behalf anyway. Also, keep in mind that the IRS won't care about each line item individually. Their focus will be on whether, for any given snapshot in time, your total reimbursed amount exceeded your total eligible expenses.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d50f90f0c864294278fa0691bbb3ef40",
"text": "You will most likely pay around 30%, between standard income tax and payroll taxes. That is a good place to start. If you live in a state/city with income taxes, add that to the mix.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a79e4ac789b44b448e0340713d810a9",
"text": "You can only deduct (with the 2% AGI threshold) expenses that: You've actually incurred. I.e.: you actually paid for equipment or services provided and can show receipts for the payment. At the request of the employer. I.e.: you didn't just decide on your own to buy a new book or take a class, your employer told you to. With business necessity. I.e.: it was in order for you to do your job. And you were not reimbursed by your employer. I.e.: you went somewhere and spent your after tax money on something employer explicitly told you to pay for, and you didn't get reimbursed for that. From your story - these conditions don't hold for you. As I said in the comments - I strongly suggest you talk to a lawyer. Your story just doesn't make any sense, and I suspect your employer is doing something very fishy here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f7dda4d298962e5676469e1351ccb15d",
"text": "\"Some of the 45,000 might be taxable. The question is how was the stipend determined. Was it based on the days away? The mile driven? The cities you worked in? The IRS has guidelines regarding what is taxable in IRS Pub 15 Per diem or other fixed allowance. You may reimburse your employees by travel days, miles, or some other fixed allowance under the applicable revenue procedure. In these cases, your employee is considered to have accounted to you if your reimbursement doesn't exceed rates established by the Federal Government. The 2015 standard mileage rate for auto expenses was 57.5 cents per mile. The rate for 2016 is 54 cents per mile. The government per diem rates for meals and lodging in the continental United States can be found by visiting the U.S. General Services Administration website at www.GSA.gov and entering \"\"per diem rates\"\" in the search box. Other than the amount of these expenses, your employees' business expenses must be substantiated (for example, the business purpose of the travel or the number of business miles driven). For information on substantiation methods, see Pub. 463. If the per diem or allowance paid exceeds the amounts substantiated, you must report the excess amount as wages. This excess amount is subject to income tax with-holding and payment of social security, Medicare, and FUTA taxes. Show the amount equal to the substantiated amount (for example, the nontaxable portion) in box 12 of Form W-2 using code “L\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4a9011e433785e61732b017579a786a1",
"text": "Yes, but make sure you issue a 1099 to these freelancers by 1/31/2016 or you may forfeit your ability to claim the expenses. You will probably need to collect a W-9 from each freelancer but also check with oDesk as they may have the necessary paperwork already in place for this exact reason. Most importantly, consult with a trusted CPA to ensure you are completing all necessary forms correctly and following current IRS rules and regulations. PS - I do this myself for my own business and it's quite simple and straight forward.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "563f7f6f56b95f036aeeef527b3212e5",
"text": "Whether to employ a payroll service to handle the taxes (and possibly the payroll itself) is a matter that depends on how savvy you are with respect to your own taxes and with using computers in general. If you are comfortable using programs such as Excel, or Quicken, or TurboTax, or TaxAct etc, then taking care of payroll taxes on a nanny's wages all by yourself is not too hard. If you take a shoebox full of receipts and paystubs to your accountant each April to prepare your personal income tax returns and sign whatever the accountant puts in front of you as your tax return, then you do need to hire a payroll service. It will also cost you a bundle since there are no economies of scale to help you; there is only one employee to be paid.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b10a0ab7c13bdf6554ebe2d83a910388
|
For net worth, should I value physical property at my cost to replace it, or the amount I could get for selling it?
|
[
{
"docid": "9e3f53666b7c9d00610348c62925ba16",
"text": "You are not asking for insurance purposes. So I'll go with this - I have two asset numbers I track. All investments, retirement accounts, etc, the kind that are valued at day's end by the market, etc. From that number I subtract the mortgage. This produces the number that I can say is my net worth with a paid in full house. The second number simply adds back the house's value, give or take. Unless I owned art that was valued in the six figures, it seems pointless to me to add it up, except for insurance. If my wife and I died tomorrow, the kid can certainly auction our stuff off, but knowing that number holds no interest for us. When most people talk 'net worth', I don't see them adding these things up. Cars, maybe, but not even that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ec14b01f26939b3b715582b7563c1223",
"text": "\"You're asking for opinions here, because it's a matter of how you look at it. I'll give it a shot anyway. For insurance purposes - there's a clear answer: you insure based on how much it would cost you to replace it. For some reason, you're considering as a possibility negotiating with the insurance company about that, but I've never heard of insuring something at a \"\"possible sales value\"\" unless you're talking about a one of a kind thing, or a particularly valuable artifact: art, jewelry, etc. That it would be appraised and insured based on the appraised value. Besides, most of the stuff usually loses value once you bought it, not gains, so insuring per replacement costs makes more sense because it costs more. As to your estimations of your own net worth to yourself - its up to you. I would say that something only worth what people would pay for it. So if you have a car that you just bought brand new, replacing it would cost you $X, but you can only sell it for $X-10%, because it depreciated by at least 10% once you've driven it off the dealer's lot. So I would estimate your worth as $X-10% based on the car, not $X, because although you spent $X on it - you can never recover it if you sell it, so you can't claim to have it as your \"\"net worth\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7959ce3e7df7f3b632e4e04aba5ef107",
"text": "\"My opinion: including the value of depreciating property one owns in a net worth calculation is silly - but could be interesting You don't expect your TV or laptop to gain value. Instead, you expect them to decrease in value every year until you replace them. Anything you expect to hold or increase in value (art, a house, etc) is a different story. If you'd like to really get anal about this, you can track your net worth like a business would track its balance sheet. I'm not going to go into detail, but the general idea is that when you purchase an item, you debit the cost from \"\"cash\"\" and add the value paid to \"\"assets\"\" (so your net worth doesn't change when you make a purchase). You then depreciate the value of the item under \"\"assets\"\" according to a depreciation schedule. If you plan on replacing your laptop every three years, you might subtract 33% of the value every year. This could be an interesting exercise (i.e. even if you make money, your net worth may decrease because of all the depreciating junk you own), but my hunch is that it wouldn't be worth the effort it requires.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "de8c18e220f160ff30cd91f8f5309b2e",
"text": "\"There is no objective \"\"should\"\". You need to be clear why you're tracking these numbers, and the right answer will come out of that. I think the main reason an individual would add up their assets and net worth is to get a sense of whether they are \"\"making progress\"\" or whether they are saving enough money, or perhaps whether they are getting close to the net worth at which they can make some life change. Obviously shares or other investment property ought to be counted in that. Buying small-medium consumer goods like furniture or electronics may improve your life but it's not especially improving your financial position. Accounting for them with little $20 or $200 changes every month or year is not necessarily useful. Things like cars are an intermediate case because firstly they're fairly large chunks of money and secondly they commonly are things people sell on for nontrivial amounts of money and you can reasonably estimate the value. If for instance I take $30k out of my bank account and buy a new car, how has my net worth changed? It would be too pessimistic to say I'm $30k worse off. If I really needed the money back, I could go and sell the car, but not for $30k. So, a good way to represent this is an immediate 10-20% cost for off-the-lot depreciation of the car, and then another 12% every year (or 1% every month). If you're tracking lifestyle assets that you want to accumulate, I think monetary worth is not the best scale, because it's only weakly correlated with the value you get out of them. Case in point: you probably wouldn't buy a second-hand mattress, and they have pretty limited resale value. Financially, the value of the mattress collapses as soon as you get it home, but the lifestyle benefit of it holds up just fine for eight years or so. So if there are some major purchases (say >$1000) that you want to make, and you want to track it, what I would do is: make a list of things you want to buy in the future, and then tick them off when you either do buy them, or cross them out when you decide you actually don't want them. Then you have something to motivate saving, and you have a chance to think it over before you make the purchase. You can also look back on what seemed to be important to you in the past and either feel satisfied you achieved what you wanted, or you can discover more about yourself by seeing how your desires change. You probably don't want to so much spend $50k as you want to buy a TV, a dishwasher, a trip to whereever...\"",
"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": "18e5ae8298e346338d69d4bfd5e80117",
"text": "Well it depends on whether or not your differentiating against. If its capital stock or stock as in a share certificate in the company. If its a share in the company then in my opinion using Equity would be best as it is a form of an asset and does refer to a piece of ownership of the entity. I wouldn't consider a share of stock a service, since the service to you is say Facebook or the broker who facilitates the transaction of buying or selling FB stock. I also would not consider it a Capital Good, as the Capital Good's would be the referring to the actual capital like the servers,other computer equipments etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e8002a8483e94f44f69a314c387ea4a",
"text": "I believe @Dilip addressed your question alread, I am going to focus on your second question: What are the criteria one should use for estimating the worth of the situation? The criteria are: I hope this helps.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "111f74c4834d4b8adee65a1ad58c9d5f",
"text": "There are many different reasons to buy property and it's important to make a distinction between commercial and residential property. Historically owning property has been part of the American dream, for multiple reasons. But to answer your questions, value is not based on the age of the building (however it can be in a historic district). In addition the price of something and it's value may or may not be directly related for each individual buyer/owner (because that becomes subjective). Some buildings can lose there value as time passes, but the depends on multiple factors (area, condition of the building, overall economy, etc.) so it's not that easy to give a specific answer to a general question. Before you buy property amongst many things it's important to determine why you want to buy this property (what will be it's principal use for you). That will help you determine if you should buy an old or new property, but that pales in comparison to if the property will maintain and gain in value. Also if your looking for an investment look into REIT (Real Estate Investment Trust). These can be great. Why? Because you don't actually have to carry the mortgage. Which makes that ideal for people who want to own property but not have to deal with the everyday ins-and-outs of the responsibility of ownership....like rising cost. It's important to note that the cost of purchase and cost of ownership are two different things but invariably linked when buying anything in the material strata of our world. You can find publicly traded REITs on the major stock exchanges. Hope that helps.",
"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": "3ed36d63a9b925c315ab217b16467959",
"text": "Have you looked at what is in that book value? Are the assets easily liquidated to get that value or could there be trouble getting the fair market value as some assets may not be as easy to sell as you may think. The Motley Fool a few weeks ago noted a book value of $10 per share. I could wonder what is behind that which could be mispriced as some things may have fallen in value that aren't in updated financials yet. Another point from that link: After suffering through the last few months of constant cries from naysayers about the company’s impending bankruptcy, shareholders of Penn West Petroleum Ltd. (TSX:PWT)(NYSE:PWE) can finally look toward the future with a little optimism. Thus, I'd be inclined to double check what is on the company books.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac087fe705c43712747a7c55daaad272",
"text": "A lot of these answers are strong, but at the end of the day this question really boils down to: Do you want to own things? Duh, yes. It means you have: By this logic, you would expect aggregate stock prices to increase indefinitely. Whether the price you pay for that ownership claim is worth it at any given point in time is a completely different question entirely.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3edf31495dba5679c752f641cffc948",
"text": "\"There are basically two ways to get value out of an appreciating asset such as a home: (a) Sell it and take the profit. In the case of a home, you presumably still have to live somewhere, so unless you buy a cheaper home to replace it, this doesn't get you anywhere. If you can get another house that is just as nice and in just as nice a location -- whatever you consider \"\"nice\"\" to be -- than this sounds like a winning option. If it means moving to a less desirable home, then you are getting the cash but losing the nice home. You'll have to decide if it's worth it. (b) Use it as collateral for a loan. In this case, that means a second mortgage, home equity loan, or a home equity line of credit. But this can be dangerous. House prices are very volatile these days. If the value of the house falls, you could be stuck with debts greater than your assets. In my humble opinion, you should be very careful about doing this. Borrowing against your house to send the kids to college or pay for your spouse's life-saving operation may be reasonable. Borrowing against your house to go on a fancy vacation is almost surely a bad idea. The vacation will be over within a couple of weeks, but you could be paying off the debt for decades.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "405b853a067c3fbd64786f8275b3a758",
"text": "The cost to you for selling is 3/8% of a years salary, this is what you won't get if you sell. Tough to calculate the what-if scenarios beyond this, since I can't quantify the risk of a price drop. Once the amount in he stock is say,10%, of a years salary, if you know a drop is coming, a sale is probably worth it, for a steep drop. My stronger focus would be on how much of your wealth is concentrated in that one stock, Enron, and all.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e03f1046142c70a6d7ee328fc4975df",
"text": "I think the key to intrinsic value is that if you have something with *intrinsic* value, you can derive some direct benefit from it without trading. For example a house has intrinsic value because without trading it, you can use it to stay warm and dry, and use it to store your stuff. Money - whether it's federal currency or bitcoin - has a very low intrinsic value. What can you do with cash without trading it? Maybe make some paper art or patch a leaking boat, but a $20 bill has very little practical (intrinsic) value until you trade it for goods or services. The same with bitcoin - you can't play it like a video game or drink it if you're thirsty, all you can do is trade it for things that you can use directly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "49fd455ca96a97dcc7da59dbe49f84fe",
"text": "The answer to this question is very different depending on the type of item. From a purely financial perspective you would want to answer these questions which you may not have enough information to answer: Realistically the question I prefer to ask are: When something fails there is a big difference to me between having the cash and having an insurance policy that is suppose to cover it even if they are theoretically the same value. Some insurance policies may even be better than cash, like homeowners insurance might help take care of details like finding a contractor to fix the issue, finding temporary housing if your house burns down, etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cccddce7245c2fc6e6ab69142941c94c",
"text": "\"You have actually asked several questions, so I think what I'll do is give you an intuition about risk-neutral pricing to get you started. Then I think the answer to many of your questions will become clear. Physical Probability There is some probability of every event out there actually occurring, including the price of a stock going up. That's what we call the physical probability. It's very intuitive, but not directly useful for finding the price of something because price is not the weighted average of future outcomes. For example, if you have a stock that is highly correlated with the market and has 50% chance of being worth $20 dollars tomorrow and a 50% chance of being worth $10, it's value today is not $15. It will be worth less, because it's a risky stock and must earn a premium. When you are dealing with physical probabilities, if you want to compute value you have to take the probability-weighted average of all the prices it could have tomorrow and then add in some kind of compensation for risk, which may be hard to compute. Risk-Neutral Probability Finance theory has shown that instead of computing values this way, we can embed risk-compensation into our probabilities. That is, we can create a new set up \"\"probabilities\"\" by adjusting the probability of good market outcomes downward and increasing the probability of bad market outcomes. This may sound crazy because these probabilities are no longer physical, but it has the desirable property that we then use this set of probabilities to price of every asset out there: all of them (equity, options, bonds, savings accounts, etc.). We call these adjusted probabilities that risk-neutral probabilities. When I say price I mean that you can multiply every outcome by its risk-neutral probability and discount at the risk-free rate to find its correct price. To be clear, we have changed the probability of the market going up and down, not our probability of a particular stock moving independent of the market. Because moves that are independent of the market do not affect prices, we don't have to adjust the probabilities of them happening in order to get risk-neutral probabilities. Anyway, the best way to think of risk-neutral probabilities is as a set of bogus probabilities that consistently give the correct price of every asset in the economy without having to add a risk premium. If we just take the risk-neutral probability-weighted average of all outcomes and discount at the risk-free rate, we get the price. Very handy if you have them. Risk-Neutral Pricing We can't get risk-neutral probabilities from research about how likely a stock is to actually go up or down. That would be the physical probability. Instead, we can figure out the risk-neutral probabilities from prices. If a stock has only two possible prices tomorrow, U and D, and the risk-neutral probability of U is q, then Price = [ Uq + D(1-q) ] / e^(rt) The exponential there is just discounting by the risk-free rate. This is the beginning of the equations you have mentioned. The main thing to remember is that q is not the physical probability, it's the risk-neutral one. I can't emphasize that enough. If you have prespecified what U and D can be, then there is only one unknown in that equation: q. That means you can look at the stock price and solve for the risk neutral probability of the stock going up. The reason this is useful is that you can same risk-neutral probability to price the associated option. In the case of the option you don't know its price today (yet) but you do know how much money it will be worth if the stock moves up or down. Use those values and the risk-neutral probability you computed from the stock to compute the option's price. That's what's going on here. To remember: the same risk-neutral probability measure prices everything out there. That is, if you choose an asset, multiply each possibly outcome by its risk-neutral probability, and discount at the risk-free rate, you get its price. In general we use prices of things we know to infer things about the risk-neutral probability measure in order to get prices we do not know.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "355134dc7106c021184cf1ba965be9a2",
"text": "\"An individual's net worth is the value of the person's assets minus his debt. To find your net worth, add up the value of everything that you own: your house, your cars, your bank accounts, your retirement investments, etc. Then subtract all of your debt: mortgage, student loans, credit card debt, car loans, etc. If you sold everything you own and paid off all your debts, you would be left with your net worth. If Bill Gates' net worth is $86 Billion, he likely does not have that much cash sitting in the bank. Much of his net worth is in the form of assets: stocks, real estate, and other investments. If he sold everything that he has and paid any debts, he would theoretically have the $86 Billion. I say \"\"theoretically\"\" because in the amounts of stock that he owns, he could cause a price drop by selling it all at once.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aef81cf44ab4afae962e42919029e98d",
"text": "There are multiple ways of determining the value of an inherited property. If you aren't planning on selling it, then the best way would be to have a real estate agent do a comp on the property (or multiple real estate agents).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7260e33a94f0592cc40cc223803db899",
"text": "There are books on the subject of valuing stocks. P/E ratio has nothing directly to do with the value of a company. It may be an indication that the stock is undervalued or overvalued, but does not indicate the value itself. The direct value of company is what it would fetch if it was liquidated. For example, if you bought a dry cleaner and sold all of the equipment and receivables, how much would you get? To value a living company, you can treat it like a bond. For example, assume the company generates $1 million in profit every year and has a liquidation value of $2 million. Given the risk profile of the business, let's say we would like to make 8% on average per year, then the value of the business is approximately $1/0.08 + $2 = $14.5 million to us. To someone who expects to make more or less the value might be different. If the company has growth potential, you can adjust this figure by estimating the estimated income at different percentage chances of growth and decline, a growth curve so to speak. The value is then the net area under this curve. Of course, if you do this for NYSE and most NASDAQ stocks you will find that they have a capitalization way over these amounts. That is because they are being used as a store of wealth. People are buying the stocks just as a way to store money, not necessarily make a profit. It's kind of like buying land. Even though the land may never give you a penny of profit, you know you can always sell it and get your money back. Because of this, it is difficult to value high-profile equities. You are dealing with human psychology, not pennies and dollars.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc3255d6ac2cde2a7fa12e7e607b0cdd",
"text": "\"This is fraud, the related legal code is \"\"11 USC 548 - Fraudulent transfers and obligations\"\"; also see the wiki page for Fraudulent Conveyance in the United States. Highly suggest cutting off contact with this person, and speaking with a lawyer as soon as possible to make sure you have not already broken the law.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
7441349d33409321b6c2c29a03fe4434
|
Why are people from UAE and Dubai so rich?
|
[
{
"docid": "42953e3fe0bfe91c2ac1d0374e0598e0",
"text": "They aren't all rich on average. And oil and gas is actually now only about 25% of the economy in the UAE (incredibly!). There are good reasons why it felt that way, though: The UAE and a number of other oil-rich nations all realize that they need to diversify away from oil revenues. International investment and tourism are the main ways in which they hope to attract capital (free trade/full foreign ownership/no-tax zones, World Cup, etc.). Business and government are often one and the same or working closely together, and they are extremely savvy about cultivating your experience in their company, and want to make sure they are doing everything in their power to get you to like and spend money in their country. Essentially, you are visiting their version of Las Vegas. Additionally, they have taken on massive debt to create those kinds of cities and experiences. According to the World Bank and the CIA (see here), the per capita GDP of the UAE on a Purchasing Price Parity basis is about 18% higher than in the US. Since much of the oil wealth is controlled by the state, it is not certain how evenly that income is distributed (World Bank and CIA statistics do not provide R/P or Gini data for UAE, while it is provided for most nations).",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "04e90f3a6a51a10dad904f03e9ceb98c",
"text": "Because you already have the answer as part of your question. The wealth is concentrated in the parents generation and they are pulling the rug after them. This is done in various ways: from costs of education to costs of entitlements to costs of housing to salary stagnation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a6445afd55be4313404548fa7c1db6c",
"text": "Good point. One of my former clients is an Indian immigrant who moved here to have the opportunity to create a better life. He was really passionate about affiliate marketing and created an empire here. Anyone who immigrates like that is dedicated and is more likely to succeed. I don't know nearly as many native born Indians as Koreans or Chinese come to think of it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "41ba98e8ac633cd0f26eef1ebaa4d8f8",
"text": "\"I'm not sure what \"\"rents\"\" you are talking about, but corporate profits are completely different from high net worth individuals. And actually, most corporate profits are reinvested (literally) or returned to investors, many of whom are less-than-rich or are institutional investors like pension funds or investment funds who in turn provide those profits to their beneficiaries. If you are suggesting that the financial industry somehow contributes nothing to society, then you must lack an understanding of the importance of liquidity to a modern economy. For an example of what happens when liquidity dries up, look no further than 2008 or Greece today. If you want your cell phone, iPad, internet, etc, then you need a financial system because there is no way a company like Apple is getting enough funding to undertake massive projects like the iPod or iPhone without major multi-national banks who can provide the leverage to make it possible. Though Apple is an admittably poor example of this as they are now so wildly successful that they have a huge pile of cash that they actually are hording. Then again, look at the investor outcry that the Apple horde unleashed. As I said, it's bad business to stockpile cash and the investors let Apple know this. So Apple distributed that cash back to investors in the form of a dividend. Much of Apple stock is owned by non-1%ers and they all now have a sweet check for thousands of dollars (on average) in their mailbox due to evil corporate America.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb28b380c9dc98a31bf144f2d5828e4e",
"text": "\"You're right, but netting $150,000 a year isn't really even that tough for a savvy individual with the skill set of talented developer. \"\"Creating an app\"\" is far from the only option to make that money anyways (in fact, you're probably correct in your condescending tone mentioning it). Why would an intelligent skilled worker tether themselves to a desk in Seattle, when they could easily do just as well financially, and live where, and work when, they please? There are definitely some people who would value the steady, and certain, paycheck. But, becoming a talented developer requires a level of ambition and self-motivation in and of itself that caters to entrepreneurship well. The issue is that MSFT doesn't want to pay what good programmers are actually worth, according to the market. So, they run PR campaigns and lobby the government to bring in workers that will happily work for under true market rate. Granted, these Visa workers pay taxes, and get great jobs. That doesn't really hide the fact that these workers help lower the wages that they \"\"should\"\" be paying, according to basic supply and demand.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f2eb9fcac14a964a1438a708467f2e8b",
"text": "Why is one person more succesfull than another? At the end of the day I think it simply comes down to personal choices, some people will choose to invest their time in profitable indevours and some will not. This of course assumes people have a reasonable access to a mean of improvement (free education, vocational training, etc.)",
"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": "4ed57c04ebace079b2c46549a314472d",
"text": "There are many reasons but perhaps the most telling is that these small foreign companies usually have not experienced diminishing marginal returns. This means they grow faster, which means higher returns for investment. However a lack of infrastructure, and of political and economic stability, make these investments risky!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2edc549284d7bce960d16af2d8798f97",
"text": "Quite a lot of reasons but mostly supply and demand. Some areas of Africa are extremely remote and just don't have things there that some of the population now want. I would guess it won't be like this for much longer but right now it is and i have met plenty of people taking advantage of that fact.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba3f57b89b4d5ff295e60614da731fe1",
"text": "Well, the headline is kind of true. Open boarders make all developed country labor much cheaper so the trend of the rich getting richer and every other native poorer (especially when considering externalities) would be exacerbated. What makes this article true, for The Economist, is that for The Economist 'The West' means the 'Rich People of The West Who Read The Economist'.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac5f2060b46c825b3fd816c970e854ec",
"text": "The schools you refer to used to be based in the US until businesses decided to go global for cheaper labor. After the dot Com bubble burst the US tech schools disappeared. Those adventurous enough picked up and moved to places like India, Russia, China, etc and built lucrative businesses.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5b8ace549a8b68a2fde3f9fff3db873",
"text": "Haven't they been predicting this since 2012? The luxury housing market keeps going up due to huge demand, influx of $ from the economic and stock market boom, and technological epicenters of innovation such as the Bay Area. Not a bubble",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c293eedb83f25dabcb22559f40ee799b",
"text": "\"The basic idea is that money's worth is dependent on what it can be used to buy. The principal driver of monetary exchange (using one type of currency to \"\"buy\"\" another) is that usually, transactions for goods or services in a particular country must be made using that country's official currency. So, if the U.S. has something very valuable (let's say iPhones) that people in other countries want to buy, they have to buy dollars and then use those dollars to buy the consumer electronics from sellers in the U.S. Each country has a \"\"basket\"\" of things they produce that another country will want, and a \"\"shopping list\"\" of things of value they want from that other country. The net difference in value between the basket and shopping list determines the relative demand for one currency over another; the dollar might gain value relative to the Euro (and thus a Euro will buy fewer dollars) because Europeans want iPhones more than Americans want BMWs, or conversely the Euro can gain strength against the dollar because Americans want BMWs more than Europeans want iPhones. The fact that iPhones are actually made in China kind of plays into it, kind of not; Apple pays the Chinese in Yuan to make them, then receives dollars from international buyers and ships the iPhones to them, making both the Yuan and the dollar more valuable than the Euro or other currencies. The total amount of a currency in circulation can also affect relative prices. Right now the American Fed is pumping billions of dollars a day into the U.S. economy. This means there's a lot of dollars floating around, so they're easy to get and thus demand for them decreases. It's more complex than that (for instance, the dollar is also used as the international standard for trade in oil; you want oil, you pay for it in dollars, increasing demand for dollars even when the United States doesn't actually put any oil on the market to sell), but basically think of different currencies as having value in and of themselves, and that value is affected by how much the market wants that currency.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e03ed771d098c53ef50bda20f66c0d6c",
"text": "Because the macro numbers are not always relevant on a micro level and vice versa. Saudi Arabia has a GDP per capita far higher than any European county. Would you want to be a worker (i.a slave) in Saudi Arabia or a worker in Sweden? The United States is a rich country. A very rich country. But businesses going great in most major cities, and the average salary growing, doesn't really change the life of the minimum wage worker in rural New Mexico who can hardly get by without food stamps.",
"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": "a10874fa663cb83d234f05f068661430",
"text": "I think that's unreasonable. If you had read the article and clicked on the Amory Lovins link you would have seen this - an article in which he talks about there being more oil in Detroit than Saudi Arabia. Energy + Genius The Saudi Arabia Beneath Detroit Amory Lovins, 10.09.08, 06:00 PM EDT Radical efficiency can decouple us from oil for far less than making more.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
32a133d2b27f7a2dc8fc1610f6e7a8d4
|
found a 1994 uncashed profit sharing retirement plan check
|
[
{
"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": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "5b1421ff7cbe19205c82ece4c8d8d6c7",
"text": "The straight math might favor leaving it, but I'd personally prefer to have it in my control in an IRA. My own employer offered a buyout on the pension program, and the choice between a nice lump sum vs some fixed number 20 years hence was a simple one for me. Both my wife and I (same company) took the lump sum, and never regretted it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "36fcccad5602fec5364f2c1f4e6d3235",
"text": "Generally stock trades will require an additional Capital Gains and Losses form included with a 1040, known as Schedule D (summary) and Schedule D-1 (itemized). That year I believe the maximum declarable Capital loss was $3000--the rest could carry over to future years. The purchase date/year only matters insofar as to rank the lot as short term or long term(a position held 365 days or longer), short term typically but depends on actual asset taxed then at 25%, long term 15%. The year a position was closed(eg. sold) tells you which year's filing it belongs in. The tiny $16.08 interest earned probably goes into Schedule B, typically a short form. The IRS actually has a hotline 800-829-1040 (Individuals) for quick questions such as advising which previous-year filing forms they'd expect from you. Be sure to explain the custodial situation and that it all recently came to your awareness etc. Disclaimer: I am no specialist. You'd need to verify everything I wrote; it was just from personal experience with the IRS and taxes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ae1c424ef59d02bb273b22b654d0b529",
"text": "\"I finally found it! Johnson Controls International PLC FORM 8-K/A (Amended Current report filing) Filed 10/03/16 for the Period Ending 09/02/16 from http://investors.johnsoncontrols.com/financial-information/johnson-sec-filings, says on page II-6: (my emphasis for the relevant paragraph) On September 2, 2016, Johnson Controls and Tyco completed their combination pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger (the “Merger Agreement”), dated as of January 24, 2016, as amended by Amendment No. 1, dated as of July 1, 2016, by and among Johnson Controls, Tyco and certain other parties named therein, including Jagara Merger Sub LLC, an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Tyco (“Merger Sub”). Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, on September 2, 2016, Merger Sub merged with and into Johnson Controls with Johnson Controls being the surviving corporation in the merger and a wholly owned, indirect subsidiary of Tyco (the “merger”). Following the merger, Tyco changed its name to “Johnson Controls International plc.” Immediately prior to the merger and in connection therewith, Tyco shareholders received 0.955 ordinary shares of Tyco (which shares are now referred to as “combined company ordinary shares”) for each Tyco ordinary share they held by virtue of a 0.955-for-one share consolidation. In the merger, each outstanding share of common stock, par value $1.00 per share, of Johnson Controls (“Johnson Controls common stock”) (other than shares held by Johnson Controls, Tyco and certain of their subsidiaries) was converted into the right to receive either the cash consideration or the share consideration (each as described below), at the election of the holder, subject to proration procedures described in the Merger Agreement and applicable withholding taxes. The election to receive the cash consideration was undersubscribed. As a result, holders of shares of Johnson Controls common stock that elected to receive the share consideration and holders of shares of Johnson Controls common stock that made no election (or failed to properly make an election) became entitled to receive, for each such share of Johnson Controls common stock, $5.7293 in cash, without interest, and 0.8357 combined company ordinary shares, subject to applicable withholding taxes. Holders of shares of Johnson Controls common stock that elected to receive the cash consideration became entitled to receive, for each such share of Johnson Controls common stock, $34.88 in cash, without interest, subject to applicable withholding taxes. In the merger, Johnson Controls shareholders received, in the aggregate, approximately $3.864 billion in cash. Immediately after the closing of, and giving effect to, the merger, former Johnson Controls shareholders owned approximately 56% of the issued and outstanding combined company ordinary shares and former Tyco stockholders owned approximately 44% of the issued and outstanding combined company ordinary shares. This answers what actually happened in the transaction; as far as my cost basis in the new JCI, it's a little more obscure; on page II-7 it says: For pro forma purposes, the valuation of consideration transferred is based on, amongst other things, the adjusted share price of Johnson Controls on September 2, 2016 of $47.67 per share and on page II-8: Johnson Controls adjusted share price as of September 2, 2016 (2): $47.67 (2) Amount equals Johnson Control closing share price and market capitalization at September 2, 2016 ($45.45 and $29,012 million, respectively) adjusted for the Tyco $3,864 million cash contribution used to purchase 110.8 million shares of Johnson Controls stock for $34.88 per share. and both agree with the information posted at http://www.secinfo.com/dpdtb.w6n.2n.htm#1stPage (R66 Merger Transaction Fair Value of Consideration Transferred (Details)) which I can't seem to find on an \"\"official\"\" website but it purports to post from the SEC EDGAR database. So for each share of JCI, it had a fair value of $47.67 prior to the acquisition, and transformed into $5.7293 in cash, plus 0.8357 of \"\"new\"\" JCI shares with a basis of $47.67 - $5.7293 = $41.9407. Stated in terms of \"\"new\"\" JCI shares, this is $50.1863 (=$41.9407/0.8357) per \"\"new\"\" JCI share. (I'm not really 100% sure of this calculation though.) I also found JCI's Form 8937 which states Fair market value generally is the price at which property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or sell and both having reasonable knowledge of the facts. U.S. federal income tax law does not specifically prescribe how former JCI shareholders should determine the fair market value of the Tyco ordinary shares received in the merger. One possible method of determining the fair market value of one Tyco ordinary share is to use the average of the high and low trading prices on the date of the merger, which was $45.69. Other methods for determining the fair market value of Tyco ordinary shares are possible. Former JCI shareholders are not bound by the approach described above and may, in consultation with their tax advisors, use another approach. as well as similar text on the IRS website: One possible method of determining the fair market value of one Tyco ordinary share is to use the average of the high and low trading prices on the date of the merger, which was $45.69. Using this figure, former JCI shareholders that elected to receive shares in the merger would receive cash and Tyco ordinary shares worth approximately $43.91 per share of JCI common stock exchanged in the merger (assuming no cash received in lieu of fractional shares).\"",
"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": "119d3174cd9bd0cf75e16baa4c33db53",
"text": "\"Pretty simple actually. This is a state-run defined benefit plan, where the benefit is calculated based on the length of the employment and the contributed amounts. This is what in the US is known as the Social Security. This is a defined contribution plan, where the employee can chose the level of risk based on certain pre-defined investment guidelines (more conservative or more aggressive). In Poland, it appears that there's a certain amount of the state-mandated SS tax is transferred to these plans. Nothing in the US is like that, but you can see it as a mandatory IRA with a preset limited choice of mutual funds to invest into, as an analogy. The recent change was to reduce the portion of the madatory contribution that is diverted to this plan from 7+% to 2.3% (on account of expanding the contribution to (1)). Probably the recent crashes of the stock markets that affected these accounts lead to this decision. This is voluntary defined contribution plan, similar to the US 401Ks. This division is actually pretty common, not unique to Poland. I'd say its the \"\"standard\"\" pension scheme, as opposed to what we're used to in the US.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "856cabe1bfe439b5cf2a54cd3bd6375d",
"text": "\"I have no personal knowledge of this company; I've only looked over what I found on the web. Overall, my judgement is that Pension Benefit Information, Inc. of San Rafael, CA is likely legitimate and aboutmyletter.com is one of two sites run by them (the other being pbinfo.com). These two sites are registered to Pension Benefit Information, Inc. (aboutmyletter uses Network Solutions privacy service but gives the company name; pbinfo uses their name and San Rafael address.) They are in the BBB. The president (of the 8 employee Co.), Susan McDonald, has testified (PDF on .gov site) before Congress about business uses of SSNs. They made a (very schlocky) video, which has an interview with McDonald after several canned, generic, \"\"impressive\"\" introductions. I found the interview convincing of a person actually running a small, real business of this type. A short version is on their site, long version here. There are some queries about their legitimacy online (like this one), but I found nothing negative on them, and one somewhat positive. One article talks about the suspicions they run into when contacting participants, and has some advice. Also, scammers are unlikely to pay the U.S. Postal Service money to send paper letters. So what are the dangers? Money or identity. So don't pay them any fees (now or later), especially since it looks like their clients (retirement funds) pay on the other side. As for identity information: What's in the letter? Don't they show that they already know a bunch about you? Old employer? Maybe the last four digits of your SSN? Your address (if this is not the forwarded-by-IRS type of contact letter). Other things, maybe? What information would you be giving up if you did respond to them fully? You could try contacting your old company directly (mentioning PBI, Inc,), although on their website PBI says you'll have to go through them. (They probably get paid for each successful contact, and deserve it.) Still, responding through mail or telephone to PBI seems like the reasonable thing to do.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6913c3128a087e10f462defd06dd3ae5",
"text": "\"Great. 10% of the pre-tax 450 you'd make in a week of 40 hours' work means you could buy about 2 shares a month. I assume they pay bi-weekly, so you can qualify to buy a share. 25% 401k contribution off less than 30k annual salary is peanuts to the company, and peanuts to the employee by retirement. Competitively speaking, thats actually a rather bare-bones retirement package, isn't it? I hope that health care waves covers deductables 100% - otherwise a yearly checkup will be 10% of your takehome that week in addition to the hours you take off work and get \"\"points\"\" under their draconian \"\"no days off ever\"\" policy.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "97330482e6e670d33a0ce5701967eabd",
"text": "\"How/when does my employer find out? Do they get a report from their bank stating that \"\"check 1234 for $1212.12 paid to John Doe was never deposited\"\" or does it manifest itself as an eventual accounting discrepancy that somebody has to work to hunt down? The accounting department or the payroll company they use will report that the check was not deposited. The bank has no idea that a check was written, but the accounting deportment will know. The bank reports on all the checks that were cashed. Accounting cares because the un-cashed check for $1212.12 is a liability. They have to keep enough money in the bank to pay all the liabilities. It shouldn't be hard for them to track down the discrepancy, they will know what checks are outstanding. Can my employer punish me for refusing the money in this way? Do they have any means to force me to take what I am \"\"owed?\"\" They can't punish you. But at some time in the future they will will tell their bank not to honor the check. They will assume that it was lost or misplaced, and they will issue a new one to you. When tax time comes, and I still have not accepted the money, would it be appropriate to adjust my reported income down by the refused amount? You can't decide not to report it. The company knows that in year X they gave you a check for the money. They are required to report it, since they also withheld money for Federal taxes, state taxes, payroll taxes, 401K, insurance. They also count your pay as a business expense. If you try and adjust the numbers on the W-2 the IRS will note the discrepancy and want more information. Remember the IRS get a copy of every W-2. The employer has to report it because some people who aren't organized may not have cashed a December check before the company has to generate the W-2 in late January. It would confuse everything if they could skip reporting income just because a check wasn't cashed by the time they had to generate the W-2.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b87ccde0ee05b8f9e1675a19631d39a1",
"text": "@ Chris: Companies like Keane, ours, and others know where to look for these funds and where to ask at the correct agencies that are holding this money that is not part of the public links that you have access to. This is how we find this information. Our types of companies spend significant time, money and resources in finding out about the money, then finding who it actually belongs to (because it does not always belong to who is mentioned on the list) and then finding the correct individual. @ jdsweet: I apologize if you think this is a marketing ploy. It is not. Our company doesn't even take phone calls from people that want us to find them money. Only if we contact someone, because at that time we're confident that the person we touch base with is due the funds. Again, I am not plugging our company, but trying to let Neil know that in some cases he is right, you don't need a third party to claim funds for you - if you can find them. In this case, he has looked and cannot find them. Keane is charging a fair amount to retrieve funds he cannot find and doesn't know about and is not charging him anything to do all the work. Again, as mentioned above, the direct answer is that we know how to access information and lists that have this money hidden from the public because the agency holding the funds doesn't want you to know about it so that they can escheat the funds. Escheating is the state's legal way to confiscate your money. See, if you don't put in a claim for the money (depending on what type it is and where it is located) the agency and state holding the funds has certain time frames for you to get the money. If you don't, again, they get to keep it and that is what they want despite what they say. That is why there is approximately $33 Billion that is known to the public and really $1 Trillion that's out there. I apologize if you think that this is a plug for my company, it's not because we're not looking for calls, we make them. I'm also not asking Neil for his business. From all accounts on my side, this seems like a fair deal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed91c82108e595b5e1ae973bbd8cf34f",
"text": "I used to work at a record keeping company, and while we worked with plan administrators through transitions in investment offerings, we never actually worked through a forced sale. From what I recall I thought that was illegal, and that all the administrator can do is stop offering the investment (i.e. no new buy ins), but people who still have their money in it can either continue to hold or sell.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b9c7aa733b9742d673dfddee1e6eb12",
"text": "The check is written to BigCo. Jack is being diluted, corporation issues more shares. There's no gain, no change in Jack's equity value. Jack didn't lose or win anything. BigCo was worth $1M before the additional money, it is worth $1.25M after the additional money, with Jack owning the same $1M, but the cake is now bigger (obviously the numbers are wrong in your example, but you get the point).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "49f9299d2fe5b69530f968de19e39bf3",
"text": "\"You withdrew the 'cash' portion, and will pay tax on it. How was the check \"\"another for move remaining to B\"\" issued? Was it payable to you? If so, it's too late, it's your money and the whole account was cashed out. If it was payable to B, you should have had it sent directly to their custodian, are you saying you still have that check? You might need to ask A to reissue the check to you, since you are no longer in the US. I'm not sure if you can roll it to an IRA at this point.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "04d62ee89c712caaf05fcef21ae08eb9",
"text": "The Roth-IRA or for that matter a regular IRA is generally not connected to your place of employment. Now a 401(k) is linked to your place of employment. If the business no longer exists, they should have turned over the 401K. The US department of Labor has information regarding plans that have been abandoned. I suspect my plan is abandoned, but I have never received a notice of plan termination. How could I find out if a QTA has elected to terminate and wind up my 401(k) pension plan? EBSA has developed an Abandoned Plan searchable database to help participants and beneficiaries find out if a particular plan is in the process of being, or has been, terminated. The site is searchable by plan name or employer name and will provide the name and contact information for the QTA, if one exists. If you do not have access to a computer to conduct the search, you may contact one of EBSA’s Benefits Advisors to assist you by calling toll-free, 1.866.444.EBSA (3272).",
"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": "1f5c7074a910101d1cec95b1a6cfd3c2",
"text": "\"If they made deposits 20 years ago, and none since, the S&P is up over 300% since then. i.e. a return of $40,000 on $10,000 invested. We wouldn't expect to see that full return, as a prudent mix of stock and bonds (or any treasury bills/CDs, etc) would lower the overall return during this period. Advice \"\"Transfer the money, directly to an IRA at a broker, Fidelity, Schwab, Vanguard, etc.\"\" For most people, going after the advisor isn't worth it, unless the sums are large and the poor management, pretty clear. The lesson for readers here - monitor your investments. Ask questions. It's not about \"\"beating the market\"\" which can actually create more risk, but about understanding the returns you see, and the fees you are spending. The mistake didn't occur at the time the money was invested, but every year it wasn't monitored.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
baa3ec7381145dcd6af89e9264d21ffb
|
Where can I find information on corporate bonds (especially those rated as “junk”) ?
|
[
{
"docid": "29a1399a292d5cc55b09dfc576ba97f1",
"text": "Bond information is much tougher to get. Try to find access to a Bloomberg terminal. Maybe you have a broker that can do the research for you, maybe your local university has one in their business school, maybe you know someone that works for a bank/financial institution or some other type of news outlet. Part of the reason for the difference in ease of access to information is that bond markets are dominated by institutional investors. A $100 million bond issues might be 90% owned by 10-20 investors (banks, insurance co's, mutual funds, etc.) that will hold the bonds to maturity and the bonds might trade a few times a month/year. On the other hand a similar equity offering may have several hundred or thousand owners with daily trading, especially if it's included in an active stock index. That being said, you can get some information on Fidelity's website if you have an account, but I think their junk data is limited. Good luck with the hunt.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "4bc4149facdd396eff188dbc9a9af5be",
"text": "As I'm sure you are reading in Hull's classic, the basic valuation of bonds depends on the chance of entity defaulting on those bonds. Let's start with just looking at the US. The United States has a big advantage over corporations in issuing debt as it also prints the same currency that the debt is denominated in. This makes it much easier not to default on your debt as you can always print more money to pay it. Printing too much currency would cause inflation lowering the value of debt, but this would also lower the value of US corporate debt as well. So you can think of even the highest rated corporate bonds as having the same rate as government debt plus a little extra due to the additional default risk of the corporation. The situation with other AA rated governments is more complicated. Most of those governments have debt denominated in their local currency as well so it may seem like they should all have similar rates. However, some governments have higher and some actually have lower rates than the United States. Now, as above, some of the difference is due to the possible need of printing too much currency to cover the debt in crisis and now that we have more than one country to invest in the extra risk of international money flowing out of the country's bonds. However, the bigger difference between AA governments rates depends more on money flow, central banks and regulation. Bonds are still mostly freely traded instruments that respond to supply and demand, but this supply and demand is heavily influenced by governments. Central banks buy up large portions of the debt raising demand and lowering rates. Regulators force banks to hold a certain amount of treasuries perhaps inflating demand. Finally, to answer your question the United States has some interesting advantages partially just due to its long history of stability, controlled inflation and large economy making treasuries valuable as one of the lowest risk investments. So its rates are generally on the low end, but government manipulation can still mean that it is not necessarily the lowest.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "631a51f311776fed607cd64ae31816d9",
"text": "Multiple overlapping indices exist covering various investment universes. Almost all of the widely followed indices were originally created by Lehman Brothers and are now maintained by Barclays. The broadest U.S. dollar based bond index is known as the Universal. The Aggregate (often abbreviated Agg), which is historically the most popular index, more or less includes all bonds in the Universal rated investment grade. The direct analog to the S&P 500 would be the U.S. Corporate Investment Grade index, which is tracked by the ETF LQD, and contains exactly what it sounds like. Citigroup (formerly Salomon Brothers) also has a competitor index to the Aggregate known as Broad Investment Grade (BIG), and Merrill Lynch (now Bank of America) has the Domestic Master. Multiple other indices also exist covering other bond markets, such as international (non-USD) bonds, tax-exempts (municipal bonds), securitized products, floating rate, etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e431c2f9d469ccc33da64dbcf88180e7",
"text": "Short-term to intermediate-term corporate bond funds are available. The bond fund vehicle helps manage the credit risk, while the short terms help manage inflation and interest rate risk. Corporate bond funds will have fewer Treasuries bonds than a general-purpose short-term bond fund: it sounds like you're interested in things further out along the risk curve than a 0.48% return on a 5-year bond, and thus don't care for the Treasuries. Corporate bonds are generally safer than stocks because, in bankruptcy, all your bondholders have to be paid in full before any equity-holders get a penny. Stocks are much more volatile, since they're essentially worth the value of their profits after paying all their debt, taxes, and other expenses. As far as stocks are concerned, they're not very good for the short term at all. One of the stabler stock funds would be something like the Vanguard Equity Income Fund, and it cautions: This fund is designed to provide investors with an above-average level of current income while offering exposure to the stock market. Since the fund typically invests in companies that are dedicated to consistently paying dividends, it may have a higher yield than other Vanguard stock mutual funds. The fund’s emphasis on slower-growing, higher-yielding companies can also mean that its total return may not be as strong in a significant bull market. This income-focused fund may be appropriate for investors who have a long-term investment goal and a tolerance for stock market volatility. Even the large-cap stable companies can have their value fall dramatically in the short term. Look at its price chart; 2008 was brutal. Avoid stocks if you need to spend your money within a couple of years. Whatever you choose, read the prospectus to understand the risks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0cd1228e976fa63d4cbdd5e513402698",
"text": "\"A junk bond is, broadly, a bond with a non-negligible risk of default. (\"\"Bond\"\" ought to be defined elsewhere, but broadly it's a financial instrument you buy from a company or government, where they promise to pay you back the principal and some interest over time, on a particular schedule.) The name \"\"junk\"\" is a bit exaggerated: many of them are issued by respectable and reasonably stable businesses. junk bonds were required to do large leveraged buyouts. This means: the company issued fairly risky, fairly high-yield debt, to buy out equity holders. They have to pay a high rate on the debt because the company's now fairly highly geared (ie has a lot of debt relative to its value) and it may have to pay out a large fraction of its earnings as interest. What is a junk bond and how does it differ from a regular bond? It's only a matter of degree and nomenclature. A bond that has a credit rating below a particular level (eg S&P BBB-) is called junk, or more politely \"\"non-investment grade\"\" or \"\"speculative\"\". It's possible for an existing bond to be reclassified from one side to another, or for a single issuer to have different series some of which are more risky than others. The higher the perceived risk, the more interest the bond must pay offer in order to attract lenders. Why is there higher risk/chance of default? Well, why would a company be considered at higher risk of failing to repay its debt? Basically it comes down to doubt about the company's future earnings being sufficient to repay its debt, which could be for example:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f81be4f9823d02ee0fb501533af22d0d",
"text": "If an accounting firm had constant errors and was wrong over 50% of the time about the books how would that go about? As a former bond trader, I would rarely look at the ratings.... CDS was most useful when applicable, and if not spread to the closest benchmark/sectoral average.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "32c99fe52d2e5eeb262512161d0e5709",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-25/investors-say-it-s-time-to-price-climate-into-cities-bond-risks) reduced by 95%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Municipal defaults are rare: Moody&#039;s reports fewer than 100 defaults by municipal borrowers it rated between 1970 and 2014. > Kurt Forsgren, a managing director at S&P, said its municipal ratings remain &quot;Largely driven by financial performance.&quot; He said the company was looking for ways to account for climate change in ratings, including through a city&#039;s ability to access insurance. > Laskey, of Fitch, was skeptical that rating companies could or should account for climate risk in municipal ratings. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6ejcgp/rising_seas_may_wipe_out_these_jersey_towns_but/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~133538 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Theory](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31bfht/theory_autotldr_concept/) | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **rated**^#1 **climate**^#2 **risk**^#3 **bond**^#4 **change**^#5\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3834023eee46345c1a76dc2fc03ec2f",
"text": "Here is one the links for Goldmansachs. Not to state the obvious, but most of their research is only available to their clients. http://www.goldmansachs.com/research/equity_ratings.html",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8976474706da54817a7fb61df42fac65",
"text": "The informational goal about the ratings is an objective opinion about the companies ability to repay the money owed. Debt rating agencies even provide tables where grades correspond to a range of default probabilities. The argument I am making is they do not go about their business of giving accurate probabilities of default.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2cdafd68d1b7dbc6544028d7f2d58484",
"text": "Well keep in mind until the 2007ish housing crash Fannie and Freddie MADE money, they received no help from the federal gov't. The whole idea of the secondary mortgage market was to keep money flowing to home buyers and everyone who bought a home benefited (via rates a few points lower than if banks had to keep all the capital on hand to back all the loans) Both these institutions worked well for about 40 years, the criminality here was that ratings agency rated these bonds as AAA, when in fact they were junk, that's who failed in their due diligence and really should be held accountable. (as if they were rated junk, the banks would have no one to buy them except at junk bond interest rates, meaning they wouldn't have made these loans to people who couldn't really afford houses.) The rating agencies were *supposed* to be neutral evaluators of the debt, and instead they essentially took what amounts to bribes from the banks to rate them highly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e4e0c0f99184a273cedf16546b4da803",
"text": "\"Quote from the article: \"\"The banks achieved this gigantic rip-off by secretly colluding to rig the public bids on municipal bonds, a business worth $3.7 trillion.\"\" Please explain to me how you read that and why you think it is correct. Does it read as the banks made 3.7T? Are the values of the banks 3.7T? Did they steal 3.7T? Did the bonds return 3.7T? Or is it just that the total value of the bonds over many, many more years than this entire fraud took place total to 3.7, including the value that really was owned by bond holders and had nothing to do with the profits or theft? (Hint #1: 3.7 trillion is not the worth of *any* of those businesses, not even the sum of all their market caps probably reaches that value. Hint #2: Matt Taibbi is smart enough to know this, yet writes it that way anyways because sloppy thinkers will buy his crap, find that the value of an entire class of assets is 3.7T, even though it is not the value of any business. It's like saying Citibank is worth the sum of all the deposits it holds, when that is nonsense).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0a3635891c8b92cab85d81c3554a08fe",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://voxeu.org/article/credit-growth-and-global-crisis-new-narrative) reduced by 96%. (I'm a bot) ***** > In a new paper, we also examine the evolution of mortgage debt and defaults during the credit boom and throughout the financial crisis and its aftermath, using individual-level data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York Consumer Credit Panel. > While borrowers with low credit scores typically had higher default rates than those with higher credit scores, default rates for borrowers with higher credit scores rose substantially during the financial crisis. > The investor share of new delinquencies was close to 15% for all credit score quartiles throughout the credit boom and increases to 25%, 35% and 40% between 2006 and 2009 for credit score quartiles 2-4, respectively. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/74jwyc/credit_growth_and_the_global_crisis_a_new/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~222899 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **credit**^#1 **score**^#2 **borrower**^#3 **quartile**^#4 **Mortgage**^#5\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "56430c0f9c7afce78e726fbb7b8e8cfc",
"text": "\"For real. AAA treasury bonds are used a safe investment vehicle for the reason of \"\"its the US government, its safe\"\", which is pretty similar to the \"\"dude, who doesnt pay their mortgage?!\"\" line of thinking. You got people dumping money into these derivatives and suddenly someone goes \"\"oh yeah you just bought a bunch of bad debt that should be rated 'junk'. Oops.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fdaf53ad403f045172b9a761632d82dd",
"text": "\"You ask a question, \"\"Is there any real purpose in purchasing bonds?\"\" and then appear to go off on a rant. Before the question is closed by members here, let me offer this: This chart reflects the 10 year bond rate. From 1960-2004 (give or take) the coupon rate was over 4%. Asset allocation suggests a mix of stocks and bonds seeking to avoid the risk of having \"\"all of one's eggs in one basket.\"\" To that end, the simplest approach is a stock/bond mix. Over time, a 70/30 mix provides nearly 95% of the long tern return, but with a much lower volatility. I'm not going to suggest that a 2% 10 year bond is an exciting investment, but bonds may have a place in one's portfolio. I'm not going to debate each and every point you attempted, but #5 is especially questionable. If you feel this is true, you should short bonds. Or you should at least 99% of the time. Do you have data to back up this statement?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f2c218ee74e0d3479758e528248143a",
"text": "\"Google Finance and Yahoo! Finance would be a couple of sites you could use to look at rather broad market information. This would include the major US stock markets like the Dow, Nasdaq, S & P 500 though also bond yields, gold and oil can also be useful as depending on which area one works the specifics of what are important could vary. If you were working at a well-known bond firm, I'd suspect that various bond benchmarks are likely to be known and watched rather than stock indices. Something else to consider here is what constitutes a \"\"finance practitioner\"\" as I'd imagine several accountants and actuaries may not watch the market yet there could be several software developers working at hedge funds that do so that it isn't just a case of what kind of work but also what does the company do.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "80d022fd1fffce9b8a0474924205f9a7",
"text": "\"Thanks! I came across many books on credit risk in my google searches - what I'm really looking for is which one is the \"\"industry standard\"\" reading (does that make sense?). For example, in derivatives, everybody recommends John C. Hull's Options... book. Why of all the CRM books, do you recommend those three in particular?\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
776daa5eb76e9905789332855b3ac057
|
Home Valuation in a Dodgy neighborhood
|
[
{
"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": "0e11ca85524b85f798be8af25214f87d",
"text": "Over the last ten years you have reaped the benefits of a good financial decision. (Presumably your low mortgage has freed up money for other financial priorities.) There would be no harm in making a clean break by selling as is. On the other hand, the resale value would probably be rather low considering the condition and the neighborhood. I don't want to assume too much here, but if a potential buyer is interested in the house by virtue of not being able to afford a house in a better neighborhood or better condition, their finances and credit history may make it difficult for them to be approved for a mortgage. That would reduce the potential buyer pool and further reduce the sale price. If you can pull more in rent than the mortgage, you definitely have an opportunity to come ahead. Maybe window A/C units and a repaired chimney are enough if you're renting. Your rental income would pay for that in less than a year even while paying your mortgage for you. (Of course you don't want to become a sleazy slumlord either.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ecfca57ffcdbe3b16b103ded728bf268",
"text": "I wouldn't personally spend any money on an appraisal. Spend some time yourself looking at Zillow.com and maybe Realtor.com and other sites to review recent sales in your specific area. Not the houses a mile away. Try to find comparables to yours. The key factor is dollars per square foot. See if the trend over the last couple of years is upwards or downwards in dollars per square foot of living area. If it's downwards, I wouldn't invest for sure.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "3007ba4951c53c091d51a0fa105e1cdb",
"text": "I was down in San Diego recently and talking with a friend while at dinner. I was complaining that the housing in my area had gone up and a starter 3/2 was getting into the ~415k range. I guess houses in not even good parts of SD are in the 600k range minimum.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "00cf7defc5c6a8c27ba2db23cf04748a",
"text": "\"I hope you're not blaming the banks for the housing price inflation. It's called supply and demand, and is mostly caused by people, possibly like you, who have unreasonable expectations about the future value of real estate, and thought it would keep rising unrealistically forever. The bank's \"\"crime\"\" was to lend money recklessly, to people who could not really afford it. The buyer's \"\"crime\"\" was to buy a home they could not afford with the expectations that it would go up in price and they could either flip it or refinance. The real \"\"criminals\"\" might be the real estate agents who convinced the buyers they could afford it, and helped them find an avenue to get the money. There were (are?) a lot of unscrupulous, or simply bad, real estate agents out there. But they, too, were naive enough to think houses would continue to rise. tl;dr. We are all to blame. Calling owners \"\"slumlords\"\" and blaming them and the banks for your misfortune will only hurt you and make you forever the victim.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ad8e946365b5d91b69c106948370a81c",
"text": "There's a company called IdealSpot (I haven't used them, just heard of them) that will do that kind of analysis for you and suggest locations. Also, Census data is free and a good resource for demographic data when it comes to neighborhoods. Also, if you have a local SBDC they may have those numbers handy and they also can really walk you through the loan part of the process as well.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d549c7ef8da7af33ad6dcf68099984e7",
"text": "That's a place you can't just buy one house you must buy a few blocks and develop it to change the way things are there! Heck they have 5 dollar houses in those parts with homeless and all scrap metal taken out of them heck of a place.",
"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": "35a530360c6db06400d3f96e750bddcd",
"text": "New Zeeland is quite prone to earthquakes, that is why low buildings are popular. Also, it is the foreigners that are the problem. They do drive the price up. Especially some 'lucky' house numbers are really wanted by Chinese immigrants. But there's nothing you can do about it. Instead of foreigners buying houses, it will be companies registered in New Zealand that will buy them. Those measures will only hit middle class immigrants, not richer people who are driving prices up.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f6ac2f4c7cf86b25365e108f3afac727",
"text": "The few years leading up to the bubble I remember following his articles and he very clearly said to steer clear of buying houses as there was a bubble brewing. The book does not imply that it's always a good thing to buy a home.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b68bad2dd32ed96a0277f985351565f9",
"text": "It just states that the price doesn't justify the valuation which is not a factual statement. Also this is based on someones opinion of the companies P/E. The P/E was published and public information and idiots on both the buy and sell side jumped in. The article does not make a factual claim about Fraud (cooking the books), Francine McKenna speculates that management and auditors cooked the books.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "23b6f4cc7a062574252fae52b1dd5397",
"text": "A rule of thumb I like to follow when purchasing things from CL listed well below value is this.. Assess the level of affluence of the seller. People living in poor neighborhoods are much more likely to try and hide things that would deter buyers as they are more likely to need the money. I find that when I go to a big house with 4 cars in the driveway the seller is more likely to be honest because she likely doesn't need the money from the sale. Edit: I seem to have angered the PC police with this answer. This is based on facts and statistics, not my opinion. I have no bias against poor people.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f08df0d4c1ecb37acba5d0fc73ff4a70",
"text": "\"It's just poor writing. Developers like to presell the houses and so on the lots, they advertise the very rough estimate for how much the final house will be selling for. The \"\"with the completed homes selling for as much as\"\" 500k means that the developer is selling most of the houses in the 400k range (or they have at least one sale at ~500k)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3938b7d311ad08454d159d4d800a271f",
"text": "15 years ago I bought a beach condo in Miami for $400,000 and two extra parking spaces for $3000 each. Today the condo is worth 600,000 but the rent barely covers mortgage repairs and property taxes. Most of The old people in the building have since died and are now replaced with families with at least two cars and spots are in short supply. I turned down offers of 25,000 for each parking space. I have the spaces rented out for $200 per month no maintenance for an 80% annual return on my purchase price and the value went has gone up over $700%. And no realtors commissions if i decide to sell the spaces.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "380d641e52964ada7970fb7665f10ed1",
"text": "This slave rents from slumlords now. They suck, but at least I was able to keep my dog. The 10 years that it will take to rebuild my credit is daunting, but it's not okay to artificially inflate the price of something, only to drop it back down to half of the original price in the span of 2 years. Nothing happened to that neighborhood. It was and still is quiet and lovely. But the schools there were abysmal, and I can't let my very gifted daughter think she's doing well when she's not working for the A that she gets.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d57fe15d8c02e46fee372c8c9f558858",
"text": "\"Throughout the mid 00's, TV was filled with crappy \"\"reality\"\" shows like \"\"Flip This House\"\" showing people spending an obscene amount of money on a dilapidated house, then spending an obscene amount of money on it renovating it, and then selling it for an obscene profit a month later. There were even shows where they would rip out new kitchens, spend $100k on a new one, and make $200,000 on the sale. The housing market was insane, and was being pushed by realtors, and mortgage companies to trick people into thinking an obscenely priced house was doable on their barely middle class income. Buyer beware. If prices are going up 20% a year, don't buy into it 4 years into the run and expect it to last forever.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1db11ee8f2a1f41b9ccf17f03879e65b",
"text": "\"NORMALLY, you don't want to buy in a bad neighborhood. The one exception is \"\"gentrification,\"\" that is middle class people are moving in because of a good location (which you seem to have). The other important thing to do is to cover your mortgage. Four \"\"guys\"\" at $500 a month will do for an $1800 mortgage. The nice thing is that you are your own tenant for two years and can watch the place. The downside of the neighborhood may be that you can't rent the place to four \"\"girls\"\" or two girls and two guys even after you leave; it will always have to be \"\"guys.\"\" I'd advise most people to pass. With your financial standing and entrepreneurial background, you might just be able to take this risk, and learn from it for your future dealings if it doesn't pan out. (Donald Trump \"\"cut his teeth\"\" on a slum complex in Cincinnati.) Hear what I (and others) have to say, then do what \"\"feels right,\"\" based on your best judgment, of which you probably have plenty.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "947a799b9e4ca51f8e0a187f1145ea51",
"text": "Spot on. If Fannie and Freddie were culpable, it was likely because they trusted the ratings houses too much. That's a big mistake, but all too common in every kind of financial risk transaction, as any home buyer who ever hired a home inspector upon a realtor's recommendation knows.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b614da93ffd6c3865e95c1388f85289d
|
Where can I open a Bank Account in Canadian dollars in the US?
|
[
{
"docid": "8f8931eeb8edde7882438baa17bdae27",
"text": "If you can make the trip to BC yourself, I'd recommend opening an account with TD Canada Trust. They allow non-citizens to make accounts — apparently the only Canadian bank to do so. The customer service is great and they have a good online banking site that will allow you to manage it from the US. If you have an account with TD Bank in the US, it's also very easy to set up a TD Canada account through them that will be linked on their online site (though you will still have separate logins for both and manage them separately). I've done the reverse as a Canadian living in the US. You can set it up over the phone; their Cross-Border Banking number is listed here. They also offer better currency conversion rates than their standard ones when you do a cross-border transfer. You could also look into HSBC as well. They operate in Washington as well as across the border in BC. If you can't open a CAD account locally, they can help you open and manage one in Canada from the US. It may or may not require having a small business account instead of a personal account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "acf65522e38ac99b0b2b542a88997ce3",
"text": "Everbank has offered accounts in foreign currencies for a while. https://www.everbank.com/currencies Takes a while to get it setup; and moving cash in and out is via wire transfer. Also you need to park $5K in USD in a money market account; which you use as a transfer point.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bcafdefeaacda2f4caddb1682be332c0",
"text": "Give Harris Bank a call; they might be able to help you As of August 21, 2015, Harris bank does NOT offer Canadian dollar accounts in the U.S.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ad3ff73b40335a18780563464d344851",
"text": "Royal Bank in Canada can open an account for you in the US through RBC (the US affiliate to Royal Bank of Canada) I think it's called RBC Access USA.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e30e4fb242f8e042d3c4cc995bc4986e",
"text": "Canada, like other second-rate economies with weak currencies, provides USD accounts. It is not the same vice versa. It is rare to find a direct deposit foreign currency account in the US as it is the world-leading currency.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "dc3bf5cc8311c0baee7aea0804a36a33",
"text": "The simple answer is to not close your American bank accounts - or if you have already done so, open one. Make sure it allows for internet banking, and use it to pay all your bills. Periodically move some money from your Canadian account to your US account to cover the bills. I have done this between Canada and the UK for fifteen years now. An alternative is to set up a USD account at your Canadian bank. Most organizations will happily mail your bills abroad, unless the bills are actually associated with an address, like a utility - in which case you should get the person living there to take care of them. Much better is to use electronic billing for everything.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f335a4554b69a457325a76ed13c1fca6",
"text": "\"What is a good bank to use for storing my pay? Preferrably one that has free student accounts. Can I save money from my paychecks directly to a Canadian bank Otherwise, can I connect my bank account to my Canadian account online? Any (almost...) bank in the US has free college checking accounts. If the bank you entered doesn't - exit, and step into the one next door which most likely will. The big names - Wells Fargo, Bank Of America, Chase, Bank of the West, Union Bank, Citi etc - all have it. Also, check your local credit union. Do I need any ID to open a bank account? I have Canadian citizenship and a J-1 visa Bring your passport and a student card/driving license (usually 2 ID's required). What form of money should I take with me? Cash? Should I apply for a debit card? Can I use my Canadian credit card for purchasing anything in the states? (Canadian dollar is stronger than US dollar currently, so this could be to my advantage?) There's some fuss going on about debit cards right now. Some big banks (Bank of America, notably) decided to charge fees for using it. Check it, most of the banks are not charging fees, and as far as I know none of the credit unions are charging. So same thing - if they charge fees for debit card - step out and move on to the next one down the street. Using debit card is pretty convenient, cash is useful for small amount and in places that don't accept cards. If you're asking about how to move money from Canada - check with your local (Canadian) bank about the conversion rates and fees for transfers, check cashing, ATM, card swipes, etc - and see which one is best for you. When I moved large amounts of money across the border, I chose wire transfer because it was the cheapest, but for small amounts many times during the period of your stay it may be more expensive. You can definitely use your Canadian credit/debit card in the States, you'll be charged some fee by your credit card company, and of course the conversion rate. How much tax does I have to pay at the end of my internship? Let's assume one is earning $5,000 per month plus a one time $5,000 housing stipend, all before taxes. Will I be taxed again by the Canadian government? $5K for internship? Wow... You need to talk to a tax specialist, there's probably some treaty between the US and Canada on that, and keep in mind that the State of California taxes your income as well. What are some other tips I can use to save money in the California? California is a very big place. If you live in SF - you'll save a lot by using the MUNI, if your internship is in LA - consider buying an old clunker if you want to go somewhere. If you're in SD - just enjoy the weather, you won't get it in Canada. You'll probably want a \"\"pay as you go\"\" wireless phone plan. If your Canadian phone is unlocked GSM - you can go to any AT&T or T-Mobile store and get a pre-paid SIM for free. Otherwise, get a prepaid phone at any groceries store. It will definitely be cheaper than paying roaming charges to your Canadian provider. You can look at my blog (I'm writing from California), I accumulated a bunch of saving tips there over the years I'm writing it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf3ad180ec76b658c385425a3fb820a0",
"text": "Typically, businesses always charge their 'home' currency, so if the shop is in Canada, you will pay Canadian Dollars. Normally you don't have any choices either. Your credit card company will convert it to your currency, using the current international currency exchange rate (pretty good), plus a potential fee between 0 and 5% - depending on your credit card (not so good). If it is a significant amount, or you plan to do that more than once, and if you have multiple credit cards, check first to see which one has the lowest international fee; 0% is not uncommon, but neither is 3 or 4%. If it's a 10$ thingy, it's probably not worth the time; but 4% of 1000 is already 40$... As of right now, the currency exchange rate is 1.33, so you would pay ~75 USD; plus the potential fee, 0$ - 4$. Understand that this exchange rate is floating continuously; it probably won't change much, but it will change.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "de2a52a96bc2cc98117b5ae5ccf55134",
"text": "An addition to the other answers more than a real answer I suspect. Note that fees are not the only way that you pay for foreign exchange; where no foreign exchange fee is charged the issuer makes it back by giving an appalling spread on the rate. Be very careful not to go for a card that has no fees but an exorbitant spread. I personally would open a CAD denominated account in Canada and convert a larger amount into that account when CAD is historically weak. The spreads will be better that way but don't attempt to use it to mitigate exchange rate risk or to trade the two currencies for profit as that way madness and penury lie.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee44afaaeb77f2fed647ae241e8bd562",
"text": "I suggest opening a Credit Card that doesn't charge Foreign currency conversion fees. Here is the list of cards without such a fee, Bankrate's Foreign transaction fee credit card chart",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f0667d528140cd90d58f00737a36f30",
"text": "Find a Bank of China branch in the United States. They have them in Canada! This link is to the Bank of China website, along with branch locations. They are in New York and L.A. http://www.boc.cn/en/aboutboc/ab6/200812/t20081216_494260.html And the Bank of China USA website: http://www.bocusa.com/portal There are a number of Bank of China Branches in Canada due to the high numbers of Chinese people. I'm sure a phone call or an email to them will help.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bcde0f9527d86dec009f5a62cee3b5d7",
"text": "It sounds like your looking for something like an offshore bank (e.g. an anonymous Swiss bank account). These don't really exist anymore. I think you should just open a small bank account in your home country (preferably one the reimburses your ATM fees, like Charles Schwab in the US). If it's a small amount of money, the authorities probably won't care and they won't be able to give you large penalties anyways.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b7640319b1c12b9083eb1af33680b292",
"text": "US currency doesn't expire, it is always legal tender. I can see some trouble if you tried to spend a $10,000 bill (you'd be foolish to do so, since they are worth considerably more). Maybe some stores raise eyebrows at old-style $100's (many stores don't take $100 bills at all), but you could swap them for new style at a bank if having trouble with a particular store. Old-series currency can be an issue when trying to exchange US bills in other countries, just because it doesn't expire here, doesn't mean you can't run into issues elsewhere. Other countries have different policies, for example, over the last year the UK phased in a new five pound note, and as of last month (5/5/2017) the old fiver is no longer considered legal tender (can still swap out old fivers at the bank for now at least). Edit: I mistook which currency you took where, and focused on US currency instead of Canadian, but it looks like it's the same story there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "737584b1df2438d3c2880417457d2498",
"text": "Many of the Financial intermediaries in the business, have extraordinary high requirements for opening an account. For example to open an account in Credit Suisse one will need 1 million US dollars.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d5900e8422cad37c7a227b98844f458a",
"text": "You can apply for Foreign currency accounts. But they aren't saving accounts by any means, but more like current accounts. Taking money out will involve charges. You have to visit the bank website to figure out what all operations can be performed on your account. Barclays and HSBC allow accounts in foreign currency. Other banks also will be providing the same services. Are there banks where you can open a bank account without being a citizen of that country without having to visit the bank in person Depends on country by country. Are there any online services for investing money that aren't tied to any particular country? Get yourself a trading account and invest in foreign markets i.e. equities, bonds etc. But all in all be ready for the foreign exchange risks involved in denominating assets in multiple currencies.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "10aa2b0954ea833c97fd9e0d7f1ffcbb",
"text": "Converting fideli comment to answer I don't think any Canadian bank offers this capability for online banking. However, there seems to be a fierce push right now at most banks to improve their online banking platform so they may be open to the suggestion of guest accounts",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b127f0d4b115a2ec9ef41a1046a9b7b",
"text": "When traveling you can use any flavor of credit card or exchange usd to local currency. When you move, just switch to a new local credit union. Leaving big banks for a credit union might not personally give you a different experience, but at least you can know you're not supporting scum.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "551209fba299aa15ed4dd94754ca16ad",
"text": "Use prepaid cards. You only have to declare, or mention, or convert CASH. You can get as many $500 prepaid cards as you like and carry them across. US Code only mentions cash, so even if customs thought it was peculiar that you had one thousand prepaid cards in your trunk, it isn't something they look into. Prepaid cards come with small transaction fees though. And of course, you could also use a bank account in America and just withdraw from an ATM in canada. Finally, the FBAR isn't that much of a hassle, in case you did decide to get a canadian bank account. The US Federal Gov't doesn't care about all these crafty things you might do, as long as you are using POST-TAX money. If your foreign account earns interest, then you have some pre-tax money that the US Federal Gov't will care about.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5c9208c07694f9a4a1ed00ba6c802491",
"text": "Actually What you Can do here, Deposit the money to someones account who has an Account in abroad and Linked to Master Card. Or Another option is You can take help from two banks Standard Chartard or HSBC, they provide RFCD Account, which is a Dollar Account and International Cards which you can use in abroad.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f8d64a7173e83e85807bda067af93aa",
"text": "If S&P crashes, these currencies will appreciate. Note that the above is speculation, not fact. There is definitely no guarantee that, say, the CHF/CAD currency pair is inversely linked to the performance of the US stock market when measured in USD, let alone to the performance of the US stock market as measured in CAD. How can a Canadian get exposure to a safe haven currency like CHF and JPY? I don't want a U.S. dollar denominated ETF. Three simple options come to mind, if you still want to pursue that: Have money in your bank account. Go to your bank, tell them that you want to buy some Swiss francs or Japanese yen. Walk out with a physical wad of cash. Put said wad of cash somewhere safe until needed. It is possible that the bank will tell you to come back later as they might not have the physical cash available at the branch office, but this isn't anything really unusual; it is often highly recommended for people who travel abroad to have some local cash on hand. Contact your bank and tell them that you want to open an account denominated in the foreign currency of your choice. They might ask some questions about why, there might be additional fees associated with it, and you'll probably have to pay an exchange fee when transferring money between it and your local-currency-denominated accounts, but lots of banks offer this service as a service for those of their customers that have lots of foreign currency transactions. If yours doesn't, then shop around. Shop around for money market funds that focus heavily or exclusively on the currency area you are interested in. Look for funds that have a native currency value appreciation as close as possible to 0%. Any value change that you see will then be tied directly to the exchange rate development of the relevant currency pair (for example, CHF/CAD). #1 and #3 are accessible to virtually anyone, no large sums of money needed (in principle). Fees involved in #2 may or may not make it a practical option for someone handling small amounts of money, but I can see no reason why it shouldn't be a possibility again in principle.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b68e9b28178c951ab8d6522ba20552c7
|
How to double-entry bookkeep money incoming from sold items
|
[
{
"docid": "998c6bb64e219b1c2a9fa3c93102ef7f",
"text": "If you were a business, all your assets would have a dollar value, so when you sold them you'd decrease the amount of assets by that amount and increase in cash, and if there was a profit on the sale it would go in as income, if there was loss it would count as a cost (or a loss)... so if there was a profit it would increase Equity, a loss then it would decrease Equity. Since it's not really worthwhile doing a estimated cost for everything that you have, I'd just report it as income like you are doing and let the amount of equity increase proportionately. So, implicitly you always had roughly that amount of equity, but some of it was in the form of assets, and now you're liquidating those assets so the amount shows up in GnuCash. When you buy new things you might sell later, you could consider adding them as assets to keep track of this explicitly (but even then you have problems-- the price of things changes with time and you might not want to keep up with those price changes, it's a lot of extra work for a family budget) -- for stuff you already have it's better to treat things as you are doing and just treat the money as income-- it's easier and doesn't really change anything-- you always had that in equity, some of it was just off the books and now you are bringing it into the books.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "82556cf6dd6ff545b2163acfa5412108",
"text": "\"An accounting general ledger is based on tracking your actual assets, liabilities, expenses, and income, and Gnucash is first and foremost a general ledger program. While it has some simple \"\"budgeting\"\" capabilities, they're primarily based around reporting how close your actual expenses were to a planned budget, not around forecasting eventual cash flow or \"\"saving\"\" a portion of assets for particular purposes. I think the closest concept to what you're trying to do is that you want to take your \"\"real\"\" Checking account, and segment it into portions. You could use something like this as an Account Hierarchy: The total in the \"\"Checking Account\"\" parent represents your actual amount of money that you might reconcile with your bank, but you have it allocated in your accounting in various ways. You may have deposits usually go into the \"\"Available funds\"\" subaccount, but when you want to save some money you transfer from that into a Savings subaccount. You could include that transfer as an additional split when you buy something, such as transferring $50 from Assets:Checking Account:Available Funds sending $45 to Expenses:Groceries and $5 to Assets:Checking Account:Long-term Savings. This can make it a little more annoying to reconcile your accounts (you need to use the \"\"Include Subaccounts\"\" checkbox), and I'm not sure how well it'd work if you ever imported transaction files from your bank. Another option may be to track your budgeting (which answers \"\"How much am I allowed to spend on X right now?\"\") separately from your accounting (which only answers \"\"How much have I spent on X in the past?\"\" and \"\"How much do I own right now?\"\"), using a different application or spreadsheet. Using Gnucash to track \"\"budget envelopes\"\" is kind of twisting it in a way it's not really designed for, though it may work well enough for what you're looking for.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "63de0f546b4e4223a4300761fc8c2f5e",
"text": "If you open an account, you sign a contract, of which you get a copy. That ultimately proves that the account exists. As for the money in an account: Double-entry accounting makes it more or less impossible for that to be simply wrong. An account balance is not just a number; it's a sum of transactions, each of which has a corresponding entry in another account where the money came from or went to. What is possible (but extremely rare given the effort banks go to in order to ensure the correctness of their systems) is for transactions to get lost or stuck (because they often have multiple stages), or to have a wrong source or target, or amount. If a transaction gets lost, it's the same as if it never happened - the money is still in the sender's account and you have to convince them to send it to you. If a transaction got stuck, i.e. money was sent but did not arrive, the sender can request their bank to investigate what happened and fix the problem. If an erroneous transaction shows up on your account, you can do the same. Double-entry accounting ensures that this is always possible.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e6a30f5616e94418f406aebfface37b",
"text": "Have you looked into GnuCash? It lets you track your stock purchases, and grabs price updates. It's designed for double-entry accounting, but I think it could fit your use case.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7aed4fdea82e42dc1c111d0e275f97b8",
"text": "I’m going to answer this because: Accounting books only reflect the dollar value of inventories. Which means if you look at the balance sheet of McDonalds, you will not see how many bags of French fries are remaining at their storage facility, you will only see the total value at cost basis. Your requirement for noting the number of shares purchased is not part of the double entry accounting system. When you transfer $10000 from bank to broker, the entries would be: The bank’s name and the broker’s name will not appear on the balance sheet. When you purchase 50 shares at $40 per share, the accounting system does not care about the number of shares or the price. All it cares is the $2000 total cost and the commission of $10. You have two choices, either place $10 to an expense account, or incorporate it into the total cost (making it $2010). The entries for the second method would be: Now your balance sheet would reflect: What happens if the price increases from $40 per share to $50 per share tomorrow? Do nothing. Your balance sheet will show the cost of $2010 until the shares are sold or the accounting period ends. It will not show the market value of $2500. Instead, the Portfolio Tracker would show $2500. The most basic tracker is https://www.google.com/finance/portfolio . Later if you finally sell the shares at $50 per share with $10 commission: Again, the number of shares will not be reflected anywhere in the accounting system. Only the total proceeds from the sale matters.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "04717255289992a30cb660ae6fd4c2a6",
"text": "\"I think that pattern is impossible, since the attempt to apply the second half would seem to prevent executing the first. Could you rewrite that as \"\"After the stock rises to $X, start watching for a drop of $Y from peak price; if/when that happens, sell.\"\" Or does that not do what you want? (I'm not going to comment on whether the proposed programmed trading makes sense. Trying to manage things at this level of detail has always struck me as glorified guesswork.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e302b03f30b9eddbdda22282b45ba6e9",
"text": "Not directly an answer to your question, but somewhat related: There are derivatives (whose English name I sadly don't know) that allow to profit from breaking through an upper or alternatively a lower barrier. If the trade range does not hit either barrier you lose. This kind of derivative is useful if you expect a strong movement in either direction, which typically occurs at high volume.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e2e8a2005ee6a4a2493d39a3913215c3",
"text": "If you don't track the accrued costs involved, then it means that the valuation of the deal will be somewhat arbitrary, but it still can be made by looking at the value of equivalent or similar goods or services. It's rather similar to accounting treatment of (noncash) gifts, for example. You make up a valuation, and as there are obvious tax reasons to make it as low as possible, the valuation should be justifiable or you risk the wrath of IRS. If you sell the same goods or services for cash, then the value of the barter deal is obvious. If this barter is the only time you're handling this particular type of goods, a wholesale price of similar items (either of your items, or the items that you're receiving in barter) could work.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c1de1971a83164f2f91c1ca34eb3d445",
"text": "\"Selling an asset is not earning income. You are basically moving value from one asset (the laptop) to another (your bank account.) So you reduce the equity that is \"\"value of all my electronics\"\" and you increase the asset that is your bank account. In your case, you never entered the laptop in some category called \"\"value of all my electronics\"\" so you don't have that to make a double-entry against. The temptation is high to call it income as a result. Depending on the reason for all this double-entry book-keeping for personal finances, that may be fine. Or, you can create a category for balancing and use that, and realize the (negative) value of that account doesn't mean much.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc07ec18c9fb03eee7559c16f4f7175e",
"text": "Strictly speaking the terms arise from double entry book keeping terminology, and don't exactly relate to their common English usage, which is part of the confusion. All double entry book keeping operations consist of a (debit, credit) tuple performed on two different books (ledgers). The actual arithmetic operation performed by a debit or a credit depends on the book keeping classification of the ledger it is performed on. Liability accounts behave the way you would expect - a debit is subtraction, and a credit is addition. Asset accounts are the other way around, a debit is an addition, and a credit is a subtraction. The confusion when dealing with banks, partly comes from this classification, since while your deposit account is your asset, it is the bank's liability. So when you deposit 100 cash at the bank, it will perform the operation (debit cash account (an asset), credit deposit account). Each ledger account will have 100 added to it. Similarly when you withdraw cash, the operation is (credit cash, debit deposit). However the operation that your accountant will perform on your own books, is the opposite, since the cash was your asset, and now the deposit account is. For those studying math, it may also help to know that double entry book keeping is one of the earliest known examples of a single error detection/correction algorithm.",
"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": "07d2dc099d9877410a2f73be08142986",
"text": "Honing in on your last question: Is there a better way? I think there is, but it would require you to change the way you handle your spending, and that may not be of interest to you. Right now you have a lot of manual work, keeping track of expenditures and then entering the, every day. The great thing about switching to a habit where you pay for everything using a debit or credit card is that you can skip the manual entry by importing your transactions from your bank. You mention that your bank doesn't allow for exporting. There's still a chance that your bank can connect with a solution like Wave Accounting (http://www.waveaccouting.com), which is free and made for small business accounting. (Full disclosure: I represent Wave.) If your current bank doesn't permit export or connections with Wave, it may be worth switching to a different bank. It's a bit of a pain to make the switch, I know, but you really will save a massive amount of time and effort over the course of the year, as well as minimize the risk of human error, compared to entering your receipts on a daily basis. In Wave, you can still enter all of your cash receipts manually if you want to continue with your current practice of cash payments. One important thing to mention, too: If you're looking for a better way of doing things, make sure it includes proper backup. There would be nothing worse than entering all that data onto a spreadsheet and then something happening to your computer and you lose it all. Wave Accounting is backed up hourly and uses bank-level security to keep your information safe. One last thing: as I mention above, Wave Accounting is free. So if it is a good match for your small business accounting needs, it will also be a nice fit for your wallet.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e2556cddd3a3db377c1f4eef65198dbc",
"text": "\"The official guide can be found here, but that can be a little in depth as well. To make good use of you need at least a little knowledge of double-entry bookkeeping. Double-entry bookkeeping, in accounting, is a system of bookkeeping so named because every entry to an account requires a corresponding and opposite entry to a different account. From Wikipedia Another way to think of it is that everything is an account. You'll need to set up accounts for lots of things that aren't accounts at your bank to make the double-entry system work. For example you'll need to set up various expense accounts like \"\"office supplies\"\" even though you'll never have a bank account by that name. Generally an imbalanced transfer is when you have a from or to account specified, but not both. If I have imbalanced transactions I usually work them from the imbalance \"\"account\"\", and work each transaction to have its appropriate tying account, at which point it will no longer be listed under imbalance.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c509b1b72a4cbf876193786938eb9a1",
"text": "Use one journal entry, and split the expenses into the appropriate accounts. This can happen even if you never mix business and personal on the same receipt: say you order office supplies (which where I live are immediately deductible as an expense) and software or hardware (which must be depreciated because they are assets) on the same order. We have an account called Proprietors Loan which represents money the company is lending to the humans who own it, or that the humans are lending to the company. Were I to pay for my personal lunch on a business credit card, it would go through that account, increasing the amount the company has lent me or decreasing the amount I have lent it. Similarly if I made a business purchase with a personal card it would go through that account in the other direction. Where I live, I can lend my company all the money I want any time, but if the company lends me money there can't be an outstanding balance over the corporate year end. If you make two credit card entries of 5 and 10 when you go to reconcile your accounts it will be harder because you'll have to realize they together match the single 15 line on your statement. Making a single entry (your A option) will make reconciling your statement much easier. And that way, you'll probably reconcile your statements, which is vital to knowing you actually recorded everything.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3ff0e9f98da1ef2abf5cdf90973fb1c",
"text": "\"The bank \"\"credit's\"\" your account for money coming into it. In double entry accounting, you always have a debit and a credit to balance the accounts. As an Example: for $500 that the bank credited to your checking account, you would post a debit to Cash and a Credit to Income Earned. The accounting equation is: Assets = Liabilities + Owner's Equity $500 = $500 Cash is the \"\"Asset\"\" side of the equation, Income is part of Owner's Equity, and so is the Credit side... to make the equation balanced.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "983e84eb31d74702554938415b8ccc43",
"text": "One approach would be to create Journal Entries that debit asset accounts that are associated with these items and credit an Open Balance Equity account. The value of these contributions would have to be worked out with an accountant, as it depends on the lesser of the adjusted basis vs. the fair market value, as you then depreciate the amounts over time to take the depreciation as a business expense, and it adjusts your basis in the company (to calculate capital gains/losses when you sell). If there were multiple partners, or your accountant wants it this way, you could then debit open balance equity and credit the owner's contribution to a capital account in your name that represents your basis when you sell. From a pure accounting perspective, if the Open Balance Equity account would zero out, you could just skip it and directly credit the capital accounts, but I prefer the Open Balance Equity as it helps know the percentages of initial equity which may influence partner ownership percentages and identify anyone who needs to contribute more to the partnership.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
0f1112f646b3262a3380d26794c73a8e
|
How to use a companion fare if the total fare cost is more than the companion fare limit
|
[
{
"docid": "dc703afb998f0be7cdf1c8e77fef016e",
"text": "\"You must buy both tickets in 1 transaction and the purchased ticket cannot be purchased with miles. You'll pay full price (technically a \"\"paid published coach airfare\"\") for the first ticket and enter in your discount code for the companion fare which will ring up as $99 + fees ($118 in your example). If the regular price is $500, you'll book 2 tickets for $618 (one fare at $500 and companion fare at $118). Companion Fare Discount Code Q & A What is the Companion Fare Discount Code that comes with my credit card? The Companion Fare Discount Code is offered to holders of the Alaska Airlines Visa Signature® Card, The Platinum Plus® MasterCard® and the Visa® Business Card. This Discount Code entitles the cardholder to purchase one round-trip coach companion fare on Alaska Airlines from $121 (USD) ($99 base fare plus applicable taxes and fees from $22 depending on your Alaska Airlines flight itinerary) when traveling with another passenger on a paid published coach airfare on the same itinerary, booked at the same time. Mileage cannot be used as a form of payment, however mileage credit accrual is allowed for both travelers. Travelers are responsible for all applicable taxes, fees, surcharges and applicable checked baggage fees. The Companion Fare Discount Code is not valid with award travel, and cannot be combined with other discounts. Source: Alaska Air Companion Fair Q&A\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7ac0e1168515e6446b54b437506ecba4",
"text": "\"Are you on Twitter? If so, the first thing I'd do is tweet this question to @Orbitz and/or @AmericanAir (AA). I'll edit it to be a bit nicer english-wise. Tweeting (or Facebooking or Instgramming or ...) is one of the most effective ways to get customer service in 'edge' cases. Explain your case in a nice, tight narrative that has the pertinent facts, why you should get an exception. Social media tends to get results that you can't get just talking on the phone; in part because you're effectively talking with a higher-up person, and because you can make your case a bit more clearly. You can actually tweet this StackExchange question directly, or word it yourself in a tweet/FB post/etc. On Twitter i'd link to here or somewhere else (too short), with something like \"\"@Orbitz @AmericanAir, you changed our trip and now it doesn't work with our special needs child. Any way you can help us out? [link to this q or a blog post somewhere]\"\". As far as a merchant dispute; it would realistically depend on the agreement you signed with Orbitz when you bought the tickets. Likely it includes some flexibility for them to change your plans if the airline cancels the flight. If it does, and they followed all of their policies correctly, then technically you shouldn't dispute the charge. It is possible that Chase might have some recourse on your behalf, though I don't think this qualifies for Trip Cancellation Insurance (Which you have through your Sapphire card ). It might be worth calling them, just to see. In the future, I would recommend booking through their site - not only do you get 25% bonus rewards when you use miles through there, which often is enough to offset the advantages of discount travel sites, but they're quite good at helping deal with these sorts of problems (as Sapphire is one of their top cards).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e42588337b533431d5839a751b472ca7",
"text": "You typically need to specify that you want the GTC order to be working during the Extended hours session. I trade on TD Ameritrade's Thinkorswim platform, and you can select DAY, GTC, EXT or GTC_EXT. So in your case, you would select GTC_EXT.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a6d1c4936eceeaca20b24fae0d96361f",
"text": "The total limit book is a composite of all the orders on all of the exchanges. While it's uncommon for a limit order posted beyond the NBBO to fill outside of the NBBO, it does occur. For example, the best ask may be on exchange X, but for some reason the smart order routing algorithm may select exchange Y if it judges the net trade to be less costly, malfunctions, etc, and HFTs will immediately arbitrage the order between two exchanges, or the best order on exchange X disappears causing the order to fill above the NBBO. The system isn't perfect because there are multiple exchanges, but that eventuality is extremely rare with equities since nearly every exchange will have orders posted at the NBBO because exchange equity fee and rebate schedules are extremely competitive, nearly identical. It is however more common with options since less exchanges as a percentage of the total will have orders posted at the NBBO because of very wide exchange rebate and fee schedules. How a single exchange handles a new order that crosses an existing limit order is already addressed here: How do exchanges match limit orders?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "53be1ba189808d8c123d1c6ab5e021f5",
"text": "If you are careful, you don't need to spend much more than the cruise price. The cruises I've been on, they biggest extra was soda and alcohol (mainly wine with dinner). If you are fine drinking water or iced tea, there is no need for that. Food extras, like ice cream at the pool, may be an extra charge as well. The way it works is that your room key acts like a credit card, and gets charged to your room. Its easy to run up a big bill if you aren't paying attention, so you may want to keep track of it as you go along. You can also go to the pursers office at any time and find out your current account. Generally, the cruise automatically charges a certain amount per day for tips for your room steward and dining room attendants. You are expected to tip for spa services (another extra charge) and shore excursion guides. Shore excursions vary greatly depending on what you are doing. Maybe $50-$100 per person for a bus tour to much more than that for things like scuba diving, or fishing. You can also either book tours yourself, or just get off and wander around. It depends where you are going. Many times, the ships dock far away from anything you might want to see. There are generally taxis or shuttles to the tourist places, but that is another charge. Shipboard internet is generally charged by hour, and quite expensive (several dollars per hour). Part of the attraction for me is unplugging completely, so I generally don't bother. On older ships, you probably are limited to the internet lounge. Some of the newer ships have wi-fi in the state rooms as well. The drinks on board aren't cheap, but not outrageous either. Probably similar to an upscale club. They also have a daily drink special, which is cheaper. Technically, you aren't allowed to bring your own alcohol on board. If you buy something in a port, you need to check it with them. This policy may vary by cruise line, but has been true on the Princess and Costa cruises I've been on. That said, as long as you are low-key, they probably won't know or care.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b6c44ece66b3ec62293e219e9c7d6d7",
"text": "\"This is so true. There's always some \"\"misunderstanding\"\" at the end, when the quoted price isn't what is requested at the end. This type of thing is what has led me to stay in higher priced lodging and have them arrange my transport. I don't know if it has to be a meter, but somehow demonstrating that it will be a hassle free experience is super important.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "700d5a5f1c747dff506b40a467acddde",
"text": "what's unrealistic? applying a DCF model to the two possible options? i didn't claim my description of the situation was comprehensive, didn't ask for input as to whether or not i was considering all possible factors. why couldn't i use a DCF for a personal choice? any why would i use a RFR if the undertaking requires a risk premium? (or at least doesn't have the same risk level)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a7d754e9bb7592342ceb6a76d1acf8c2",
"text": "When in doubt, call (the card issuer) and ask. Ask if you overpay your current bill if the overpayment becomes available credit and tell them why you are asking. It can go either way.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "36b0807323546c7a24b99d00a653b79a",
"text": "Transit FSAs have $255 limits for each of {parking, public transit} per month, considered on a monthly basis separately; and that limit applies both to funding and to claims. You may fund your transit FSA with up to $255 per month for each purpose. You may withdraw up to $255 per month for each purpose. The amounts each month don't have to match, but they do need to each be under the maximum. Any amount you spend over $255 for either parking or public transit would need to be funded with post-tax money. Most transit FSAs have a mechanism for adding a credit card to the account to allow this to be seamless and on-demand (as opposed to be declared in advance). You can change your deduction each month, up to the limit your benefits provider permits (for me for example, I can choose up to the 10th of the prior month what to do). This differs from health care FSAs, which are annual in nature, and must be entirely defined during open enrollment - but as they have annual limits, would allow you to use the full amount even when employed for only half the year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9ce484d7657417c8078f20d1c5295f04",
"text": "Since the POS machines are tied into the register it would be rather difficult to overcharge with an attentive patron. They would have to add an additional item onto the purchase in order to increase the total before running the card (very few system allow cashback to be requested from the teller side), and most machines have audible cues every time an item is added. If you are paying attention to the teller and not talking/playing on your phone (or other distracting things) then I would say the feasibility is probably very low. Except for rare exceptions while traveling I only shop at locations where I can see the total on the register, and make sure it looks correct before handing my card over.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6232478af3a94f2588dfd3e1e8f816da",
"text": "This has happened to me several times while trying to travel. See a flight listed for one price, go through the process and it ends up being 50-100 more. Not sure which airlines just in general. I dont see how 2 seperate sites can have the same price problem. and what changes in the 5-10 minutes it takes someone to enter their info? do gas and costs go up that much in 10 minutes? Just like extra ticket fees and everything....i just wish companies would start putting the FULL price up front. extra fees and all.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9dd61f4b88dc34661b578a4696c6a5b5",
"text": "\"After learning about things that happened in the \"\"flash crash\"\" I always use limit orders. In an extremely rare instance if you place a market order when there is a some glitch, for example some large trader adds a zero at the end of their volume, you could get an awful price. If I want to buy at the market price, I just set the limit about 1% above the market price. If I want to sell, I set the limit 1% below the market price. I should point out that your trade is not executed at the limit price. If your limit price on a buy order is higher than the lowest offer, you still get filled at the lowest offer. If before your order is submitted someone fills all offers up to your limit price, you will get your limit price. If someone, perhaps by accident, fills all orders up to twice your limit price, you won't end up making the purchase. I have executed many purchases this way and never been filled at my limit price.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab96120f030e3e2bb56b50cecc284203",
"text": "In some cases, we when we see an opportunity to save our clients money, without risking valuable coverage or diminishing benefits, we make certain recommendations for more affordable life insurance. One of these strategies is laddering (or layering) term lengths, or term maturities. The strategy is simple. While most people who are considering longer terms, such as 20 or 30 year term, purchase a single policy to fit their needs, the laddering strategy has you purchase two policies totaling the same amount of coverage you currently need, but with a shorter length term mixed with the longer term. For example, instead of purchasing a 30 year term for $1 million dollars, you might purchase two policies for $500,000 each, one with a 15 year term, and the other with a 30 year term. The result is typically a savings of 15%-25% on your term life insurance. Just be aware that the plan going in is to let the first policy go (the one with the shorter term length) when its level term has expired. For example in a 15 year term, the premiums will be guaranteed to stay level the first 15 years, and then increase every year thereafter. There is typically a sizable jump in rates in that 16th year. Clients often see rates increase 8-10 times or more. Therefore, it’s important you understand that going in, and realize you will most likely let that first policy go when the premiums increase, leaving you with the second policy through the end of its (longer) level term. You can crunch some numbers with our laddering calculator: https://www.jrcinsurancegroup.com/term-life-insurance-laddering-calculator/",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ad5c2319a4395db03dd2a1acfdbf81f3",
"text": "Fare basis is but one component of domestic US air carrier upgrade considerations, and that will always be trumped by status. A top-tier elite traveling on a discount fare will always be upgraded over someone with no-status flying on a full-fare ticket.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "42138da682b150c80fbcba872a237953",
"text": "The calculation is to figure out how many dollars you get in return for the amount of dollars you spend. In your case, you know you get 1000 points for $1000 dollars, and can redeem one movie ticket for 1000 points. Therefore, Granted that you could also redeem a $8-9 ticket, making your return 0.8-0.9%. In addition, this can get more complicated for some points cards that may give out free points, and is especially so if there's an intermediary such as AIR MILES, for which points can be earned in numerous ways. To get really nitty gritty, you could to keep a spreadsheet where you list number of dollars spent, number of points gained, number of points redeemed, and value of reward received. Thus, you can figure out exactly what your cost is for each point (second factor from above), as well as the ultimate value of each point with respect to rewards redeemed (first factor). I'm considering doing that myself since I'm prone to spreadsheet addiction, but this method is likely overkill for most points cards.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a27aa855bc4ec51e802ca7061b80e5e4",
"text": "Austin did it while Uber was gone w/RideAustin. A portion of the fares could go to charity as well. I used the app a few weeks ago (literally weekend before Uber came back)....the app straight up ripped off Uber. It felt like Uber just made this satellite company to still ride share.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
56706019300b3920a0915124fd844fba
|
Better rate for investment between CD or savings
|
[
{
"docid": "4c6173e36e91ce2ed6f98bae7ce06752",
"text": "Excel has two functions you can use: Your question has the CD with a APR and the savings account that mentions both APR and APY. So convert them both to APY to compare them. The savings account (2.27 APY) will return more money based on the numbers in your question (2.27% vs 1.56%) The previous part was the math part of the answer. The following takes into other considerations. For this case the Savings account will return a larger amount of money if the conditions don't change. The CD rate is guaranteed, but the savings account could change every business day. The savings rate could go up, or down. If you expect the savings account rate to rain higher than the CD you might not want to lock into the CD. If you expect the savings rate will drop then get the CD. Of course there are penalties if you cash in the CD early.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "71146df668f12b055a8d5912ca96a59b",
"text": "It depends on the relative rates and relative risk. Ignore the deduction. You want to compare the rates of the investment and the mortgage, either both after-tax or both before-tax. Your mortgage costs you 5% (a bit less after-tax), and prepayments effectively yield a guaranteed 5% return. If you can earn more than that in your IRA with a risk-free investment, invest. If you can earn more than that in your IRA while taking on a degree of risk that you are comfortable with, invest. If not, pay down your mortgage. See this article: Mortgage Prepayment as Investment: For example, the borrower with a 6% mortgage who has excess cash flow would do well to use it to pay down the mortgage balance if the alternative is investment in assets that yield 2%. But if two years down the road the same assets yield 7%, the borrower can stop allocating excess cash flow to the mortgage and start accumulating financial assets. Note that he's not comparing the relative risk of the investments. Paying down your mortgage has a guaranteed return. You're talking about CDs, which are low risk, so your comparison is simple. If your alternative investment is stocks, then there's an element of risk that it won't earn enough to outpace the mortgage cost. Update: hopefully this example makes it clearer: For example, lets compare investing $100,000 in repayment of a 6% mortgage with investing it in a fund that pays 5% before-tax, and taxes are deferred for 10 years. For the mortgage, we enter 10 years for the period, 3.6% (if that is the applicable rate) for the after tax return, $100,000 as the present value, and we obtain a future value of $142,429. For the alternative investment, we do the same except we enter 5% as the return, and we get a future value of $162,889. However, taxes are now due on the $62,889 of interest, which reduces the future value to $137,734. The mortgage repayment does a little better. So if your marginal tax rate is 30%, you have $10k extra cash to do something with right now, mortgage rate is 5%, IRA CD APY is 1%, and assuming retirement in 30 years: If you want to plug it into a spreadsheet, the formula to use is (substitute your own values): (Note the minus sign before the cash amount.) Make sure you use after tax rates for both so that you're comparing apples to apples. Then multiply your IRA amount by (1-taxrate) to get the value after you pay future taxes on IRA withdrawals.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d76c232eae67ce53df0a866d6dfaec66",
"text": "I would put about a month's worth of expenses in the highest-paying savings account that you find convenient to access. For the rest, I recommend Ally's High-Yield CDs — specifically, the 5-year option. Normally 5 years would be way too long to commit short-term savings to a CD. However, the Ally CDs allow you to break them for a penalty of only two months worth of interest. If you look at the graph below (from when the rates were 3.09% APY), you can see the effective interest rate at every possible time you break the CD early. Doing the math, if you can keep your savings in the account for at least four months, it will outperform any other current FDIC-backed investment that I am aware of, for the length of time the money was invested. (credit: MyMoneyBlog)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e4c446b7f403ed97c8398ceb13ce54f",
"text": "I'm going to make an educated guess on #1. Money markets invest in bonds with a very short time to maturity. An MMA at a bank will be invested in government bonds. Yields on these bonds are really low right now. Thus the yield on that MMA is going to be pretty low. When you make a deposit in a savings account, the bank uses some of that money to lend back out to its customers in the form of car loans, mortgages, etc. These rates are higher, so the bank is willing to pay you a bit more than the yield MMA so they can use your money for these loans. For #2, your time window is short, so there aren't really a lot of options for you. Keeping your money where it is will actually cost you money in fees. You can do as I suggested in my comment above: close the current savings account that's hitting you with fees and open a (free) high yield savings account. You might get 1.1%. If you average $60k in the account over the next 6 months you'll earn $200-250 after taxes. You didn't ask about CDs, but lately shorter term CDs are paying less than savings accounts. Going out to a year will get you just above the rate on a high yield savings account; two years just a little more. These are outside your goal window, so they aren't an option for you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c7579afbd4c865d46d443a4bec45661a",
"text": "While I don't disagree with the other answers as far as CD laddering goes (at least in principle), three months CDs are currently getting much lower rates than money market accounts, at least according to http://www.bankrate.com. A savings account is also more liquid than CDs. Bonds are another option, and they can generally be liquidated quickly on the secondary market. However, they can go down in value if interest rates rise (actually this is true of CDs as well--there is a secondary market, though I believe only for brokerage CDs?). Bottom line, A high yield savings account is likely your best best. As others noted, you should think of your emergency fund as savings, not investment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d9a7942f2e0dc890c354770e4d5e4628",
"text": "\"Shem - I recommend looking into online banks or credit unions. I know ally has around ~0.8% rate on their savings accounts NOT MMS. Meaning you don't need a ~$2,500 minimum balance so your money is COMPLETELY liquid. CD's and MMC/S are worth next to nothing, and if you ask me are pointless with the minimum balances they require. Ally also reimburses you for all ATM withdrawal fees, meaning you have complete access to all your money, with next to no minimum, with at least some % back that is comparable to CD rates currently offered. CD's are around ~1.8-2% with tens of thousands of dollars (50-75k+) which isn't worth keeping \"\"liquid\"\",if you would consider CD's liquid (because you can withdraw on a penalty or have laddered CD's), unless you're rich and that's your emergency fund. If I were you I would look into a retirement account, and saving what you need to in an Emergency Fund. Check out a 401(k), Traditional IRA or Roth IRA. They each have their benefits and you need to assess your financial situation before picking one. I would recommend spending a great deal of time researching this before making your decision, because switching from one to another could cost you, depending on your choice. This is, of course, if you live in the U.S.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ccdfb95bba9a39dd154f1bfddbefe85b",
"text": "How much money do you have in your money market fund and what in your mind is the purpose of this money? If it is your six-months-of-living-expenses emergency fund, then you might want to consider bank CDs in addition to bond funds as an alternative to your money-market fund investment. Most (though not necessarily all, so be sure to check) bank CDs can be cashed in at any time with a penalty of three months of interest, and so unless you anticipate being laid off very soon, you might get a slightly better rate of interest, FDIC insurance (which mutual funds do not have), and with any luck you may never have to break a CD and lose the interest. Building a ladder of CDs with one maturing each month might be another way to reduce the risk of loss. On the other hand, bond mutual funds are a risky bet now because your investment will lose value if interest rate go up, and as JohnFx points out, interest rates have nowhere to go but up. Finally, the amount of the investment is something that you might want to consider before making changes. If you have $50K put away as your six-month fund, you are talking of $500 versus $350 per annum in changing to a riskier investment with a 1% yield from a safer investment with a 0.7% yield. Whether bragging rights at neighborhood parties are worth the trouble is something for you to decide.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aad7d81d0864ae51527e037701783ac4",
"text": "\"Your objectives are contradictory and/or not possible. Eliminating the non-taxable objective: You could divide the $100K in 5 increments, making a \"\"CD ladder\"\" $25K in 3mo CD (or savings a/c) $25K in 6 mo CD $25K in 9mo CD $25K in 1 yr CD or similar structure (6mo also works well) Every maturing CD you are able to access cash and/or invest in another longest maturity CD, and earn a higher rate of interest. This plan also works well to plan for future interest rates hikes. If you are forced to access (sell CD's) ALL the $$$ at any time, you will only lose accrued interest, none of the principal. All FDIC guaranteed. If non-taxable is the highest priority, \"\"invest\"\" in a tax-free money market fund....see Vanguard Funds. You will not have FDIC guarantee.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a4b32ca9426daa77485dce6bc0707b11",
"text": "\"This answer is to supplement the answers about what CD laddering is and what its benefits are. I'm going to talk about its risks. CD ladders are subject to risk. They are not subject to very much credit risk and investment risk (they're federally insured! Barring the dissolution of the United States government as we know it, you will get all your money back!). However, they are subject to inflation risk and a little bit of interest rate risk. A CD is basically a promise for a certain amount of money after a certain amount of time. Inflation risk happens when there's inflation and the money that you've been promised isn't worth as much anymore, because everything's gotten more expensive. Interest rate risk happens when you buy a CD in a very low interest rate environment (like, oh, the year 2010) and rates subsequently rise. You might have been somewhat better off waiting for rates to rise before buying the CD. (Also, if you were to try and re-sell it, you would get an inferior price - enough to make up for the interest rate difference.) Note that interest rates tend to rise if there is a significant amount of inflation, so these two risks go together. Interest rate risk and inflation risk are higher for longer-term CDs (at least right now) because there's more opportunity for inflation and interest rates to rise. 2010 has been marked by the extraordinarily low interest rate environment which prevails, and the Federal Reserve has announced that it is trying to bring about a higher rate of inflation (you may have heard something about a \"\"second round of quantitative easing\"\"). A quick look at interest rates show that 2-5 year CDs yield about 1.50% these days. You could, alternatively, get a savings account that yields 1.4%, preserves your liquidity, and will raise the rate it pays you on savings in the event that inflation and interest rates rise (or, if they don't raise it, you can move the account, unlike a CD). In summary, as of right now (October 2010), fixed-income investments like CDs don't pay you very much and have elevated levels of risk, especially for long-term investment. This is one of the worst times possible to invest in a CD ladder.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a1616d1f5569a880bdef9bac00d70f44",
"text": "CD laddering is funding a few CDs in succession. For instance: for 6 months, each month you open up a 6 month CD (rather than opening up one big one). Doing this will give you monthly interest payments as each month a CD will reach maturity (after 6 months). At that time you can choose to roll over the principal in a new CD and keep the interest, reinvest all, etc etc etc. You still get the benefits (higher rates) that CDs offer, but with greater flexibility and more frequent interest payouts. The only downside that I'm aware off is that you may end up with a slightly lower overall interest rate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e6871d8efa74a9cf17f99e55876c1270",
"text": "There are some high-yield savings accounts out there that might get you close to 1 percent. Shorter term CDs might also serve you well here- rates are above 1 percent, even with 1-2 year terms: http://www.nerdwallet.com/rates/cds/best-cd-rates/",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed0f6b8a67ef30833bad0c79d53fdb95",
"text": "If you need the money in the short-term, you want to invest in something fairly safe. These include saving accounts, CDs, and money market funds from someplace like Vanguard. The last two might give you a slightly better return than the local branch of a national bank.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4cef894cebded926516253134c852d03",
"text": "For the period 1950 to 2009, if you adjust the S&P 500 for inflation and account for dividends, the average annual return comes out to exactly 7.0%. Source. Currently inflation is around 2%. So your 2% APY is a 0% real return where the stock market return is 7%. I.e. on average, stocks have a return that is higher by 7. If you mix in bonds, 70% stocks to 30% bonds, your real returns will drop to around 5.5%, but you are safer in individual years (bonds often have good years when stocks have bad years). We're making a bit of a false dichotomy here. We're talking about returns on stocks in retirement accounts versus returns on CDs in regular accounts. You can buy stocks in regular accounts and it is legally possible to have a CD in a retirement account. So you can get bankruptcy protection and tax advantages with a CD.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd39fe5e754a1e54f44a5bb1eef659f8",
"text": "If the savings rate is the same as the loan rate, mathematically it doesn't make any difference whether you pay down the loan more and save less or vice versa. However, if the loan rate is higher than the savings rate it's better to pay it down as fast as possible. The chart below compares paying down the loan and saving equally (the gradual scenario), versus paying down the loan quickly at 2 x $193 and then saving 2 x $193. The savings rate, for illustration, is 2%. Paying quickly pays down the loan completely by month 51. On the other hand, in the gradual scheme the loan can't be paid down (with the savings) until month 54, which then leaves 3 months less for saving. In conclusion, it's better to pay down the higher rate loan first. Practically speaking, it may be useful to have some savings available.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1cccac97e25661617c9556596aa59e69",
"text": "\"With a \"\"normal\"\" CD you can't, but some banks do seem to offer CDs where you can. For instance the \"\"variable-rate CD\"\" at USAA allows ongoing deposits. I also found a United Bank \"\"saver CD\"\" which requires you to set up automatic monthly deposits. You would have to check each individual bank's CD offerings to see if they have such a product. However, if you make ongoing deposits to it, a CD becomes less distinguishable from a savings account. Even if a given bank does offer a \"\"depositable\"\" CD, you might conceivably be able to find a higher rate on a plain savings account at another bank (especially an online bank offering high savings account rates). For instance, the USAA CD I mentioned above has an APY of 0.46%, but the high yield savings accounts on this NerdWallet list have higher APYs than that. So even if you can find the kind of CD you describe, it might be better to just use a savings account anyway.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a90b7d3e183d6d7ef73cd23975580513",
"text": "One reason why you can get a better rate with a CD compared to a regular savings account is that they lock you into that account for the period of the CD. You can get out of the CD early, but you will forfeit some of the interest. You also generally can't move a portion of the money out of the CD, you have to pull it all out, and then start a new CD with the portion you don't spend. You have to check the terms and conditions for that particular CD. Some people use them to hold their emergency fund. This is the 3-6 months of expenses you set aside in case of a major problem such as a medical emergency or a job loss. The rate is better than the regular savings account, so it can come closer to inflation. The goal is preservation of capital, not investing for the future. So if you understand the risks, and the CD is backed with the same guarantees as the savings account, then it is a viable way to store some or all of the emergency fund.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
71b11cbd7eebc5ab6fe34decd676fe0b
|
What is the best way for me to invest my money into my own startup?
|
[
{
"docid": "9544e680df24c706b1a1c32ec201f96b",
"text": "\"It will depend somewhat on the rules where the company is formed, and perhaps how much you're talking about investing. I don't know about Canada, but when I've formed businesses in the U.S., I've been advised to invest some of the money as an equity investment, and the bulk of the remainder as a loan. You say \"\"more shares\"\", so it sounds like you've already invested some money and need to inject another round. If you make a loan to the company, make sure everything is done at arm's length -- you'll need to wear the hat of the Company Management and sign a contract with yourself, use a market-based interest rate, and make sure the company is paying you back with interest. An alternative which may work if you expect cash flow soon is to pay for certain expenses personally and then submit an expense report to the company, which will pay you back. Overall, a quick consultation with your accountant should be a relatively inexpensive way to get the best answer for your specific circumstances.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c5bf73ff2c8973bf282521eda8b1c959",
"text": "Ask your accountant about convertable preference shares. This would permit you to loan money to your company and then convert the debt to equity, should you so choose, at a later stage. As with the answer by bstpierre, these are all contractual arrangements conducted at arms-length.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "94df20a3803d4faadf3eb4d71a9339f1",
"text": "\"Kudos for wanting to start your own business. Now let's talk reality. Unless you already have some kind of substantial track record of successful investing to show potential investors, what you want to do will never happen, and that's just giving you the honest truth. There are extensive regulatory requirements for starting any kind of public investment vehicle, and meeting them costs money. You can be your own hedge fund with your own money and avoid all of this if you like. Keep in mind that a \"\"hedge fund\"\" is little more than someone who is contrarian to the market and puts their money where their mouth is. (I know, some of you will argue this is simplistic, and you'd be right, but I'm deliberately avoiding complexity for the moment) The simple truth is that nobody is going to just give you their money to invest unless, for starters, you can show that you're any good at it (and for the sake of it we'll assume you've had success in the markets), and (perhaps most importantly) you have \"\"skin in the game\"\", meaning you have a substantial investment of your own in the fund too. You might have a chance at creating something if you can show that whatever your hedge fund proposes to invest in isn't already overrun by other hedge funds. At the moment, there are more mutual and hedge funds out there than there are securities for them to invest in, so they're basically all fighting over the same pie. You must have some fairly unique opportunity or approach that nobody else has or has even considered in order to begin attracting money to a new fund these days. And that's not easy, trust me. There is no short or easy path to what you want to do, and perhaps if you want to toy around with it a bit, find some friends who are willing to invest based on your advice and/or picks. If you develop a track record of success then perhaps you could more seriously consider doing what you propose, and in the meanwhile you can look into the requirements for laying the foundations toward your goal. I hope you don't find my answer cruel, because it isn't meant to be. I am all about encouraging people to succeed, but it has to start with a realistic expectation. You have a great thought, but there's a wide gulf from concept to market and no quick or simple way to bridge it. Here's a link to a web video on how to start your own hedge fund, if you want to look into it more deeply: How To Legally Start A Hedge Fund (From the Investopedia website) Good luck!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "578d2f1ea175a3c42514e0fc59eb897c",
"text": "That is a loaded question but I'll give it a shot. First things first you need to determine if you are ready to invest in stocks. If you have a lot of high interest debt you would be much better served paying that off before investing in stocks. Stocks return around 8%-10% in the long run, so you'd be better off paying off any debt you have that is higher than 8%-10%. Most people get their start investing in stocks through mutual funds in their 401k or a Roth IRA. If you want to invest in individual stocks instead of mutual funds then you will need to do a lot of reading and learning. You will need a brokerage account or if you have a stock in mind they might have a dividend reinvestment plan (DRIP) that you could invest in directly with the company. You will have to compare the different brokerage firms to determine which is best for you. Since you seem to be internet savvy, I suggest you use a discount brokerage that let's you buy stocks online with cheaper commissions. A good rule of thumb is to keep commissions below 1% of the amount invested. Once you have your online brokerage account open with money in there the process of actually buying the stock is fairly straightforward. Just place an order for the amount of shares you want. That order can be a market order which means the purchase will occur at the current market price. Or you can use a limit order where you control at what price your purchase will occur. There are lots of good books out there for beginners. Personally I learned from the Motley Fool. And last but not least is to have fun with it. Learn as much as you can and welcome to the club.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "167e7ba61ac8b036dc0a477a9e81d0df",
"text": "Don't start by investing in a few individual companies. This is risky. Want an example? I'm thinking of a big company, say $120 billion or so, a household name, and good consistent dividends to boot. They were doing fairly well, and were generally busy trying to convince people that they were looking to the future with new environmentally friendly technologies. Then... they went and spilled a bunch of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Yes, it wasn't a pretty picture if BP was one of five companies in your portfolio that day. Things would look a lot better if they were one of 500 or 5000 companies, though. So. First, aim for diversification via mutual funds or ETFs. (I personally think you should probably start with the mutual funds: you avoid trading fees, for one thing. It's also easier to fit medium-sized dollar amounts into funds than into ETFs, even if you do get fee-free ETF trading. ETFs can get you better expense ratios, but the less money you have invested the less important that is.) Once you have a decent-sized portfolio - tens of thousands of dollars or so - then you can begin to consider holding stocks of individual companies. Take note of fees, including trading fees / commissions. If you buy $2000 worth of stock and pay a $20 commission you're already down 1%. If you're holding a mutual fund or ETF, look at the expense ratio. The annualized real return on the stock market is about 4%. (A real return is after adjusting for inflation.) If your fee is 1%, that's about a quarter of your earnings, which is huge. And while it's easy for a mutual fund to outperform the market by 1% from time to time, it's really really hard to do it consistently. Once you're looking at individual companies, you should do a lot of obnoxious boring stupid research and don't just buy the stock on the strength of its brand name. You'll be interested in a couple of metrics. The main one is probably the P/E ratio (price/earnings). If you take the inverse of this, you'll get the rate at which your investment is making you money (e.g. a P/E of 20 is 5%, a P/E of 10 is 10%). All else being equal, a lower P/E is a good thing: it means that you're buying the company's income really cheap. However, all else is seldom equal: if a stock is going for really cheap, it's usually because investors don't think that it's got much of a future. Earnings are not always consistent. There are a lot of other measures, like beta (correlation to the market overall: riskier volatile stocks have higher numbers), gross margins, price to unleveraged free cash flow, and stuff like that. Again, do the boring research, otherwise you're just playing games with your money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1c5bd2ce8b907fb18c884646da71f621",
"text": "sell drugs? (joking) In all seriousness though, your options to legally invest this money are limited, which leaves you to extra-legal options..... which many young people engage, different kind of candy I guess. Ok so you cannot invest into stocks, to day trade. Because you're not an adult. You can put the money in a bank, but the interest rate on that amount of money is in the realm of ~0.1%. You can use the money to seed another legal business venture, say another kind of better candy. My advice is to get a parental unit to put the cash into a mutual fund, in your name... then hand that over to you when you turn 18.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96fc11d801210378ea9b1d0552225226",
"text": "There's a few options you may want to look into. First, I'm writing from an US point of view, I do not know if these are available in Russia. First look into DRIPS (Dividend Reinvestment Plans). These seem tailor made for your request. They are plans set up by companies that pay dividends. If you own at least one share (costing no more than say $100 often less), then these companies will take the dividends paid on these shares and automatically buy more shares as the income from the dividends pile up. This is a low cost of entry way of getting in on many high quality stocks. Stalwart stocks such as GE and many utility and real estate stocks (REITs) offer this. Check out these links: Secondly you can look at brokerages that specialize in buying smaller amount of stocks on a regular basis to simulate a DRIP, ShareBuilder will allow you to invest say $50 or $100 a month into one or more stocks. However, at smaller amounts, their commission fees can eat in to your returns. Folio investing does the same thing as Sharebuilder. It's worth looking at them both and comparing their commissions and other features",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8885f17a460291a9344b1c9e6e161cc7",
"text": "\"I am asking because startups are super risky and 99% of the times you fail and lose the money. First of all, that 99% number is exaggerated. Only 96% of companies fail within ten years. But starting your own business is not a pure game of chance. It mostly depends on how good your business idea is and if you have the necessary skills and resources to succeed with it. Yes, there is luck involved, but a smart businessman can calculate the risks and possible rewards and then decide if a certain business idea is a good or a bad gamble. Also, a business failing does not necessarily mean that the business owner failed. A good business owner knows when to fold. A business might be profitable at first, but market circumstances might change at any time making it unprofitable. A smart business owner notices that early, liquidates the unprofitable business as quickly as possible and refocuses on their next business idea. Only those who can not let go of an unprofitable business or take too long to notice that it is failing are those who get dragged down with it. So should you have a \"\"startup fund\"\"? Saving your disposable income is never a mistake. If you never end up starting a business, it will eventually serve you as a retirement fund. So yes, you should save a part of your money each month. But should you start a company with it? That depends on whether or not you have a business idea where you know you will succeed. How do you know that? When you answered yes to all of these questions, then you might want to consider it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "035d6bea1dd42ac71c51671df2da59f4",
"text": "\"Read the book, \"\"Slicing Pie: Fund Your Company Without Funds\"\". You can be given 5% over four years and in four years, they hire someone and give him twice as much as you, for working a month and not sacrificing his salary at all. Over the four years, the idiot who offered you the deal will waste investors money on obvious, stupid things because he doesn't know anything about how to build what he's asking you to build, causing the need for more investment and the dilution of your equity. I'm speaking from personal experience. Don't even do this. Start your own company if you're working for free, and tell the idiot who offered you 5% you'll offer him 2% for four years of him working for you for free.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "71edadf0bf5e87a03ff97820bd72cee1",
"text": "50 (dollars, Euros?) is a very small amount to invest. The first time I ever bought stock I picked a winner. It went up by about 40% in the first few months. I sold it and lost money. How? I only bought 10 shares at $7.50 each. The profit was less than the two commissions for buying and selling (about $17 a piece). If you are thinking of buying individual stocks, You simply need to save up more money before it will be practical. If you are not trying to beat the market, which is probably not something an amateur like you or I should attempt, then you should consider low cost index funds. I have money in mutual funds, some of which, have as low as a $100 minimum investment. I have moved entirely away from picking stocks. It was a good experience and I could afford to lose the money, but as a long term strategy, it just was not working for me. Note: This is coming from an American. If this somehow does not apply in Europe...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b7bf351cd2a799c09043b696a6fae8e",
"text": "\"I did this a couple of years ago, and boy do I regret it. After many months of delayed, and new faces coming onto the team for a short period before leaving, there wasn't much hope to ever complete the project. I ended up accumulating debt (About 4.5 grand) that I am still paying off because I chased my dream. Unfortunately, anything can happen when you choose to pursue a goal. It can get delayed, stopped, or outright fail. At the bare minimum, you would best be prepared to deal with delays, competing products, and outright failures. If you say \"\"I have enough money to last me 12 months and I expect to take 7 months\"\", then you best be prepared to answer: These are just a handful of ideas, and there are plenty more that would need to be addressed. Probably the best thing that I have seen a few friends do is to ask for reduced hours. Working part time allows you more time while reducing, but not eliminating, the pay. Even better is that depending on your company, you could ask to go back to full time if your startup didn't work out. Another option is to do what I'm doing currently: Find a job with lots of downtime. My job is critical and the market here is starved of good techs. Even then, I have a solid 2-4 hours of work each day. The other 4-6 hours I can spend on my personal projects that may eventually lead into a startup. If you plan to do this though, make sure to read your agreements carefully. There may be restrictions on copyright and the likes by working on a personal project on company property. If you do plan to go this route, you might want to consult a lawyer (like I did) to make sure you won't get screwed later.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d6f220dd1677d35b3bed386d664808f",
"text": "Investing in mutual funds, ETF, etc. won't build a large pool of money. Be an active investor if your nature aligns. For e.g. Invest in buying out a commercial space (on bank finance) like a office space and then rent it out. That would give you better return than a savings account. In few years time, you may be able to pay back your financing and then the total return is your net return. Look for options like this for a multiple growth in your worth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "31e1ce71a7f15957a93f7ccce27b3144",
"text": "if you have 30k to invest use some of it to hire someone because the returns you'd get with some sort of professional would probably make up for what your paying them in comparison to doing it on your own. although if you're really against it then like mjvcaj said, ETF's would probably be a good idea.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af19554812ea5ad1f221e47cdb1600d1",
"text": "For most people, investing in the stock market directly is one of the last things to do. That's not to say you shouldn't, but rather that there are other things to consider as well. Start with automatic monthly deposits to a liquid account such as savings or money market. The morale boost you get from seeing the balance grow is nearly impossible to beat. Following that, paying down any debts such as student loans or credit cards. Once you've done that, then you should look at company sponsored 401k plans or IRAs. Sharebuilder offers IRAs holding whichever stock or fund you pick. Again, automatic monthly deposits are the way to go here. Good luck, and happy investing :)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e92c138a220871b654595fe3b11985c8",
"text": "Well, to get money, you need to leverage your assets. So your options basically are: - Asset: Cash. Well, I figure if you had, you wouldn't have asked how to get more of it, but its always worth mentioning. Don't forget about cash that can be in tricky places to tap, like 401ks, IRAs, investment accounts, etc. There is usually some way to get at the cash, but it may not be worth it and you could end up sacrificing long term financial stability if you do. - Asset: Job Skills and Initiative. Get a job and and earn the cash. $2k is not a ton, and if you live frugally you should be able to save it. There are tons of websites dedicated to living frugally and earning extra cash on the side. My personal favorite is r/beermoney. - Asset: Good Credit. Borrow the money from a traditional bank. Signature loans go up to $35k at most banks, just ask what it would take to qualify. You could also get a credit card for that amount, and use it to start up the business. - Asset. Bad Credit. If you've got bad credit, you can still take out a loan from a place like Prosper or Lending Club or Sofi (these places are handy if you have good credit, too). Your rates will be much higher, but they will still lend to you. - Asset: Property. If you own stuff, you can sell it and get cash. Clean out your attic (or ask relatives if you can have the stuff in theirs!) and sell it. If you own fancy stuff, you can borrow against it (home, car, boat, etc.). - Asset: Your Charm and Winning Smile. If you have a good, solid business plan (written down and professional looking), ask around and see if you can find an investor. It could be friends or family, but it could also be someone who is looking to invest. Be professional, and be sure to draw up the appropriate business docs if you do a partnership or take a private loan. - Asset: Your Government. If you live in the US, there are federal programs that offer Small Business Loans. Check out sba.gov for more info. You will need a business plan and will have to meet the criteria of the loan or grant. Not sure if your Ecommerce business will meet the criteria, as the intent of these types of programs are to spur the economy by allowing small business owners to hire workers. But its worth checking out.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d69f5e6cf8b569f776788242ee66c6a8",
"text": "\"Chris - you realize that when you buy a stock, the seller gets the money, not the company itself, unless of course, you bought IPO shares. And the amount you'd own would be such a small portion of the company, they don't know you exist. As far as morals go, if you wish to avoid certain stocks for this reason, look at the Socially Responsible funds that are out there. There are also funds that are targeted to certain religions and avoid alcohol and tobacco. The other choice is to invest in individual stocks which for the small investor is very tough and expensive. You'll spend more money to avoid the shares than these very shares are worth. Your proposal is interesting but impractical. In a portfolio of say $100K in the S&P, the bottom 400 stocks are disproportionately smaller amounts of money in those shares than the top 100. So we're talking $100 or less. You'd need to short 2 or 3 shares. Even at $1M in that fund, 20-30 shares shorted is pretty silly, no offense. Why not 'do the math' and during the year you purchase the fund, donate the amount you own in the \"\"bad\"\" companies to charity. And what littleadv said - that too.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "992d568e9fb89ec12d5ec9d42554e089",
"text": "What is your investing goal? And what do you mean by investing? Do you necessarily mean investing in the stock market or are you just looking to grow your money? Also, will you be able to add to that amount on a regular basis going forward? If you are just looking for a way to get $100 into the stock market, your best option may be DRIP investing. (DRIP stands for Dividend Re-Investment Plan.) The idea is that you buy shares in a company (typically directly from the company) and then the money from the dividends are automatically used to buy additional fractional shares. Most DRIP plans also allow you to invest additional on a monthly basis (even fractional shares). The advantages of this approach for you is that many DRIP plans have small upfront requirements. I just looked up Coca-cola's and they have a $500 minimum, but they will reduce the requirement to $50 if you continue investing $50/month. The fees for DRIP plans also generally fairly small which is going to be important to you as if you take a traditional broker approach too large a percentage of your money will be going to commissions. Other stock DRIP plans may have lower monthly requirements, but don't make your decision on which stock to buy based on who has the lowest minimum: you only want a stock that is going to grow in value. They primary disadvantages of this approach is that you will be investing in a only a single stock (I don't believe that can get started with a mutual fund or ETF with $100), you will be fairly committed to that stock, and you will be taking a long term investing approach. The Motley Fool investing website also has some information on DRIP plans : http://www.fool.com/DRIPPort/HowToInvestDRIPs.htm . It's a fairly old article, but I imagine that many of the links still work and the principles still apply If you are looking for a more medium term or balanced investment, I would advise just opening an online savings account. If you can grow that to $500 or $1,000 you will have more options available to you. Even though savings accounts don't pay significant interest right now, they can still help you grow your money by helping you segregate your money and make regular deposits into savings.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
64e5dd4cf8e8261df5dc92d49f29ac48
|
Are there any credit cards with a statement period longer than 1 month?
|
[
{
"docid": "e4fc4ac4f7ca3ecb88f84aba4ae15a19",
"text": "Most credit cards will allow you to pick the closing date. In fact almost every bill with the exception of utilities that collected usage by reading a meter at the house will either let you pick the closing date each month, or at least have several to pick from. They won't let you pick the length, but they will let you pick the day of the month. When I worked a job that paid once a month. I wanted all my bills due early in the month: get paid, pay bill, know how much I have left. When I went back to every other week spreading them out made more sense. No credit card had a problem with this. The transitional cycle was not the correct length, but after that it was fine. As Dheer pointed out extending the cycle to 90 days would involve them extending credit for much longer than they would be comfortable. Also the goal of keeping utilization under 30% would be very difficult, you would have to keep your spending per month to less than 10% of your credit limit. Some people have trouble not falling behind on credit card bills, having to set aside the money to pay the bill every 90 day may be way to tough for many people.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3758baa568ae3cedb49f4c33837012cb",
"text": "If the billing cycle is 2 to 3 months, it would mean Banks have to give credit for a longer period and it makes the entire business less profitable as well as more risky compared to the Monthly billing cycle. For example the current monthly billing cycle with a date say of 14th, means if you swipe your card on 1st day, one would effectively get a credit for 30+14, around 44 days. If you swipe on last day, one would get a credit for 14 days. On an average 22 days of credit. If we make this 3 months, the credit period would increase on an average (90+14)/2, 52 days. From a risk point of view, on monthly cycle if there is non-payment its flagged much earlier compared to a 3 months cycle. On offering different dates, shop around. In the older times the cycles were different, however with individuals having several cards, and trying to optimize every purchase to maximize credit period. Quite a few banks have streamlined it to monthly cycle. Shop around and some banks should be able to offer you different dates.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "9e88c6e1c6c8ea228540df3db741c995",
"text": "\"You ask about the difference between credit and debit, but that may be because you're missing something important. Regardless of credit/debit, there is value in carrying two different cards associated with two different accounts. The reason is simply that because of loss, fraud, or your own mismanagement, or even the bank's technical error, any card can become unusable for some period of time. Exactly how long depends what happened, but just sending you a new card can easily take more than one business day, which might well be longer than you'd like to go without access to any funds. In that situation you would be glad of a credit card, and you would equally be glad of a second debit card on a separate account. So if your question is \"\"I have one bank account with one debit card, and the only options I'm willing to contemplate are (a) do nothing or (b) take a credit card as well\"\", then the answer is yes, take a credit card as well, regardless of the pros or cons of credit vs debit. Even if you only use the credit card in the event that you drop your debit card down a drain. So what you can now consider is the pros and cons of a credit card vs managing an additional bank account -- unless you seriously hate one or more of the cons of credit cards, the credit card is likely to win. My bank has given me a debit card on a cash savings account, which is a little scary, but would cover most emergencies if I didn't have a credit card too. Of course the interest rate is rubbish and I sometimes empty my savings account into a better investment, so I don't use it as backup, but I could. Your final question \"\"can a merchant know if I give him number of debit or credit card\"\" is already asked: Can merchants tell the difference between a credit card and embossed debit card? Yes they can, and yes there are a few things you can't (or might prefer not to) do with debit. The same could even be said of Visa vs. Mastercard, leading to the conclusion that if you have a Visa debit you should look for a Mastercard credit. But that seems to be less of an issue as time goes on and almost everywhere in Europe apparently takes both or neither. If you travel a lot outside the EU then you might want to be loaded down with every card under the sun, and three different kinds of cash, but you'd already know that without asking ;-)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "43e4ed84fdb1f925cabfef36d8b03482",
"text": "\"Whether or not the specific card in question is truly 0% interest rate for the first 12 months, such cards do exist. However, the bank does make money out of it on the average: Still, 12 months of not having to think about paying the bill. Nice. This is exactly what they want you to do. Then in 12 months, when you start thinking about it, you may find out that you don't have the cash immediately available and end up paying the (usually very large) interest. It is possible to game this system to keep the \"\"free\"\" money in investments for the 12 months, as long as you are very careful to always follow the terms and dates. Because even one mishap can take away the small profits you could get for a 12 month investment of a few thousand dollars, it is rarely worth the effort.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "308f51e6fffb971b0f16420cd23e042f",
"text": "For this scheme to work, you would require an investment with no chance of a loss. Money market accounts and short-term t-bills are about your only options. The other thing is that you will need to be very careful to never miss the payment date. One month's late charges will probably wipe out a few months' profit. The only other caveat, which I'm sure you've considered, is that having your credit maxed out will hurt your credit score.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2c682ef5283bb51dbcdf86854fba99e8",
"text": "Yes, but note that some credit card companies let you create virtual cards--you can define how much money is on them and how long they last. If you're worried about a site you can use such a card to make the payment, then get rid of the virtual number so nobody can do dirty deeds with it. In practice, however, companies that do this are going to get stomped on hard by the credit card companies--other than outright scams it basically does not happen. (Hacking is another matter--just pick up the newspaper. It's not exactly unusual to read of hackers getting access to credit card information that they weren't supposed to have access to in the first place.) So long as you deal with a company that's been around for a while the risk is trivial.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c09a72c146bb06d09cf994f9b4017d45",
"text": "It is called trailing interest, and you can read about it [here](http://www.extracreditcards.com/trailing-interest/). edit: IIRC, the argument is that resulting total interest charges are lower for the customer calculating the interest this was as apposed to whatever the alternative is. The sneakiness is that you don't expect to owe another $1.50 on the next statement, neglect to remit the payment on it, and boom, late fee. I used to encourage my clients to overpay their account when trying to achieve a payoff.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b251bd183b378842ff6da7ed601a96b7",
"text": "\"In the US, if your monthly statement was issued by the credit card company on January 1 and it showed a balance of $1000, then a payment must be made towards that balance by January 25 or so, not February 1 as you say, to keep the card in good standing. The minimum payment required to keep the card in good standing is specified in your monthly statement, and failure to meet this requirement can trigger various consequences such as an increase in the interest rate charged by the credit card company. With regard to interest charges, whether your purchase of $2000 on January 3 is charged interest or not depends entirely on what happened the previous two months. If you had paid both your monthly statements dated November 1 and December 1 of the previous year in full by the their respective due dates of November 25 and December 25, and the $1000 balance on the January 1 statement is entirely due to purchases (no cash advances) made in December, then you will not be charged interest on your January purchase of $2000 as long as you pay it off in full by February 25 (the charge will appear on your February 1 statement). But, if you had not paid your December 1 statement in full by December 25, then that $1000 billed to you on January 1 will include purchases made during December finance charges on the unpaid balance from the previous month plus finance charges on the purchases made during December. The finance charges will continue to accumulate during January until such time as you pay off the bill in full (these charges will appear on your February 1 statement), hopefully by the due date of January 25. But even if you pay off that $1000 in full on January 25, your charge of $2000 on January 3 will start to accumulate finance charges as of the day it hits the account and these finance charges will appear on your February 1 statement. If you paid off that $1000 on January 10, say, then maybe there will be no further finance charges on the $2000 purchase on January 3 after January 10 but now we are getting into the real fine print of what your credit card agreement says. Ditto for the case when you pay off that $1000 on January 2 and made the $2000 charge on January 3. You most likely will not be charged interest on that $2000 charge but again it depends on the fine print. For example, it might say that you will be charged interest on the average of the daily balances for January, but will not be charged interest on purchases during the February cycle (unless you miss the February 25 payment and the whole cycle starts all over again). As a general rule, it takes two monthly cycles of payment in full by the due date before one gets into the state of no finance charges for new purchases and effectively an \"\"interest-free\"\" loan of $2000 from January 3 (date of purchase) till February 25 (due date of payment). Matters become more complicated when cash advances are taken from a credit card which are charged interest from the day they are taken but don't trigger finance charges on new purchases or the so-called \"\"zero percent balance transfer offers\"\" are accepted.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "00e5b6849aa3eb56d71d5a50da47a537",
"text": "\"Well, I answered a very similar question \"\"Credit card payment date\"\" where I showed that for a normal cycle, the average charge isn't due for 40 days. The range is 35-55, so if you want to feel good about the float just charge everything the day after the cycle closes, and nothing else the rest of the month. Why is this so interesting? It's no trick, and no secret. By the way, this isn't likely to be of any use when you're buying gas, groceries, or normal purchases. But, I suppose if you have a large purchase, say a big TV, $3000, this will buy you extra time to pay. It would be remiss of me to not clearly state that anyone who needs to take advantage of this \"\"trick\"\" is the same person who probably shouldn't use credit cards at all. Those who use cards are best served by charging what they can afford to pay at that moment and not base today's charges on what paychecks will come in by the due date of the credit card bill.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd8c7409b7e8aa91eec22d0b56fdad7b",
"text": "Each bank is different. Usually in my experience for newer credit card accounts, there is a specific number of days in a billing cycle (something like 28) and then a 20-25 day grace period. Older accounts usually have 30+ day billing cycles. Back in the 90's, many cards also had 30-40 day grace periods. The language specific to your card is in the card agreement.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "585f805eb52017a01668c8f337d46eb9",
"text": "Remember that if you make charges as the starting of your billing cycle, then you are receiving a free ~60-day loan. For those that are able to receive high interest rates on their, this means a greater opportunity to earn on their money. For example: Your billing statement ends on Jan 5th. On Jan 6th, you max out your credit card. Your billing statement ends on Feb 5th. Depending on your credit card, your grace period can be anywhere from 20 to 30 days. If your bill is due Mar 7th, you just gave yourself a free 60 day loan. If you have multiple credit cards with different due dates and long grace periods, you can rotate which cards you max out to optimize the money you keep in savings.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "334bff4f28f783af0492485b984f5c1e",
"text": "I'm in the US, and I can't speak for all credit cards, but I have done this in the past. I've paid extra on my credit card, and had a positive balance on my credit card account. The purchases made after paying extra were applied to the balance, and if there was money left over on the statement closing date, I didn't owe anything that month. Of course, I didn't incur any interest charges, but I never pay interest anyway, as I always pay my statement in full each month and never take a cash advance on my credit card. You could call your credit card company and ask them what will happen, or if you are feeling adventurous, you could just send them some extra money and see what happens. Most likely, they will just apply it to your account and give you a positive balance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2c5147bfa6a3aafee6dce338a7345b10",
"text": "How would you respond to these cases: Limited card options - If someone has a bad credit record the cards available may only be those with an annual fee. Not everyone will have your credit record and thus access to the cards you have. Some annual fees may be waived in some cases - Thus, someone may have a card with a fee that could be waived if enough transactions are done on the card. Thus, if someone gives enough business to the credit card company, they will waive the fee. On the point of the rewards, if the card is from a specific retailer, there could be a 10% discount for using that card and if the person purchases more than a couple thousand dollars' worth from that store this is a savings of $200 from the retail prices compared to what would happen in other cases that more than offsets the annual fee. If someone likes to be a handyman and visits Home Depot often there may be programs to give rewards in this case. Credit cards can be useful for doing on-line purchases, flight reservations, rental cars and a few other purchases that to with cash or debit can be difficult if not close to impossible. Some airline cards have a fee, but presumably the perks provide a benefit that outweigh that fee over the year. I'm thinking of the Citibank cards tied to American Airlines, first year free, then an $85 fee.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f923743d91c1fa030a1b035f61a77b3",
"text": "If you have a credit card with no interest free period, there is no drawback as you will be saving interest the sooner you pay it off. However, if you have a credit card with an interest free period, the drawback on paying it earlier than the due date (such as when you first get the statement) is that you lose out on interest. For the period between when you first recieve the statement to when it is due, you could have your money earning you interest in a high interest paying savings account. Depending on how much you spend on your credit card each month and the interest rate you get, this may add up to quite a bit of additional cash each year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4e18a3c6cbff373b8ab0f583250150a6",
"text": "A friend of mine has two credit cards. He has specifically arranged with the card issuers so that the billing cycles are 15 days out of sync. He uses whichever card has more recently ended its billing cycle, which gives him the longest possible time between purchase and the due date to avoid interest.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "17ce5593ba047d28569a420592ed0d29",
"text": "If the rate is the same, then clearing one card to zero does have one advantage: getting your grace period back. Generally when you owe money on your credit card, and you make a new purchase that new purchase get charged interest starting on day one. But if you are not carrying a balance, in other words you pay off the charges every month, then new purchases aren't charged until you fail to pay the balance by the due date. That grace period can be 25 to 55 days depending where you are in the billing cycle. Having one clean card will allow you to use that card when you have no other choice. Lets say you have an emergency car repair while away from home. You don't have $500 in cash so you put it on the clean card. When you get home you know that you can pay the bill and not have been charged interest.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cfee265d5f501a2248dd419c911656c1",
"text": "Many mutual funds include such mechanisms. However, the higher fees for those funds (when compared to simple index funds) may cancel out any improvement the hedging strategy offers.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
34033a0179ea5cfe3f88438eaba0c765
|
ISA - intra year profits and switching process
|
[
{
"docid": "46cc17c4ec1ccbf1b920fc7420ab3ade",
"text": "You're overthinking it. The ISA limit applies to the amount you invest into the ISA. In your example, £10,000. Whether that then fluctuates with performance is irrelevant. Even if you realise aprofit or a loss, nobody is watching it. You merely count the amount you originally contributed into the ISA wrapper. When they add up to £15,000; that's the limit reached. (And by the way, remember that only money going into the ISA is counted. It doesn't matter if you -let's say - put £15k in, then remove 10k. You've reached the limit. You don't again have the chance to put £10k 'back in'.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "21d0c3dcd64ed588f9aa8af50c2612a9",
"text": "An ISA is a much simpler thing than I suspect you think it is. It is a wrapper or envelope, and the point of it is that HMRC does not care what happens inside the envelope, or even about extractions of funds from the envelope; they only care about insertions of funds into the envelope. It is these insertions that are limited to £15k in a tax year; what happens to the funds once they're inside the envelope is your own business. Some diagrams: Initial investment of £10k. This is an insertion into the envelope and so counts against your £15k/tax year limit. +---------ISA-------+ ----- £10k ---------> | +-------------------+ So now you have this: +---------ISA-------+ | £10k of cash | +-------------------+ Buy fund: +---------ISA-------+ | £10k of ABC | +-------------------+ Fund appreciates. This happens inside the envelope; HMRC don't care: +---------ISA-------+ | £12k of ABC | +-------------------+ Sell fund. This happens inside the envelope; HMRC don't care: +---------ISA-------+ | £12k of cash | +-------------------+ Buy another fund. This happens inside the envelope; HMRC don't care: +---------ISA-----------------+ | £10k of JKL & £2k of cash | +-----------------------------+ Fund appreciates. This happens inside the envelope; HMRC don't care: +---------ISA-----------------+ | £11k of JKL & £2k of cash | +-----------------------------+ Sell fund. This happens inside the envelope; HMRC don't care: +---------ISA-------+ | £13k of cash | +-------------------+ Withdraw funds. This is an extraction from the envelope; HMRC don't care. +---------ISA-------+ <---- £13k --------- | +-------------------+ No capital gains liability, you don't even have to put this on your tax return (if applicable) - your £10k became £13k inside an ISA envelope, so HMRC don't care. Note however that for the rest of that tax year, the most you can insert into an ISA would now be £5k: +---------ISA-------+ ----- £5k ---------> | +-------------------+ even though the ISA is empty. This is because the limit is to the total inserted during the year.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "134a2b54f8d2ddefd07691afbcb16bc6",
"text": "The short answer is that you would want to use the net inflow or net outflow, aka profit or loss. In my experience, you've got a couple different uses for IRR and that may be driving the confusion. Pretty much the same formula, but just coming at it from different angles. Thinking about a stock or mutual fund investment, you could project a scenario with an up-front investment (net outflow) in the first period and then positive returns (dividends, then final sale proceeds, each a net inflow) in subsequent periods. This is a model that more closely follows some of the logic you laid out. Thinking about a business project or investment, you tend to see more complicated and less smooth cashflows. For example, you may have a large up-front capital expenditure in the first period, then have net profit (revenue less ongoing maintenance expense), then another large capital outlay, and so on. In both cases you would want to base your analysis on the net inflow or net outflow in each period. It just depends on the complexity of the cashflows trend as to whether you see a straightforward example (initial payment, then ongoing net inflows), or a less straightforward example with both inflows and outflows. One other thing to note - you would only want to include those costs that are applicable to the project. So you would not want to include the cost of overhead that would exist even if you did not undertake the project.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bfd048aed9cfca9f24089f2a9d05719b",
"text": "Not really. Transfer pricing determines where and at what level you should have profits and what level is considered arm's length. Profits are going to follow where the functions, risks and intangibles are borne under the current regulatory framework. Inverting allows a company to shift intangibles and risk to another country. You cannot just say I want 100% of my profits in Ireland and get away with it. You need to have economic support for why your profits are what they are in each of your jurisdictions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc1e558425d3536d26b4dd208926dff9",
"text": "You can't actually transfer shares directly unless they were obtained as part of an employee share scheme - see the answers to questions 19 and 20 on this page: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/isa/faqs.htm#19 Q. Can I put shares from my employee share scheme into my ISA? A. You can transfer any shares you get from into a stocks and shares component of an ISA without having to pay Capital Gains Tax - provided your ISA manager agrees to take them. The value of the shares at the date of transfer counts towards the annual limit. This means you can transfer up to £11,520 worth of shares in the tax year 2013-14 (assuming that you make no other subscriptions to ISAs, in those years). You must transfer the shares within 90 days from the day they cease to be subject to the Plan, or (for approved SAYE share option schemes) 90 days of the exercise of option date. Your employer should be able to tell you more. Q. Can I put windfall or inherited shares in my ISA? A. No. You can only transfer shares you own into an ISA if they have come from an employee share scheme. Otherwise, the ISA manager must purchase shares on the open market. The situation is the same if you have shares that you have inherited. You are not able to transfer them into an ISA.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed21990dc3ca608d772f72ebb24699df",
"text": "You're creating more liabilities for yourself in the future, although yes this could definitely be a profitable move for you. However, some small mistakes you made, from what I can see using the tools at Hargreaves Lansdown. The first, is that the government relief would only be 20%, not 60%. The second is that the tax relief goes directly into the SIPP, it's not something you get given back to you in cash. In order for this to be worthwhile, you need to be sure that you can make a post-tax gain of more than 3.4% on this money per year - which should be very feasible. It sounds like you have enough security that you could afford to take this risk.",
"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": "2e049953420e0a257e711543060774db",
"text": "HMRC calls it: Averaging for creators of literary or artistic works, and it is the averaging of your profits for 2 successive years. It's helpful in situations like you describe, where income can fluctuate wildly from year to year, the linked article has the full detail, but some of the requirements are: You can use averaging if: you’re self-employed or in a partnership, and the business started before 6 April 2014 and didn’t end in the 2015 to 2016 tax year your profits are wholly or mainly from literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works or from designs you or your business partner (if you’re in a partnership) created the works personally. Additionally: Check that your profit for the poorer year, minus any adjusted amounts, is less than 75% of the figure for your better year. If it is, you can use averaging. Then, check if the difference between your profits for the 2 years is more than 30% of your profit for the better year. If it is, work out the average by adding together the profits for the 2 years, and divide the total by 2.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fdcdb8062f86af0013426fabc52fdf48",
"text": "\"You understood it pretty right. Every fiscal year (which runs from April 6 year Y to April 5 year Y+1), you can deposit a total GBP15k (this number is subject to an annual increase by HMRC) into your ISAs. You can open 2 new ISA every year but the amount deposited to those ISAs shall not excess GBP15k in total. From the 2016/17 tax year some ISAs now permit you to replace any funds you have withdrawn, without using up your allowance. It used to be that if you deposited GBP15K and then withdrew GBP5K, you could not pay in to that ISA again within that tax year as you had already used your full allowance. Under new Flexible ISA rules this would be allowed providing you replace the funds in the same ISA account and within the same tax year (strongly recommend that you check the small prints related to your account to make sure this is he case). Any gains and losses on the investments held in the ISA accounts are for you to take. i.e. If you make investment gains of GBP5K this does not reduces your allowance. You will still be able to deposit GBP15k (or whatever HMRC increases that number to) in the following year. You are also allowed to consolidate your ISAs. You can ask bank A to transfer the amount held into an ISA with bank held with bank B. This is usually done by filling a special form with the bank that will held the money post transactions. Again here be very careful. DO NOT withdraw the money to transfer it yourself as this would count against the GBP15K limit. Instead follow the procedures from the bank. Finally if you don't use your allowance for a given year, you cannot use it during the following year. i.e. if you don't deposit the GBP15K this year, then you cannot deposit GBP30K next year. NB: I used the word \"\"deposit\"\". It does not matter to HMRC if the money get invested or not. If you are in a rush on April 4th, just make sure the money is wired into the ISA account by the 5th. No need to rush and make bad investment decision. You can invest it later. Hope it helps\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d21c1340705ac92ff3ff9454d231cd7d",
"text": "Speaking from stock market point of view, superficially, TA is similarly applicable to day trading, short term, medium term and long term. You may use different indicators in FX compared to the stock market, but I would expect they are largely the same types of things - direction indicators, momentum indicators, spread indicators, divergence indicators. The key thing with TA or even when trading anything, is that when you have developed a system, that you back test it, to prove that it will work in bear, bull and stagnant markets. I have simple systems that are fine in strong bull markets but really poor in stagnant markets. Also have a trading plan. Know when you are going to exit and enter your trades, what criteria and what position size. Understand how much you are risking on each trade and actively manage your risk. I urge caution over your statement ... one weakened by parting the political union but ought to bounce back ... We (my UK based IT business) have already lost two potential clients due to Brexit. These companies are in FinServ and have no idea of what is going to happen, so I would respectfully suggest that you may have less knowledge than professionals, who deal in currency and property ... but one premise of TA is that you let the chart tell you what is happening. In any case trade well, and with a plan!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d5610e1b3aabcd6667baa0f09dbb5830",
"text": "Income and Capital are taxed separately in the uk. You probably can't get dividends paid gross even in ISA's you pay the basic rate of tax on dividends only higher rate tax payers get tax benefit from dividends. What you could do is invest in splits (Spilt capital investment trusts ) in the share class where all the return comes as capital and use up some of your yearly CGT allowance that way.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3200217e7939b7c9eb0a82e4a1124feb",
"text": "Here is the technical guidance from the accounting standard FRS 23 (IAS 21) 'The Effects of Changes in Foreign Exchange Rates' which states: Exchange differences arising on the settlement of monetary items or on translating monetary items at rates different from those at which they were translated on initial recognition during the period or in previous financial statements shall be recognised in profit or loss in the period in which they arise. An example: You agree to sell a product for $100 to a customer at a certain date. You would record the sale of this product on that date at $100, converted at the current FX rate (lets say £1:$1 for ease) in your profit loss account as £100. The customer then pays you several $100 days later, at which point the FX rate has fallen to £0.5:$1 and you only receive £50. You would then have a realised loss of £50 due to exchange differences, and this is charged to your profit and loss account as a cost. Due to double entry bookkeeping the profit/loss on the FX difference is needed to balance the journals of the transaction. I think there is a little confusion as to what constitutes a (realised) profit/loss on exchange difference. In the example in your question, you are not making any loss when you convert the bitcoins to dollars, as there is no difference in the exchange rate between the point you convert them. Therefore you have not made either a profit or a loss. In terms of how this effects your tax position; you only pay tax on your profit and loss account. The example I give above is an instance where an exchange difference is recorded to the P&L. In your example, the value of your cash held is reflected in your balance sheet, as an asset, whatever its value is at the balance sheet date. Unfortunately, the value of the asset can rise/fall, but the only time where you will record a profit/loss on this (and therefore have an impact on tax) is if you sell the asset.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0bfbb3a0f9d2ac58c9bb99f9390209f7",
"text": "\"Long term: Assuming you sold stock ABC through a registered stock exchange, e.g., the Bombay Stock Exchange or the National Stock Exchange of India, and you paid the Securities Transaction Tax (STT), you don't owe any other taxes on the long term capital gain of INR 100. If you buy stock BCD afterwards, this doesn't affect the long term capital gains from the sale of stock ABC. Short term: If you sell the BCD stock (or the ABC stock, or some combination therein) within one year of its purchase, you're required to pay short term capital gains on the net profit, in which case you pay the STT and the exchange fees and an additional flat rate of 15%. The Income Tax Department of India has a publication titled \"\"How to Compute your Capital Gains,\"\" which goes into more detail about a variety of relevant situations.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "73970c7fa19bea8eea826186c9628dc2",
"text": "Making or losing income (via selling shares) is the taxable event, not moving the income you made to and from an account. The only exception would be a special account such as an IRA, and then there would be rules specific to that account structure about when you can withdraw money and what the tax consequences are.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dfd8a1a50537d16df5f1e082ddfefc2d",
"text": "I'm answering in a perspective of an End-User within the United Kingdom. Most stockbrokers won't provide Real-time information without 'Level 2' access, however this comes free for most who trade over a certain threshold. If you're like me, who trade within their ISA Holding each year, you need to look elsewhere. I personally use IG.com. They've recently began a stockbroking service, whereas this comes with realtime information etc with a paid account without any 'threshold'. Additionally, you may want to look into CFDs/Spreadbets as these, won't include the heavy 'fees' and tax liabilities that trading with stocks may bring.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a2d54102c2d480f7adc795284fb66e01",
"text": "So if someone would invest 14000 credits on 1st April 2016, he'd get monthly dividend = ((14000 ÷ 14) × 0.0451) × (1 - 1.42 ÷ 100) = 44.459 credits, right? One would get ((14000 ÷ 14) × 0.0451) = 45.1 is what you would get. The expenses are not to be factored. Generally if a scheme has less expense ratio, the yield is more. i.e. this has already got factored in 0.0451. If the expense ratio was less, this would have been 0.05 if expense ration would have been more it would have been 0.040. Can I then consider the bank deposit earning a higher income per month than the mutual fund scheme? As the MIP as classified as Hybrid funds as they invest around 30% in equities, there is no tax on the income. More so if there is a lock-in of 3 years. In Bank FD, there would be tax applicable as per tax brackets.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e1edf407c3b96a5274a68e07beae9b48",
"text": "If you mean the internal rate of return, then the quarterly rate of return which would make the net present value of these cash flows to be zero is 8.0535% (found by goal seek in Excel), or an equivalent compound annual rate of 36.3186% p.a. The net present value of the cash flows is: 10,000 + 4,000/(1+r) - 2,000/(1+r)^2 - 15,125/(1+r)^3, where r is the quarterly rate. If instead you mean Modified Dietz return, then the net gain over the period is: End value - start value - net flow = 15,125 - 10,000 - (4,000 - 2,000) = 3,125 The weighted average capital invested over the period is: 1 x 10,000 + 2/3 x 4,000 - 1/3 x 2,000 = 12,000 so the Modified Dietz return is 3,125 / 12,000 = 26.0417%, or 1.260417^(1/3)-1 = 8.0201% per quarter, or an equivalent compound annual rate of 1.260417^(4/3)-1 = 36.1504%. You are using an inappropriate formula, because we know for a fact that the flows take place at the beginning/end of the period. Instead, you should be combining the returns for the quarters (which have in fact been provided in the question). To calculate this, first calculate the growth factor over each quarter, then link them geometrically to get the overall growth factor. Subtracting 1 gives you the overall return for the 3-quarter period. Then convert the result to a quarterly rate of return. Growth factor in 2012 Q4 is 11,000/10,000 = 1.1 Growth factor in 2013 Q1 is 15,750/15,000 = 1.05 Growth factor in 2013 Q2 is 15,125/13,750 = 1.1 Overall growth factor is 1.1 x 1.05 x 1.1 = 1.2705 Return for the whole period is 27.05% Quarterly rate of return is 1.2705^(1/3)-1 = 8.3074% Equivalent annual rate of return is 1.2705^(4/3)-1 = 37.6046% ========= I'd recommend you to refer to Wikipedia.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
39f806f40f2fe8c5c1e95e9da1aebb07
|
How to manage household finances (income & expenses) [duplicate]
|
[
{
"docid": "390a360d0bb3922167f3e81f7d5d6c75",
"text": "\"My wife and I have close to equal incomes, and are not young. What we have is this: Some people would classify our system as a bit draconian as we each have \"\"allowance\"\"; however, it makes sure spending does not get out of wack and we work together to meet our goals.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f320b7a4dd6e73f41791713408ae9961",
"text": "Obviously, there are many approaches. I’ll describe what we do and why we think it is successful. I have seen many couples having disagreements and even divorce over money; it seems that this is a typical reason to fight and sometimes fight badly. The realization is that different people have different preferences what to spend their money on, and if you are not rich, it continuously leads to disagreements - ‘did you really need another pair of shoes?’, etc. Our solution is a weekly allowance. First, all our money goes into one pot and is considered equal. Many couples find that a difficult step, but I never thought twice about it - I trust my spouse, and I share my life with her, so why not my money? From this, we agree on an ‘allowance’ that is used to cover any non-common cost; this includes all clothing, dining out, buying things, etc. The amount was chosen to match about what we spent for those things anyway, and then adjusted annually. The main point is that there is no critique allowed about what this is spent on - you can blow it all on shoes, or buy books, or wine and dine, or gamble it away, whatever. We are doing this since 23 years now, and we are very happy with the results; we never have financial ‘fights’ anymore. Disadvantages are the effort - you need to keep track of it somehow. Either you use a separate credit card, or hand it out in cash, or have a complete accounting (I do the latter, because I want to). Regarding all other spend, we use the accounting to plan ahead for at least a year on all cost and income that are expected, and that shows us the available cash flow and where it might get tight. It also shows you where the money goes, and where you could cut if cutting is needed (or wanted). Again, there is some effort in collecting the data, but it is worth it (for us).",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "b17769ae176dec951f352f9edcad1a0c",
"text": "\"According to your numbers, you just stated that you spend approximately $1500 in discretionary expenditures per month, yet are unable to save. I fully realize that living in a big city is usually expensive, but on your (presumably after-tax) salary, I think you can easily save a substantial portion of your income. As others have already noted, enforcing saving of a significant portion of your discretionary income is the most obvious step. It's easy to say, but I suspect that if you are like most people who have difficulty saving, the psychological impact of quitting your previous spending habits \"\"cold turkey\"\" is likely to be very harsh, all the more so if you have an active social life. You may find yourself becoming depressed or resentful at \"\"having\"\" to save. You may lose motivation to work as hard because you might think that you're putting away all this money for the distant future, whereas you are young now and want to enjoy life while you can. It is in this context, then, that I looked at your other financial obligations. Paying $1300/month to your parents is a lot. It's over 20% of your after-tax salary. You do not specify the reasons for doing this other than a vague sense of familial duty, but my recommendation is to see if this could be reduced somewhat. If you can bring it down to $1000/month, that $300 would go into your savings, and you would psychologically feel a lot better about putting, say, $600 of your own discretionary income into savings as well. Now you have, all told, about $1000/month of savings without severely curtailing your extra expenditures. But I would start with that $1500/month of luxury spending first. And yes, you do need to view it as luxury spending. The proper frame of mind is to compare your financial situation to someone who is truly unable to save because their entire income is spent on actual necessities: food and shelter; their effective tax rate is 0% because they earn too little; and they usually find themselves in debt because they cannot make ends meet. Now look back at that $1500/month. Can you honestly say that you cannot afford to cut that spending?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8422693db687a36bf9cb06ee289c6cec",
"text": "I don't think you need double-entry bookkeeping. To quote Robert Kiyosaki (roughly): Income is when money enters you pocket, and expenses are when money leaves your pocket. Income is an addition; expenses are subtractions. But if you want double-entry accounting, I'm not qualified to answer that. :)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f4799662e6609d40e0197bf2d5d1714",
"text": "Other than the two answers (both of which recommend waiting until marriage to actually combine finances, and which I agree with), there's the general question: how does a couple choose to manage finances? In our marriage, it's me. I'm more numbers-minded than my spousal-unit. I'm also more a sticker for time. I work and spousal-unit does not. We had some good friends -- upon marriage, spouse1 felt like he should take on the role. He went on a several-week trip (leaving spouse2 at home), and upon returning home asked spouse2 about the late fees. Spouse2 was appalled. Spouse2 ended up keeping the job of managing household finances. There's enough pieces to the puzzle that it can be divided any way you choose -- any way that works for you and your spouse/virtual-spouse. One other point: talk about how to manage your money, before you marry. Dave Ramsey recommends a strict monthly budget. I like listening to Dave Ramsey, but we've never had a budget. Instead, we agreed during marriage counseling two things:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0a6ec7acfcc016deaeedb5070d157e0a",
"text": "I won't answer in a detailed manner because most people at this site like answers with certain bias' on these questions, like pool resources always relative to which partner is asking. If you follow the above advice, you are hoping things work out. Great! What if they don't? It will be very messy. Unlike most of my peers, I did NOT follow the above advice and had a very clean exit with both of us feeling very good (and no lawyers got involved either; win-win for both of us with all the money we saved). One assumption people make is the person with the lowest income has the strictest limits. This is not always true; I grew up in poverty, but have a very high income and detest financial waste. I can live on about €12,000 a year and even though my partner made a little less, my partner liked to spend. Counter intuitive, right? I was supposed to be the spender because I had a large income, but I wasn't. Also, think about an example with food - sharing expenses. Is it fair for one partner to split whey protein if one partner consumes it, but the other doesn't (answer: in my view, no)? My advice based on your questions: Balance the frugal vs. spendthrift mentality rather than income ratios. If you're both frugal, then focus on income ratios - but one may be more frugal than the other and the thought of spending €300 a month on housing is just insane to a person like me, whereas to most it's too little. Are you both exactly the same with this mentality - and be honest? Common costs that you both agree on can be easily split 50-50 and you can often benefit from economies of scale (like internet, cell phone). Both of us feel very strongly about being financially independent and if possible we both don't want to take money from each other. This is so healthy for a relationship. My partner and I split and we both still really love each other. We're headed in different directions, but we did not want to end bitterly. What you wrote is part of why we ended so well; we both were very independent financially. Kids are going to be a challenge because they come with expenses that partners don't always agree on. What do you and her think of childcare, for instance? You really want to know all this upfront; again a frugal vs. spendthrift mindset could cause some big tensions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6719cd28cc9b851df3d1bdebb5deddb2",
"text": "\"My own personal point of view. I earn about twice what my wife to be earns. We are planning on getting married next year. I ultimately do all the finances (basically because she hates that kind of thing) not because I'm in charge or whatever. To work out how we do this I wrote a spreadsheet: At the top it has my monthly pay in one column and her's in another. I add all our bills (against me initally). At the bottom I have a total of both of our \"\"spending money\"\". Spending money is wage - bills - savings I then move money out of my column into her column. My goal is that we pay all the bills and save a decent amount and have roughly the same amount to spend each month. So each persons spending money should be roughly equal. I then fine tune this as things change (if we get a pay rise we alter it, if a bill goes up or down we alter it) To manage this we have 4 accounts, a joint account to pay bills (both give a set amount to each mont), a savings acount (both give a set amount to each month) and our own accounts (where we get paid and where our spending money lives). Like everyone else says, this seems fair to me. I don't earn more, we both earn \"\"an amount\"\" and this should be split equally.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "904291c8790bd890b5644dd82a6e17d8",
"text": "Your problem is one that has challenged many people. As you said there are two aspects to balancing a budget, reducing expenses or increasing income. And you state that you have done all the cost-cutting that you can find. Looking at ways to increase your income is a good way to balance your budget. How big is your problem? Do you need to find another $100/month, or do you need $1000/month? There are many part-time jobs you could obtain (fast food, retail, grocery), you could obtain a sales-job (cars, real estate, even working for a recruiting firm) where you could connect buyers and sellers. If your need is $100/month, a part-time job on weekends would fill the gap. When I was trying to solve my budget problems a few years ago, I thought that I needed to increase my income. And I did increase my income. But then I realized that my expenses were too high. And I re-evaluated my priorities. I challenge you to revisit your expenses. Often we assume that we need things that we really cannot afford. Consider a few of your (possible) expenses, My problems included mortgage debt, auto loans, high utilities, high car insurance, too much spending on kids activities, and a few other problems.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e754092dce0e9259fb1f7f794e7fea88",
"text": "\"Another way to look at budgeting: give yourself an explicit \"\"allowance\"\" -- possibly in a separate account -- and if something isn't a clear necessity it must be paid for out of your allowance, saving up first if necessary. You can get those concert tickets, but only if you cut down on expensive meals and toys and other entertainment for a while. You can have anything you want, but not everything and not immediately unless you learn to maintain an adequate balance in this account.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fad2f2893d5c2be6029ac8d3af9dc96a",
"text": "For any android device you can try: Daily Expense Manager - to track your expenses and a host of other apps to suit your specific needs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f58f8afc6afbfa9998c18fedb9aa1367",
"text": "I agree with Option 3 from the accepted answer (His/Hers/Joint), but with one caveat (that my wife and I are finding out). Once you have children, if your income is in the mid-range where you are not paycheck to paycheck, but are not floating in excess money either (ie, you can have a vacation, but you have to plan for it and save up for a few months to do so), the child-relative expenses begin to be a huge factor in your overall budget, such that (particularly if one partner does more of the child-related buying) it can be hard to really keep up the 3 account separation, because those child-related expenses may end up being all of one earner's paycheck. We originally did the 3 way split, where we took rent, car, and utilities from joint (ie, each transferred a reasonable portion to the joint account to cover), and just bought groceries each occasionally such that it was generally a reasonable split (as we both shopped for groceries and both earned close enough to each other that it worked out). But once we had kids, it ended up being very different, and we eventually had to more properly budget all of our funds as if they were basically joint funds. While we still do have separate accounts (and, largely, separate credit cards/etc., except for one joint card), it's almost pro forma now due to the kids.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f7c21c567f8858dae9181f8fb9ab5db7",
"text": "My wife and I do this. We have one account for income and one for expenditures (and around 7 others for dedicated savings.) Doing this we are forcing ourselves to keep track of all expenditures as we have to manually transfer funds from one to the other, we try to do this periodically (every Wednesday) and then keep the expenditures within what is actually on the account. It is a really good way to keep track of everything. Bear in mind that our bank provides a fast handy smartphone app where we both can check our account as well as transfer funds in less than 10 seconds. (Fingerprint authentication, instant funds transfer as well as zero fees for transfers.) Right now we have a credit card each attached to the expenditures account, but earlier we only had a debit card each and no credit cards. Meaning that when the weekly funds ran out we where simply not able to pay. We did this to mimic living only on cash and when the cash runs out you simply have to stop buying stuff. And at the same time we could accrue quite a bit of savings. I would definitely recommend this if you have problems with over expenditures.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a6fed25c052bb6f17e2cefe0c453afae",
"text": "\"Make a list of all your expenses. I use an Excel spreadsheet but you can do it on the back of a napkin if you prefer. List fixed expenses, like rent, loan payments, insurance, etc. I include giving to church and charity as fixed expenses, but of course that's up to you. List regular but not fixed expenses, like food, heat and electricity, gas, etc. Come up with reasonable average or typical values for these. Keep records for at least a few months so you're not just guessing. (Though remember that some will vary with the season: presumably you spend a lot more on heat in the winter than in the summer, etc.) You should budget to put something into savings and retirement. If you're young and just starting out, it's easy to decide to postpone retirement savings. But the sooner you start, the more the money will add up. Even if you can't put away a lot, try to put away SOMETHING. And if you budget for it, you should just get used to not having this money to play with. Then total all this up and compare to your income. If the total is more than your income, you have a problem! You need to find a way to cut some expenses. I won't go any further with that thought -- that's another subject. Hopefully you have some money left over after paying all the regular expenses. That's what you have to play with for entertainment and other non-essentials. Make a schedule for paying your bills. I get paid twice a month, and so I pay most of my bills when I get a paycheck. I have some bills that I allocate to the first check of the month and some to the second, for others, whatever bills came in since my last check, I pay with the current check. I have it arranged so each check is big enough to pay all the bills that come from that check. If you can't do that, if you'll have a surplus from one check and a shortage from the next, then be sure to put money aside from the surplus check to cover the bills you'll pay at the next pay period. Always pay your bills before you spend money on entertainment. Always have a plan to pay your bills. Don't say, \"\"oh, I'll come up with the money somehow\"\". If you have debt -- student loans, car loans, etc -- have a plan to pay it off. One of the most common traps people fall into is saying, \"\"I really need to get out of debt. And I'm going to start paying off my debt. Next month, because this month I really want to buy this way cool toy.\"\" They put off getting out of debt until they have frittered away huge amounts of money on interest. Or worse, they keep accumulating new debt until they can't even pay the interest.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "84fc8436480e8a494420b0c68ea08c25",
"text": "\"I think you misunderstand the purpose of the liability account. I would suggest you review the standard accounting model, but to give you a brief overview: Income and expenses are money coming into and out of your possession. They are the pipes flowing into and out of your \"\"box\"\". Inside your box, you have assets (bank, savings, cash, etc) and liabilities (credit cards, unpaid debts, etc). Money can flow into and out of either asset or liability accounts, for example: deposit a payment (income to asset), buy office supplies with cash (asset to expense), pay a bill with credit card (liability to expense), customer pays one of your debts directly (income to liability). Paying off a debt with an asset does not affect your overall net worth, so paying a check to your credit card bill (asset to liability) doesn't decrease your total balance, it merely moves the value from one bucket to another. Now to your question: Mandatory payments, such as taxes or insurance (or for that matter, utilities, rent, food- all things that \"\"must\"\" be bought occasionally) are not liabilities, instead they are all expenses. They might be paid FROM a liability account, if they are paid on credit for example, but the money still flows from liability to expense. In my own records I have Expense:Taxes and Expense:Insurance, with sub-accounts in each. Where the money comes from depends entirely on how I pay my bills, whether from cash or banks (asset) or whether it's a charge (liability). Sometimes you receive payments back from an insurance company. I find that rather than treating insurance premiums as a positive balance in a liability (with eventual payments as debits to the liability account), it is better to treat any payment from the insurance as income. Hope that helps!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a3ac3834ecfdcdd0f6bcca73ae4e4620",
"text": "First: great job on getting it together. This is good for your family in any respect I can think of. This is a life long process and skill, but it will pay off for you and yours if you work on it. Your problem is that you don't seem to know where you money goes. You can't decide how whacky your expenses are until you know what they are. Looking at just your committed expenses and ignore the other stuff might be the problem here. You state that you feel you live modestly, but you need to be able to measure it completely to decide. I would suggest an online tool like mint.com (if you can get it in your country) because it will go back for 90 days and get transactions for you. If you primarily work in cash, this isn't helpful, but based on your credit card debt I am hoping not. (Although, a cash lifestyle would be good if you tend to overspend.) Take the time and sort your transactions into categories. Don't setup a budget, just sort them out. I like to limit the number of categories for clarity sake, especially to start. Don't get too crazy, and don't get too detailed at first. If you buy a magazine at the grocery store, just call it groceries. Once you know what you spend, then you can setup a budget for the categories. If somethings are important, create new categories. If one category is a problem, then break it down and find the specific issue. The key is that you budget not be more than you earn but also representative of what you spend. Follow up with mint every other day or every weekend so the categorization is a quick and easy process. Put it on your iPhone and do it at every lunch break. Share the information with your spouse and talk about it often.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c2f1af82ec34f7a5bba61ccb8a7d35d8",
"text": "I concur with pretty much what everyone else said. Let me break it down in a concrete plan of action. First, though, note that at least the minimum payments for the credit cards needs to be on this list of fixed expenses. Also, you have $868 remaining in a normal month -- food could be $500 or more easily for a family, so find out how much! Adding in just those 2 things, and you're already at your max. And there are other expenses in life. Ok, cutting from the top: DirectTv -- gone. Pure luxury, and between netflix, hulu and your internet connection (hook your computer to the tv), there's no need for it. $80 savings. Cell phones -- you're already moving in the right direction, but not far enough. In a financial crunch why does your stay-at-home wife have a cell? Especially when she could just as easily use Google Voice for free? Both plans gone, replaced by one of the prepaids @$45. $105 savings, total $186 savings. 529 plans -- Of course you want to save for your kids college, but it doesn't help them for you to drown financially. Gone until your credit card debit is too. $50 savings, $236 total. Ok, we're already up to $236/month in savings just cutting items you don't need. That probably gets you back into the black, but why stop there? Trimming expenses Electric -- ok, I know it's summer, but can you cut this back? Is the thermostat set as high as you can comfortably bear? Are you diligent in turning of lights, especially incandescent? Do you turn off your computer when you're not using it? See if you can get the Electric down by 10%. That's $20/month savings. Doesn't seem like much, but it adds up. Gas -- same with gas. Do you have gas hot water? If so, cut shower length. Saves on water too. Food -- this one you didn't list. But as I said, you could be spending $500 or $600 a month easily for a family. Do you guys plan meals, and thus plan shopping trips? If not, do it. You'll be surprised how much you can save. Either way, 10% reduction should be doable. That's $50/month. If you don't plan now, 20% is within reach -- that's $100/month. Ok, that may have added as much as $130 or so. If so, you're now up to $366/month savings. That's like a 15% raise. Simply cutting, however, is only half the plan. You want to improve your situation, so you can get the Directtv back (assuming you'll even want it at that point), and the wife's cell phone, for starters. To do that, you've got to nail down that debt. I figure you've got minimum $567.23/month in debt payments. That's not including your mortgage, and including an assumed $80/month minimum credit card payments. You pay over 21% of your take-home to short term and consumer debt! Yea, that's why you're hurting. Here's what you do In both cases, apply the extra payments entirely to one balance at a time. Pick either the smallest balance (psychologically best because you quickly see a loan & it's payment dissappear), or the highest interest (mathematically the best). Roll each regular payment that's paid off into the extra debt payments. You didn't list total debt balances, but you did say you had $4000 in credit card debt. Applying an extra $250/month to debt (out of that $366 savings), plus two extra paychecks of $1300 each, is $5600/year paid off. In under a year, you could have those credit cards paid off, and likely that window loan too. Start the 529s again, but keep going paying down the rest. When you have the car paid off, bring back the wife's cell (you and I both know that's going to be #1 on the list :) ), then finish off those student loans. Then bask in the extra $567/month - 21% of your income - you'll have in sweet, sweet green cash!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2fc79b65310eb6cba590a08089bf4016",
"text": "Try the Envelope Budgeting System. It is a pretty good system for managing your discretionary outflows. Also, be sure to pay yourself first. That means treat savings like an expense (mortgage, utilities, etc.) not an account you put money in when you have some left over. The problem is you NEVER seem to have anything leftover because most people's lifestyle adjusts to fit their income. The best way to do this is have the money automatically drafted each month without any action required on your part. An employer sponsored 401K is a great way to do this.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
159c328c3a575f4d11c6c05135ae6d52
|
If a stock doesn't pay dividends, then why is the stock worth anything?
|
[
{
"docid": "cfc47ffc8876a35795d33d3b1eec2905",
"text": "It's important to remember what a share is. It's a tiny portion of ownership of a company. Let's pretend we're talking about shares in a manufacturing company. The company has one million shares on its register. You own one thousand of them. That means that you own 1/1000th of the company. These shares are valued by the market at $10 per share. The company has machinery and land worth $1M. That means that for every dollar of the company you own, 10c of that value is backed by the physical assets of the company. If the company closed shop tomorrow, you could, in theory at least, get $1 back per share. The other $9 of the share value is value based on speculation about the future and current ability of the company to grow and earn income. The company is using its $1M in assets and land to produce goods which cost the company $1M in ongoing costs (wages, marketing, raw cost of goods etc...) to produce and make $2M per year in sales. That means the company is making a profit of $1M per annum (let's assume for the sake of simplicity that this profit is after tax). Now what can the company do with its $1M profit? It can hand it out to the owners of the company (which means you would get a $1 dividend each year for each share that you own) or it can re-invest that money into additional equipment, product lines or something which will grow the business. The dividend would be nice, but if the owners bought $500k worth of new machinery and land and spent another $500k on ongoing costs and next year we would end up with a profit of $1.5M. So in ten years time, if the company paid out everything in dividends, you would have doubled your money, but they would have machines which are ten years older and would not have grown in value for that entire time. However, if they reinvested their profits, the compounding growth will have resulted in a company many times larger than it started. Eventually in practice there is a limit to the growth of most companies and it is at this limit where dividends should be being paid out. But in most cases you don't want a company to pay a dividend. Remember that dividends are taxed, meaning that the government eats into your profits today instead of in the distant future where your money will have grown much higher. Dividends are bad for long term growth, despite the rather nice feeling they give when they hit your bank account (this is a simplification but is generally true). TL;DR - A company that holds and reinvests its profits can become larger and grow faster making more profit in the future to eventually pay out. Do you want a $1 dividend every year for the next 10 years or do you want a $10 dividend in 5 years time instead?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9842075b4cdeb667729dec1ebc42f941",
"text": "Stephen's answer is the 100% correct one made with the common Economics assumption, that people are rational. A company that never has paid dividends, is still worth something to people because of its potential to start paying dividends later and it is often better to grow now and payoff later. However, the actual answer is much more disapointing, because people are not rational and the stock market is no longer about investing in companies or earning dividends. Most of the value of a stock is for the same reason that gold, stamps, coins and bitcoins, and Australian houses are worth anything, that is, because enough people say it is worth something*. Even stocks that pay dividends, very few people buy it for dividends. They buy it because they believe someone else will be willing to buy it for slightly more, shortly after. Different traders have different timeframes, ranging from seconds to months. *Houses and stock are of course partially valuable due to the fundamentals, but the major reason they are purchased is just to resell at a profit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "597ca1be1e42819544c011da5e3bc91e",
"text": "It seems to me that your main question here is about why a stock is worth anything at all, why it has any intrinsic value, and that the only way you could imagine a stock having value is if it pays a dividend, as though that's what you're buying in that case. Others have answered why a company may or may not pay a dividend, but I think glossed over the central question. A stock has value because it is ownership of a piece of the company. The company itself has value, in the form of: You get the idea. A company's value is based on things it owns or things that can be monetized. By extension, a share is a piece of all that. Some of these things don't have clear cut values, and this can result in differing opinions on what a company is worth. Share price also varies for many other reasons that are covered by other answers, but there is (almost) always some intrinsic value to a stock because part of its value represents real assets.",
"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": "1fc75f7221b7f6989bcfc65a0566b4e9",
"text": "\"If so, then if company A never pays dividends to its shareholders, then what is the point of owning company A's stock? The stock itself can go up in price. This is not necessarily pure speculation either, the company could just reinvest the profits and grow. Since you own part of a company, your share would also increase in value. The company could also decide to start paying dividend. I think one rule of thumb is that growing companies won't pay out, since they reinvest all profit to grow even more, but very large companies like McDonalds or Microsoft who don't really have much room left to grow will pay dividends more. Surely the right to one vote for company A's Board can't be that valuable. Actually, Google for instance neither pays dividend nor do you get to vote. Basically all you get for your money is partial ownership of the company. This still gives you the right to seize Google assets if you go bankrupt, if there's any asset left once the creditors are done (credit gets priority over equity). What is it that I'm missing? What you are missing is that the entire concept of the dividend is an illusion. There's little qualitative difference between a stock that pays dividend, and a stock that doesn't. If you were going to buy the stock, then hold it forever and collect dividend, you could get the same thing with a dividend-less stock by simply waiting for it to gain say 5% value, then sell 4.76% of your stock and call the cash your dividend. \"\"But wait,\"\" you say, \"\"that's not the same - my net worth has decreased!\"\" Guess what, stocks that do pay dividend usually do drop in value right after the pay out, and they drop by about the relative value of the dividend as well. Likewise, you could take a stock that does pay dividend, and make it look exactly like a non-paying stock by simply taking every dividend you get and buying more of the same stock with it. So from this simplistic point of view, it is irrelevant whether the stock itself pays dividend or not. There is always the same decision of whether to cut the goose or let it lay a few more eggs that every shareholder has to make it. Paying a dividend is essentially providing a different default choice, but makes little difference with regards to your choices. There is however more to it than simple return on investment arithmetic: As I said, the alternative to paying dividend is reinvesting profits back into the enterprise. If the company decided to pay out dividend, that means they think all the best investing is done, and they don't really have a particularly good idea for what to do with the extra money. Conversely, not paying is like management telling the shareholders, \"\"no we're not done, we're still building our business!\"\". So it can be a way of judging whether the company is concentrating on generating profit or growing itself. Needless to say the, the market is wild and unpredictable and not everyone obeys such assumptions. Furthermore, as I said, you can effectively overrule the decision by increasing or decreasing your position, regardless of whether they have decided to pay dividend to begin with. Lastly, there may be some subtle differences with regards to things like how the income is taxed and so on. These don't really have much to do with the market itself, but the bureaucracy tacked onto the market.\"",
"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": "34bbcb90aefee6b1b90f85ab10a1b6d5",
"text": "While there are many very good and detailed answers to this question, there is one key term from finance that none of them used and that is Net Present Value. While this is a term generally associate with debt and assets, it also can be applied to the valuation models of a company's share price. The price of the share of a stock in a company represents the Net Present Value of all future cash flows of that company divided by the total number of shares outstanding. This is also the reason behind why the payment of dividends will cause the share price valuation to be less than its valuation if the company did not pay a dividend. That/those future outflows are factored into the NPV calculation, actually performed or implied, and results in a current valuation that is less than it would have been had that capital been retained. Unlike with a fixed income security, or even a variable rate debenture, it is difficult to predict what the future cashflows of a company will be, and how investors chose to value things as intangible as brand recognition, market penetration, and executive competence are often far more subjective that using 10 year libor rates to plug into a present value calculation for a floating rate bond of similar tenor. Opinion enters into the calculus and this is why you end up having a greater degree of price variance than you see in the fixed income markets. You have had situations where companies such as Amazon.com, Google, and Facebook had highly valued shares before they they ever posted a profit. That is because the analysis of the value of their intellectual properties or business models would, overtime provide a future value that was equivalent to their stock price at that time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ca1c1d902376642b2036114196a52f8",
"text": "Imagine that a company never distributes any of its profits to its shareholders. The company might invest these profits in the business to grow future profits or it might just keep the money in the bank. Either way, the company is growing in value. But how does that help you as a small investor? If the share price never went up then the market value would become tiny compared to the actual value of the company. At some point another company would see this and put a bid in for the whole company. The shareholders wouldn't sell their shares if the bid didn't reflect the true value of the company. This would mean that your shares would suddenly become much more valuable. So, the reason why the share price goes up over time is to represent the perceived value of the company. As this could be realised either by the distribution of dividends (or a return of capital) to shareholders, or by a bidder buying the whole company, the shares are actually worth something to someone in the market. So the share price will tend to track the value of the company even if dividends are never paid. In the short term a share price reflects sentiment, but over the long term it will tend to track the value of the company as measured by its profitability.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8251000cc2c3e8b95abfb04205e6fcc7",
"text": "\"The answer is Discounted Cash Flows. Companies that don't pay dividends are, ostensibly reinvesting their cash at returns higher than shareholders could obtain elsewhere. They are reinvesting in productive capacity with the aim of using this greater productive capacity to generate even more cash in the future. This isn't just true for companies, but for almost any cash-generating project. With a project you can purchase some type of productive assets, you may perform some kind of transformation on the good (or not), with the intent of selling a product, service, or in fact the productive mechanism you have built, this productive mechanism is typically called a \"\"company\"\". What is the value of such a productive mechanism? Yes, it's capacity to continue producing cash into the future. Under literally any scenario, discounted cash flow is how cash flows at distinct intervals are valued. A company that does not pay dividends now is capable of paying them in the future. Berkshire Hathaway does not pay a dividend currently, but it's cash flows have been reinvested over the years such that it's current cash paying capacity has multiplied many thousands of times over the decades. This is why companies that have never paid dividends trade at higher prices. Microsoft did not pay dividends for many years because the cash was better used developing the company to pay cash flows to investors in later years. A companies value is the sum of it's risk adjusted cash flows in the future, even when it has never paid shareholders a dime. If you had a piece of paper that obligated an entity (such as the government) to absolutely pay you $1,000 20 years from now, this $1,000 cash flows present value could be estimated using Discounted Cash Flow. It might be around $400, for example. But let's say you want to trade this promise to pay before the 20 years is up. Would it be worth anything? Of course it would. It would in fact typically go up in value (barring heavy inflation) until it was worth very close to $1,000 moments before it's value is redeemed. Imagine that this \"\"promise to pay\"\" is much like a non-dividend paying stock. Throughout its life it has never paid anyone anything, but over the years it's value goes up. It is because the discounted cash flow of the $1,000 payout can be estimated at almost anytime prior to it's payout.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e80debd630aed2f9bc1a63c7aade6a6",
"text": "I haven't seen any of the other answers address this point – shares are (a form of) ownership of a company and thus they are an entitlement to the proceeds of the company, including proceeds from liquidation. Imagine an (extreme, contrived) example whereby you own shares in a company that is explicitly intended to only exist for a finite and definite period, say to serve as the producers of a one-time event. Consider a possible sequence of major events in this company's life: So why would the shares of this hypothetical company be worth anything? Because the company itself is worth something, or rather the stuff that the company owns is worth something, even (or in my example, especially) in the event of its dissolution or liquidation. Besides just the stuff that a company owns, why else would owning a portion of a company be a good idea, i.e. why would I pay for such a privilege? Buying shares of a company is a good idea if you believe (and are correct) that a company will make larger profits or capture more value (e.g. buy and control more valuable stuff) than other people believe. If your beliefs don't significantly differ from others then (ideally) the price of the companies stock should reflect all of the future value that everyone expects it to have, tho that value is discounted based on time preference, i.e. how much more valuable a given amount of money or a given thing of value is today versus some time in the future. Some notes on time preference: But apart from whether you should buy shares in a specific company, owning shares can still be valuable. Not only are shares a claim on a company's current assets (in the event of liquidation) but they are also claims on all future assets of the company. So if a company is growing then the value of shares now should reflect the (discounted) future value of the company, not just the value of its assets today. If shares in a company pays dividends then the company gives you money for owning shares. You already understand why that's worth something. It's basically equivalent to an annuity, tho dividends are much more likely to stop or change whereas the whole point of an annuity is that it's a (sometimes) fixed amount paid at fixed intervals, i.e. reliable and dependable. As CQM points out in their answer, part of the value of stock shares, to those that own them, and especially to those considering buying them, is the expectation or belief that they can sell those shares for a greater price than what they paid for them – irrespective of the 'true value' of the stock shares. But even in a world where everyone (magically) had the same knowledge always, a significant component of a stock's value is independent of its value as a source of trading profit. As Jesse Barnum points out in their answer, part of the value of stocks that don't pay dividends relative to stocks that do is due to the (potential) differences in tax liabilities incurred between dividends and long-term capital gains. This however, is not the primary source of value of a stock share.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b48723be4cfd22c056c3bd1f60c6f2b5",
"text": "Remember that long term appreciation has tax advantages over short-term dividends. If you buy shares of a company, never earn any dividends, and then sell the stock for a profit in 20 years, you've essentially deferred all of the capital gains taxes (and thus your money has compounded faster) for a 20 year period. For this reason, I tend to favor non-dividend stocks, because I want to maximize my long-term gain. Another example, in estate planning, is something called a step-up basis:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a634c15180a16af1d8b1f91c2d4ef48e",
"text": "Not sure how this has got this far with no obvious discussion about the huge tax advantages of share buy backs vs dividend paying. Companies face a very simple choice with excess capital - pay to shareholders in the form of a taxable dividend, invest in future growth where they expect to make more than $1 for every $1 invested, or buy back the equivalent amount of stock on the market, thus concentrating the value of each share the equivalent amount with no tax issues. Of these, dividends are often by far the worst choice. Virtually all sane shareholders would just rather the company put the capital to work or concentrate the value of their shares by taking many off the market rather than paying a taxable dividend.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "17afa73737a789d0d8c3f1ddca93da58",
"text": "\"Stock has value to the buyer even if it does not currently pay dividends, since it is part ownership of the company (and the company's assets). The owners (of which you are now a part) hire managers to make a \"\"dividend policy decision.\"\" If the company can reinvest the profits into a project that would earn more than the \"\"minimum acceptable rate of return,\"\" then they should do so. If the company has no internal investment opportunities at or above this desired rate, then the company has an obligation to declare a dividend. Paying out a dividend returns this portion of profit to the owners, who can then invest their money elsewhere and earn more. For example: The stock market currently has, say, a 5% rate of return. Company A has a $1M profit and can invest it in a project with an expected 10% rate of return, so they should do so. Company B has a $1M profit, but their best internal project only has an expected 2% rate of return. It is in the owners' best interest to receive their portion of their company's profit as a dividend and re-invest it in other stocks. (Others have pointed out the tax deferrment portion of dividend policy, so I skipped that)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "55765f7687c9396197d73e17d5c30658",
"text": "Since I'm missing the shortest and simplest answer, I'll add it: A car also doesn't offer dividends, yet it's still worth money. A $100 bill doesn't offer dividends, yet people are willing to offer services, or goods, or other currencies, to own that $100 bill. It's the same with a stock. If other people are willing to buy it off you for a price X, it's worth at least close to price X to you. In theory the price X depends on the value of the assets of the company, including unknown values like expected future profits or losses. Speaking from experience as a trader, in practice it's very often really just price X because others pay price X.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "66b78ec6a2bc58a7f7fcd823363ec278",
"text": "\"You are missing the fact that the company can buy back its own shares. For simplicity, imagine the case that you own ALL of the shares of XYZ corporation. XYZ is very profitable, and it makes $1M per year. There are two ways to return $1M to you, the shareholder: 1) The company could buy back some fraction of your shares for $1M, or 2) The company could pay you a $1M dividend. After (1) you'd own ALL of the shares and have $1M. After (2) you'd own ALL of the shares and have $1M. After (1) the total number of shares would be fewer, but saying you owned less of XYZ would be like complaining that you are shorter when your height is measured in inches than in centimeters. So indeed, a buyback is an alternative to a dividend. Furthermore, buybacks have a number of tax advantages over dividends to taxable shareholders (see my answer in Can I get a dividend \"\"free lunch\"\" by buying a stock just before the ex-dividend date and selling it immediately after?). That said, it is important to recognize the shareholders who are less savvy about knowing when to accept the buyback (by correctly valuing the company) can get burned at the profit of the savvy shareholders. A strategy to avoid being burned if you aren't price savvy is simply to sell a fraction in order to get your pro rata share of the buyback, in many respects simulating a dividend but still reaping some (but not all) of the tax advantages of a buyback.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d133fdf8af7ed7e81a929aefa9fb736",
"text": "The company gets it worth from how well it performs. For example if you buy company A for $50 a share and it beats its expected earnings, its price will raise and lets say after a year or two it can be worth around $70 or maybe more.This is where you can sell it and make more money than dividends.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a45963e72902ae54c1c2fc3a481ed44",
"text": "Stocks represent partial ownership of the company. So, if you owned 51% of the stock of the company (and therefore 51% of the company itself), you could decide to liquidate all the assets of the company, and you would be entitled to 51% of the proceeds from that sale. In the example above, it would have to be Common Stock, as preferred stock does not confer ownership. *In a situation where it is not possible to buy 51% or more of the company (for example, it's not for sale), this is not possible, so the value of the stock could be much less.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d4f69ccdb76cbda9b9628b622c45fcca",
"text": "There are two ways that an asset can generate value. One is that the asset generates some revenue (e.g. you buy a house for $100,000 and rent it out for $1,000 per month) and the second way is that the asset appreciates (e.g you buy a house for $100,000, you don't rent it out and 5 years later you sell it for $200,000). Stocks are the same.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "79bf429bfc703ac7f8068574ba1704cf",
"text": "\"Most companies get taken over eventually. More to the point, ANY company with a public float over 50 percent that's large and viable enough to fall on people's radar screens will get taken over if its stock price is \"\"too low\"\" relative to its long term prospects. It is the possibility of a takeover, as much as anything else, that bolsters the stock prices of many companies, particularly those that don't pay dividends. In essence, the takeover price is just one large liquidating \"\"dividend.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5ee820eda84b17c1564e86100cc24e34",
"text": "Securities change in prices. You can buy ten 10'000 share of a stock for $1 each one day on release and sell it for $40 each if you're lucky in the future for a gross profit of 40*10000 = 400'0000",
"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": "3dec538745a844791c0d29d2cf8504b1",
"text": "The market is not stupid. It realises that a company is worth less after paying out dividends than before paying them. (It's obvious, since that company has just given out part of its earnings.) So after a company pays out dividends, its stock price normally drops approximately by the amount paid. Therefore if you buy, get the dividend, and immediately sell, under normal conditions you won't make any profit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d03319e7e10d7777ab0af425341562df",
"text": "Originally, stocks were ownership in a company just like any other business- you expected to make a profit from your investment, which is what we call dividends to stock holders. Since these dividends had real value, the stock price was based on what this return rate was, factoring in what it might be expected to be in the future, etc. Nowdays many companies never issue any dividends, so you have to consider the full value of the company and what benefit could be gained by another company if it were to acquire it. the market will likely adjust the share price to factor in what the value of the company might be to an acquirer. But otherwise, some companies today trading at an astronimical price, and which nevers pays a dividend- chalk it up to market stupidity. In this investor'd mind, there is no logical reason for these prices, except based on the idea that someone else might pay you more for it later... for what reason? I can't figure it out. Take it back to it's roots and imagine pitching a new business idea to you uncle to invest in- it will make almost nothing compared to it's share price, and even what it does make it won't pay anything to him for his investment. Why wouldn't he just laugh at you?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f62a9c3ee1993096a454a0ac9195c842",
"text": "\"Different stocks balance dividend versus growth differently. Some have relatively flat value but pay a strong dividend -- utility stocks used to be examples of that model, and bonds are in some sense an extreme version of this. Some, especially startups, pay virtually no dividends and aim for growth in the value of the stock. And you can probably find a stock that hits any point between these. This is the \"\"growth versus income\"\" spectrum you may have heard mentioned. In the past, investors took more of their return on investment as dividends -- conceptually, a share of the company's net profits for the year reflecting the share's status as partial ownership. If you wanted to do so, you could use the dividend to purchase more shares (via a dividend reinvestment plan or not), but that was up to you. These days, with growth having been strongly hyped, many companies have shifted much more to the growth model and dividends are often relatively wimpy. Essentially, this assumes that everyone wants the money reinvested and will take their profit by having that increase the value of their shares. Of course that's partly because some percentage of stockholders have been demanding growth at all costs, not always realistically. To address your specific case: No, you probably aren't buying Microsoft because you like its dividend rate; you're buying it in the hope it continues to grow in stock value. But the dividend is a bit of additional return on your investment. And with other companies the tradeoff will be different. That's one of the things, along with how much you believe in the company, that would affect your decision when buying shares in specific companies. (Personally I mostly ignore the whole issue, since I'm in index funds rather than individual stocks. Picking the fund sets my overall preference in terms of growth versus income; after that it's their problem to maintain that balance.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba22f2742f109ebad589fa5564b85d94",
"text": "1) What's the point of paying a dividend if the stock price automatically decreases? Don't the shareholders just break even? When the company earns cash beyond what is needed for expenses, the value of the firm increases. As a shareholder, you own a piece of that increased value as soon as the company earns it. When the dividend is paid, the value of the firm decreases, but you break even on the dividend transaction. The benefit to you in holding the company's shares is the continually increasing value, whether paid out to you, or retained. Be careful not to confuse the value of the firm with the stock price. The stock price is ever-changing, in the short-term driven mostly by investor emotion. Over the long term, by far the largest effect on stock price is earnings. Take an extreme, and simplistic example. The company never grows or shrinks, earnings are always the same, there is no inflation :) , and they pay everything out in dividends. By the reasoning above, the firm value never changes, so over the long-term the stock price will never change, but you still get your quarterly dividends.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6202d7f2fffaf7bd921b783fa5b62878",
"text": "The stock will slowly gain that $1 during the year. Suppose we have the highly theoretical situation that a company's stock is worth exactly $10 right after it paid its dividend, its dividend is always $1 per stock, and the company and everything else is so stable that its value never changes. Then the stock value right before the next dividend is paid will be close to $11 -- after all, it's worth a certain $1 dividend the next day, plus the $10 stock. And in between, half a year after the dividend was paid, it will be in between, say $10.50, or actually slightly less than that (because people like to buy in late so they can make money some other way with the money first). But the point holds -- the price decrease on the day that dividend is paid had been building up the whole period before that decrease. So stock dividends do make you money.",
"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": "972477431e58893d9d8e5cb7f9dea618",
"text": "\"Most companies are taken over. One can reasonably guess that company X will be taken over for a price P, at some future point in time. Then the company has a value today, that is less than price P, by a large enough margin so that the investor will likely \"\"make out\"\" when the company finally is taken over at some unknown point in time. The exception is a company like Microsoft or Apple that basically grow too large to be taken over. But then they eventually start paying dividends when they become \"\"mature.\"\" Again, the trick, during the non-dividend paying period (e.g. ten or fifteen years ago) is to guess what dividends will be paid in some future time, and price the stock low enough today so that it will be worthwhile for the buyer.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "74f1a239bcc0d9bbad7d9f5ed35dbb9c",
"text": "Dividends are normally paid in cash, so don't generally affect your portfolio aside from a slight increase to 'cash'. You get a check for them, or your broker would deposit the funds into a money-market account for you. There is sometimes an option to re-invest dividends, See Westyfresh's answer regarding Dividend Re-Investment Plans. As Tom Au described, the dividends are set by the board of directors and announced. Also as he indicated just before the 'record' date, a stock which pays dividends is worth slightly more (reflecting the value of the dividend that will be paid to anyone holding the stock on the record date) and goes down by the dividend amount immediately after that date (since you'd now have to hold the stock till the next record date to get a dividend) In general unless there's a big change in the landscape (such as in late 2008) most companies pay out about the same dividend each time, and changes to this are sometimes seen by some as 'indicators' of company health and such news can result in movement in the stock price. When you look at a basic quote on a ticker symbol there is usually a line for Div/yeild which gives the amount of dividend paid per share, and the relative yeild (as a percentage of the stock price). If a company has been paying dividends, this field will have values in it, if a company does not pay a dividend it will be blank or say NA (depending on where you get the quote). This is the easiest way to see if a company pays a dividend or not. for example if you look at this quote for Google, you can see it pays no dividend Now, in terms of telling when and how much of a dividend has been paid, most financial sites have the option when viewing a stock chart to show the dividend payments. If you expand the chart to show at least a year, you can see when and how much was paid in terms of dividends. For example you can see from this chart that MSFT pays dividends once a quarter, and used to pay out 13 cents, but recently changed to 16 cents. if you were to float your mouse over one of those icons it would also give the date the dividend was paid.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a0562393c7da826282faa99246a978d7",
"text": "You didn't identify the fund but here is the most obvious way: Some of the stocks they owned could had dividends. Therefore they would have had to pass them on to the investors. If the fund sold shares of stocks, they could have capital gains. They would have sold stocks to pay investors who sold shares. They also could have sold shares of stock to lock in gains, or to get out of positions they no longer wanted. Therefore a fund could have dividends, and capital gains, but not have an increase in value for the year. Some investors look at how tax efficient a fund is, before investing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f55bb3f3499c894a67cb3c1ac0d20ce",
"text": "If you assume the market is always 100% rational and accurate and liquid, then it doesn't matter very much if a company pays dividends, other than how dividends are taxed vs. capital gains. (If the market is 100% accurate and liquid, it also doesn't really matter what stock you buy, since they are all fairly priced, other than that you want the stock to match your risk tolerance). However, if you manage to find an undervalued company (which, as an investor, is what you are trying to do), your investment skill won't pay off much until enough other people notice the company's value, which might take a long time, and you might end up wanting to sell before it happens. But if the company pays dividends, you can, slowly, get value from your investment no matter what the market thinks. (Of course, if it's really undervalued then you would often, but not always, want to buy more of it anyway). Also, companies must constantly decide whether to reinvest the money in themselves or pay out dividends to owners. As an owner, there are some cases in which you would prefer the company invest in itself, because you think they can do better with it then you can. However, there is a decided tendency for C level employees to be more optimistic in this regard than their owners (perhaps because even sub-market quality investments expand the empires of the executives, even when they hurt the owners). Paying dividends is thus sometimes a sign that a company no longer has capital requirements intense enough that it makes sense to re-invest all of its profits (though having that much opportunity can be a good thing, sometimes), and/or a sign that it is willing, to some degree, to favor paying its owners over expanding the business. As a current or prospective owner, that can be desirable. It's also worth mentioning that, since stocks paying dividends are likely not in the middle of a fast growth phase and are producing profit in excess of their capital needs, they are likely slower growth and lower risk as a class than companies without dividends. This puts them in a particular place on the risk/reward spectrum, so some investors may prefer dividend paying stocks because they match their risk profile.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8902641dac8b7763b3e5507219519d2c",
"text": "\"You are overlooking the fact that it is not only supply & demand from investors that determines the share price: The company itself can buy and sell its own shares. If company X is profitable over the long haul but pays 0 dividends then either Option (2) is pretty ridiculous, so (1) will hold except in an extreme \"\"man bites dog\"\" kind of fluke. This is connected with the well-known \"\"dividend paradox\"\", which I discussed already in another answer.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ccdc6551bab3d553a85e58f297e935e",
"text": "A share is more than something that yields dividends, it is part ownership of the company and all of its assets. If the company were to be liquidated immediately the shareholders would get (a proportion of) the net value (assets - liabilities) of the company because they own it. If a firm is doing well then its assets are increasing (i.e. more cash assets from profits) therefore the value of the underlying company has risen and the intrinsic value of the shares has also increased. The price will not reflect the current value of the firms assets and liabilities because it will also include the net present value of expected future flows. Working out the expected future flows is a science on par with palmistry and reading chicken entrails so don't expect to work out why a company is trading at a price so much higher than current assets - liabilities (or so much lower in companies that are expected to fail). This speculation is in addition to price speculation that you mention in the question.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d17d924c5b82e1f761143e2f7cd919da",
"text": "\"There is no numerical convention in finance that I have ever seen. If you look at statements or reports that measure growth when the starting value is negative or zero, you typically see \"\"n/a\"\" or \"\"-\"\" or \"\"*\"\" as the result. Any numerical result would be meaningless. Suppose you used 100% and another company had a legitimate 150% gain - where would the 100% change rank? What do my manager and investors expect to see? As a financial analyst - I would not want to see 100%. I would instead rather see something that indicates that the % change is meaningless. As an example, here's the WSJ documentation on change in Net Income: Net Income percent change is the change from the same period from a year ago. Percent change is not provided if either the latest period or the year-ago period contains a net loss. Thinking about it in another context: Yesterday you and your friend had no apples. Today you have 1 and your friend has 20. What percentage increase did you both have? Did you both have a 100% increase? How can you indicate that your friend had a larger \"\"increase\"\"? In that case (and in finance), the context needs to turn from a percentage increase to an absolute increase. A percentage increase is that scenario is meaningless.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b58cf19afffa931f223dcdf2e6a57a6",
"text": "At this time I would say that the electric car industry as a whole is too new to be able to invest in it as a sector. There are only a handful of companies that focus solely on electric cars to create a moderately diverse portfolio, let alone a mutual fund. You can invest in mutual funds that include EV stocks as part of an auto sector or clean energy play, for example, but there's just not enough for an EV-only fund at this point. At this point, perhaps the best you can do if you want an exclusively EV portfolio is add some exposure to the companies that are the biggest players in the market and review the market periodically to see if any additional investments could be made to improve your diversification. Look at EV-only car makers, battery makers, infrastructure providers, etc. to get a decent balance of stocks. I would not put any more than 10% of your entire investment portfolio into any one stock, and not more than 20% or so in this sector.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
718eb354d32d2ec4ea306371dd38f108
|
Paid cash for a car, but dealer wants to change price
|
[
{
"docid": "071b3b8ff236f00fddadf437f90e4066",
"text": "Let me get this straight. I would stand my ground. Your son negotiated in good faith. Either they messed up, or they are dishonest. Either way your son wasn't the one supposed to know all the internal rules. I don't think it matters if they cashed the check or not. I would tell them if they have cashed it, that is even more evidence the deal was finalized. But even if they they didn't cash it, it only proves they are very disorganized. If for some reason your son feels forced to redo the deal, have him start the negotiations way below the price that was agreed to. If the deal for some strange reason gets voided don't let him agree to some sort of restocking fee.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9db9532178ba35de15a402f67b59a31a",
"text": "I had a similar situation when I was in college. The difference was that the dealer agreed to finance and the bank they used wanted a higher interest rate from me because of my limited credit history. The dealer asked for a rate 5 percentage points higher than what they put on the paperwork. I told them that I would not pay that and I dropped the car off at the lot with a letter rescinding the sale. They weren't happy about that and eventually offered me financing at my original rate with a $1000 discount from the previously agreed-upon purchase price. What I learned through that experience is that I didn't do a good-enough job of negotiating the original price. I would suggest that your son stop answering phone calls from the dealership for at least 1 week and drive the car as much as possible in that time. If the dealer has cashed the check then that will be the end of it. He owes nothing further. If the dealer has not cashed the check, he should ask whether they prefer to keep the check or if they want the car with 1000 miles on the odometer. This only works if your son keeps his nerve and is willing to walk away from the car.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3131fea694d5ac842c532e951554e55",
"text": "\"I'm sorry to hear you've made a mistake. Having read the contract of sale we signed, I do not see any remedy to your current situation. However, I'm interested in making sure I do not take advantage of you. As such, I'll return the vehicle, you can return my money plus the bank fees I paid for the cashiers check, tax, title, and registration, and I will look at buying a vehicle from another dealership. This seems to be the most fair resolution. If I were to pay for your mistake at a price I did not agree to, it would not be fair to me. If you were to allow this vehicle to go to me at the price we agreed to, it wouldn't be fair to you. If I were to return the car and begin negotiations again, or find a different car in your lot, it would be difficult for us to know that you were not going to make a similar mistake again. At this point I consider the sale final, but if you'd prefer to have the vehicle back as-is, returning to us the money we gave you as well as the additional costs incurred by the sale, then we will do so in order to set things right. Chances are good you will see them back down. Perhaps they will just cut the additional payment in half, and say, \"\"Well, it's our mistake, so we will eat half the cost,\"\" or similar, but this is merely another way to get you to pay more money. Stand firm. \"\"I appreciate the thought, but I cannot accept that offer. When will you have payment ready so we can return the car?\"\" If you are firm that the only two solutions is to keep the car, or return it for a full refund plus associated costs, I'd guess they'd rather you keep the car - trust me, they still made a profit - but if they decide to have it returned, do so and make sure they pay you in full plus other costs. Bring all your receipts, etc and don't hand over the keys until you have the check in hand. Then go, gladly, to another dealership that doesn't abuse its customers so badly. If you do end up keeping the car, don't plan on going back to that dealership. Use another dealership for warranty work, and find a good mechanic for non-warranty work. Note that this solution isn't legally required in most jurisdictions. Read your contract and all documentation they provided at the time of sale to be sure, but it's unlikely that you are legally required to make another payment for a vehicle after the sale is finalized. Even if they haven't cashed the check, the sale has already been finalized. What this solution does, though, is put you back in the driver's seat in negotiating. Right now they are treating it as though you owe them something, and thus you might feel an obligation toward them. Re-asserting your relationship with them as a customer rather than a debtor is very important regardless of how you proceed. You aren't legally culpable, and so making sure they understand you aren't will ultimately help you. Further, dealerships operate on negotiation. The primary power the customer has in the dealership is the power to walk away from a deal. They've set the situation up as though you no longer have the power to walk away. They didn't threaten with re-possession because they can't - the sale is final. They presented as a one-path situation - you pay. Period. You do have many options, though, and they are very familiar with the \"\"walk away\"\" option. Present that as your chosen option - either they stick with the original deal, or you walk away - and they will have to look at getting another car off the lot (which is often more important than making a profit for a dealership) or selling a slightly used car. If they've correctly pushed the title transfer through (or you, if that's your task in your state) then your brief ownership will show up on carfax and similar reports, and instantly reduces the car's worth. Having the title transfer immediately back to the dealership doesn't look good to future buyers. So the dealership doesn't want the car back. They are just trying to extract more money, and probably illegally, depending on the laws in your jurisdiction. Reassert your position as customer, and decide now that you'll be fine if you have to return it and walk away. Then when you communicate that to them, chances are good they'll simply cave and let the sale stand as-is.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "137a3e87be092013b7b45a65eb330fc6",
"text": "The sales manager and/or finance manager applied a rebate that did not apply. It's their fault. They have internal accounts to handle these situations as they do come up from time to time. The deal is done. They have no legal ground.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd99c77ee8b7febe66494eacc2d709d6",
"text": "I have one additional recommendation: if the dealer continues to press the issue, tell them that they need to drop it, or you will write a Yelp review in excruciating detail about the entire experience. Used car dealers are very aware of their Yelp presence and don't like to see recent, negative reviews because it can cost them a lot of new business. (I'm assuming this is a used car. If it's a new car, you could go over their heads and bring up the problem with the manufacturer. Dealers hate it when you go directly to the manufacturer with a dealer complaint.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f008d3c6f65df99406062ccbf7d77e7",
"text": "Don't take the car back! The dealership wants you to take it back to try and earn more money. Simply stated, the dealerships hate paid up front cash deals. They make money on the financing. So to call back and try to up their fee is them realizing their not making a large enough profit. Say thank you and move on. The deal is done!!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "58543b29e1af5f251960eed3c0cb0e77",
"text": "On the surface this sounds ridiculous, which makes me suspect that there might be something that the dealer intends to cling on to; otherwise it sounds like the dealer should be ashamed to even call your son about its own incompetence. I'd recommend politely refusing the request since said mistake didn't happen on your end, and wait to see if the dealer comes back with some sort of argument.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1cee712904c22253683819c081aae7fc",
"text": "I've been an F&I Manager at a new car dealership for over ten years, and I can tell you this with absolute certainty, your deal is final. There is no legal obligation for you whatsoever. I see this post is a few weeks old so I am sure by now you already know this to be true, but for future reference in case someone in a similar situation comes across this thread, they too will know. This is a completely different situation to the ones referenced earlier in the comments on being called by the dealer to return the vehicle due to the bank not buying the loan. That only pertains to customers who finance, the dealer is protected there because on isolated occasions, which the dealer hates as much as the customer, trust me, you are approved on contingency that the financing bank will approve your loan. That is an educated guess the finance manager makes based on credit history and past experience with the bank, which he is usually correct on. However there are times, especially late afternoon on Fridays when banks are preparing to close for the weekend the loan officer may not be able to approve you before closing time, in which case the dealer allows you to take the vehicle home until business is back up and running the following Monday. He does this mostly to give you sense of ownership, so you don't go down the street to the next dealership and go home in one of their vehicles. However, there are those few instances for whatever reason the bank decides your credit just isn't strong enough for the rate agreed upon, so the dealer will try everything he can to either change to a different lender, or sell the loan at a higher rate which he has to get you to agree upon. If neither of those two things work, he will request that you return the car. Between the time you sign and the moment a lender agrees to purchase your contract the dealer is the lien holder, and has legal rights to repossession, in all 50 states. Not to mention you will sign a contingency contract before leaving that states you are not yet the owner of the car, probably not in so many simple words though, but it will certainly be in there before they let you take a car before the finalizing contract is signed. Now as far as the situation of the OP, you purchased your car for cash, all documents signed, the car is yours, plain and simple. It doesn't matter what state you are in, if he's cashed the check, whatever. The buyer and seller both signed all documents stating a free and clear transaction. Your business is done in the eyes of the law. Most likely the salesman or finance manager who signed paperwork with you, noticed the error and was hoping to recoup the losses from a young novice buyer. Regardless of the situation, it is extremely unprofessional, and clearly shows that this person is very inexperienced and reflects poorly on management as well for not doing a better job of training their employees. When I started out, I found myself in somewhat similar situations, both times I offered to pay the difference of my mistake, or deduct it from my part of the sale. The General Manager didn't take me up on my offer. He just told me we all make mistakes and to just learn from it. Had I been so unprofessional to call the customer and try to renegotiate terms, I would have without a doubt been fired on the spot.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a44e8cbf7e4a965cdc2a692b9e07023",
"text": "\"As others have said, if the dealer accepted payment and signed over ownership of the vehicle, that's a completed transaction. While there may or may not be a \"\"cooling-off period\"\" in your local laws, those protect the purchaser, not (as far as I know) the seller. The auto dealer could have avoided this by selling for a fixed price. Instead, they chose to negotiate every sale. Having done so, it's entirely their responsibility to check that they are happy with their final agreement. Failing to do so is going to cost someone their commission on the sale, but that's not the buyer's responsibility. They certainly wouldn't let you off the hook if the final price was higher than you had previously agreed to. He who lives by the fine print shall die by the fine print. This is one of the reasons there is huge turnover in auto sales staff; few of them are really good at the job. If you want to be kind to the guy you could give him the chance to sell you something else. Or perhaps even offer him a $100 tip. But assuming the description is correct, and assuming local law doesn't say otherwise (if in any doubt, ask a lawyer!!!), I don't think you have any remaining obligation toward them On the other hand, depending on how they react to this statement, you might want to avoid their service department, just in case someone is unreasonably stupid and tries to make up the difference that was.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "63cc41b9a6b889d94dfc4cb8f422a265",
"text": "Lets look at it this way. Your son bought the car and then 2 days later, he wants to change the price. Will the dealership let him do that after all the paperwork is signed?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2335e2302d6eee2c43c7bfdc105a902e",
"text": "As mhoran_psprep and others have already said, it sounds like the sale is concluded and your son has no obligation to return the car or pay a dime more. The only case in which your son should consider returning the car is if it works in his favor--for example, if he is able to secure a similar bargain on a different car and the current dealer buys the current car back from your son at a loss. If the dealer wants to buy the car back, your son should first get them to agree to cover any fees already incurred by your son. After that, he should negotiate that the dealer split the remaining difference with him. Suppose the dealership gave a $3000 discount, and your son paid $1000 in title transfer, registration, and any other fees such as a cashier's check or tax, if applicable. The remaining difference is $2000. Your son should get half that. In this scenario, the dealer only loses half as much money, and your son gains $1000 for his trouble.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b90152e12b9beda4523a34625545dbca",
"text": "\"Your son is in the right. But he broke the \"\"unwritten\"\" rules, which is why the car dealer is upset. Basically, cars are sold in the United States at a breakeven price. The car company makes ALL its money on the financing. If everyone bought \"\"all cash,\"\" the car companies would not be profitable. No one expected anyone, least of all your son, a \"\"young person,\"\" to pay \"\"all cash.\"\" When he did, they lost all the profit on the deal. On the other hand, they signed a contract, your son met all the FORMAL requirements, and if there was an \"\"understanding\"\" (an assumption, actually), that the car was supposed to be financed, your son was not part of it. Good for him. And if necessary, you should be prepared to back him up on court.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca41100d583073f7e920e91d5bf8d4b2",
"text": "If the discount is only for financed car then their software application should have accepted the payment (electronic transfer ID) from financed bank. In this case the bank should have given the payment on behalf of your son. I believe the dealer know in advance about the paper work and deal they were doing with your son. Financing a car is a big process between dealer and bank.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "b72227cdfe352fa48872d135288cc532",
"text": "Yes, of course it is. Car dealers are motivated to write loans even more than selling cars at times. When I bought a new car for the first time in my life, in my 40's, it took longer to get the finance guy out of my face than to negotiate and buy the car. The car dealer selling you the used car would be happy to package the financing into the selling price. Similar to how 'points' are used to adjust the actual cost of a mortgage, the dealer can tinker with the price up front knowing that you want to stretch the payment out a bit. To littleadv's point, 3 months isn't long, I think a used car dealer wold be happy to work with you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "12262c326568149698533a3c185be27c",
"text": "If a shop offers 0% interest for purchase, someone is paying for it. e.g., If you buy a $X item at 0% interest for 12 months, you should be able to negotiate a lower cash price for that purchase. If the store is paying 3% to the lender, then techincally, you should be able to bring the price down by at least 2% to 3% if you pay cash upfront. I'm not sure how it works in other countries or other purchases, but I negotiated my car purchase for the dealer's low interest rate deal, and then re-negotiated with my preapproved loan. Saved a good chunk on that final price!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bcd026c79da30d4424b9df38978406a4",
"text": "\"The question is about the dealer, right? The dealer isn't providing this financing to you, Alfa is, and they're paying the dealer that same \"\"On the Road\"\" price when you finance the purchase. So the dealer gets the same amount either way. The financing, through Alfa, means your payments go to Alfa. And they're willing to give you 3,000 towards purchase of the car at the dealer in order to motivate those who can afford payments but not full cash for the car. They end up selling more cars this way, keeping the factories busy and employees and stockholders happy along the way. At least, that's how it's supposed to work out.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "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": "1c4d36d1c862dd9d2cccce47377bcd2c",
"text": "Fair enough. I was just trying to save them money. If it were me, I'd call up the dealer first and threaten to contact local media if they didn't void the contract. In the end though a lawyer is probably the best bet. Even just having them write a letter to send over would probably get them to nullify it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3c30faa6ac6413950fd269befe2b073",
"text": "Absolutely do not pay off the car if you aren't planning to keep it. The amount of equity that you have from a trade in vehicle will always be a variable when negotiating a new car purchase. By applying cash (a hard asset) to increase your equity, you are trading a fixed amount for an unknown, variable amount. You are also moving from a position of more certainty for a position of less certainty. You gain nothing by paying off the car, whereas the dealer can negotiate away a larger piece of the equity in the vehicle.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2ef47bc6e77a08529092f461b85d993b",
"text": "\"The lead story here is you owe $12,000 on a car worth $6000!! That is an appalling situation and worth a lot to get out of it. ($6000, or a great deal more if the car is out of warranty and you are at risk of a major repair too.) I'm sorry if it feels like the payments you've made so far are wasted; often the numbers do work out like this, and you did get use of the car for that time period. Now comes an \"\"adversary\"\", who is threatening to snatch the car away from you. I have to imagine they are emotionally motivated. How convenient :) Let them take it. But it's important to fully understand their motivations here. Because financially speaking, the smart play is to manage the situation so they take the car. Preferably unbeknownst that the car is upside down. Whatever their motivation is, give them enough of a fight; keep them wrapped up in emotions while your eye is on the numbers. Let them win the battle; you win the war: make sure the legal details put you in the clear of it. Ideally, do this with consent with the grandfather \"\"in response to his direct family's wishes\"\", but keep up the theater of being really mad about it. Don't tell anyone for 7 years, until the statute of limitations has passed and you can't be sued for it. Eventually they'll figure out they took a $6000 loss taking the car from you, and want to talk with you about that. Stay with blind rage at how they took my car. If they try to explain what \"\"upside down\"\" is, feign ignorance and get even madder, say they're lying and they won, why don't they let it go? If they ask for money, say they're swindling. \"\"You forced me, I didn't have a choice\"\". (which happens to be a good defense. They wanted it so bad; they shoulda done their homework. Since they were coercive it's not your job to disclose, nor your job to even know.) If they want you to take the car back, say \"\"can't, you forced me to buy another and I have to make payments on that one now.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "da9bc8b786e7314a869004e0ffd56ad0",
"text": "\"So there are a few angles to this. The previous answers are correct in saying that cash is different than financing and, therefore, the dealer can rescind the offer. As for financing, the bank or finance company can give the dealership a \"\"kickback\"\" or charge a \"\"fee\"\" based on the customer's credit score. So everyone saying that the dealers want you to finance....well yes, so long as you have good credit. The dealership will make the most money off of someone with good credit. The bank charges a fee to the dealership for the loan to a customer with bad credit. Use that tactic with good credit...no problem. Use that tactic with bad credit.....problem.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d5910124726284e0e65d9ed7ffacf81",
"text": "\"I love John's answer, but I just can't help myself from adding my 2 cents, even though it's over 5 years later. I sold cars for a while in the late 90s, and I mostly agree with John's answer. Where I disagree though, is that where I worked, the salesperson did not have ANY authority to make a sale. A sales manager was required to sign off on every sale. That doesn't mean that the manager had to interact with the buyer, that could all be handled behind the scenes, but the pricing and even much of the negotiating strategies were dictated by the sales managers. Some of the seasoned salespeople would estimate numbers on their own, but occasionally you'd hear the managers still chew them out with \"\"I wish you wouldn't have said that\"\". Of course, every dealership is different. Additional purchase advice: There is a strategy that can work well for the buyer, but only in scenarios where the salesperson is trying to prevent you from leaving. They may start interrupting you as you are packing up, or blocking your path to the door, or even begging. If this happens, they are obviously desperate for whatever reason. In this case, if you came prepared with research on a good price that you are comfortable with, then shoot lower and hold firm to the point of near exhaustion. Not so low that that they realize you're too far away- they will let you leave at that point. It needs to be within a reasonable amount, perhaps at most 1-2% of the purchase price. Once you detect the salesperson is desperate, you finally move up to your goal number or possibly a little lower. Typically the salesperson will be so happy to have gotten you to move at all that they'll accept. And if the managers are fed up too (like 45 minutes after close), they'll accept too. I saw this happen multiple times in a high pressure scenario. I also used it once myself as a buyer. If you are planning to purchase options that can be added at the dealer rather than from the factory, keep them up your sleeve at first. Get your negotiations down to where you are a little further apart than the invoice price of the option, then make your move. For example, suppose the option you want retails for $350 with an invoice of $300. Get within about $400 of the dealer. Then offer to pay their price, but only if they throw in the option you want. This will throw them completely off guard because they didn't expect it and all of their calculations were based on without it. If they say yes, you effectively moved $100 and they moved $300. It's much more likely that they'll agree to this than taking $300 off the price of the car. (I'm guessing the reason for this is partially due to how their accounting works with sticker price vs aftermarket price, and partially psychological.) Note, this works best with new cars, and make sure you only do this if it's for items they can add after the fact. Even if they don't have the part in stock it's ok, they can give you an IOU. But if the option requires a car change to something they don't have on the lot, it will probably just make them mad.\"",
"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": "f66e25bacedbdcc71660c7a8b122bb2e",
"text": "The only issue I can see is that the stranger is looking to undervalue their purchase to save money on taxes/registration (if applicable in your state). Buying items with cash such as cars, boats, etc in the used market isn't all that uncommon* - I've done it several times (though not at the 10k mark, more along about half of that). As to the counterfeit issue, there are a couple avenues you can pursue to verify the money is real: *it's the preferred means of payment advocated by some prominent personal financial folks, including Dave Ramsey",
"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": "dc5fd5eeb9a1417fa39f3985391b0af7",
"text": "NEVER combine the negotiations for trade-in of an old car and purchase of a new one (and/or financing), if you can avoid doing so. Dealers are very good at trading off one against the other to increase their total profit, and it's harder for you to walk away when you have to discard the whole thing. These are separate transactions, each of which can be done with other parties. Treat them as such.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9adbfcff4d4780479c1deb5a8d63900e",
"text": "\"The retailer can sell for whatever price they like, with the caveats that if they consistently sell at a loss they will go out of business and if they set the price too high they will not sell anything! As you mentioned, RRP is only a recommended price, the manufacturer cannot enfore it at all for legal reasons. Having said that I used to work in retail (not cars) and if we discounted a certain manufacturers products and they found out about it, we would find they had suddenly run out of stock when we tried to order more. So manufacturers do have some control over this type of thing depending on how \"\"underhand\"\" they want to be about it. My background is in retail management but not selling cars, but my understanding is the law regards RRP is the same.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
fb1722503f180f53d579572d02cea800
|
Withdrawing large sums of money
|
[
{
"docid": "57366ac10ff3e7dadc88ce4f4dcc2671",
"text": "This is determined by each banking institution. In general, if making the withdrawal in person, the limit is based on what you have in your account, but many ask for advance notice when withdrawing more than $5000. They may still allow a larger withdrawal without notice, but usually have a policy in place and will tell you over the phone. You should also be aware that the bank is required to report withdrawals totaling $10,000 or more in a day to the treasury department and may require extra paper work (businesses are often exempted or at least have higher amounts). For very large withdrawals, you would definitely have to wait, but you may not be able to get an answer over the phone as to how long unless you actually have $600K on deposit at that bank. They will have some kind of protocol to handle such a request, i.e. teller will talk to a manager, who may have to make a call to a regional or national office and make special arrangements. Most branches don't want to have their regular stash of cash plus an extra $600K lying around. There are insurance and security concerns. The increased potential for theft can put employees and other customers at risk. They may also not feel comfortable unloading bags of money from their vault or armored truck into the back of your car. While this is a very uncommon scenario, it has actually happened before. It took 'weeks' and when funds were available, additional security and police escorts were called in. Edit: You can find summaries of the regulations here and here and more complete info here. In general, the money should be available within 1-8 business days after it is deposited depending on the nature and amount of the deposit, but the regulations are really designed for more ordinary transactions. For a $600K withdrawal, the bank can cite security issues and decline to honor the request in cash. If you ask, your bank should provide their standard policy, which could include language such as this: We require prior notice for large cash withdrawals. We can refuse an order to withdraw funds in cash or to cash an item if we believe that the request is a security risk or possesses a hardship on the Bank. We may require you to accept an Official Check or electronic transfer to receive the funds. If we agree to a large cash withdrawal, you may be required to employ a courier service acceptable to us and at your risk and expense. If a large cash withdrawal is completed at a branch you will be required to sign a cash withdrawal agreement. Refusal to sign the agreement is grounds for us to revoke the cash withdrawal and require an alternate delivery for the funds. You might also find this question interesting.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "259214949481607d982ee738ff17c7a3",
"text": "Yes, those numbers are all that is needed to withdraw funds, or at least set online payment of bills which you don't owe. Donald Knuth also faced this problem, leading him to cease sending checks as payment for finding errors in his writings.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1c109d97faa0e187e5a59fbfa689dab9",
"text": "I recommend talking to your parents. You may be able to convert the account to a joint account that is shared with them, and then they would be able to withdraw the money for you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2368a6a6d2c21902782f59fdc6929bff",
"text": "It's not your money. What does your wife think of this? You know, the withdrawal is subject to full tax at your marginal rate as well as a 10% penalty. That's quite a price to pay, don't do it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "524cddb28590d076ce9cdaf36faf147c",
"text": "So ... how are you going to have a bank run if you got rid of cash? I suspect big investors will attempt (have already attempted?) to pull their cash, but regular people? Not like running to the ATM will do much good and I don't think they have offshore accounts. Excuse my naïveté, but that's the first thing that came to my mind...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b3346a1b229db484ce324244ae755a29",
"text": "There is no document that I know of that stipulates otherwise. This can also be corroborated by the fact that RESP withdrawals are considered as income in the name of the student. Thus, so long as the student pays tuition and receives a T2202A slip from the educational institution, they should be able to claim tuition, education, and textbook amounts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0cdf32009ce7d2b68f9a30325a4cce95",
"text": "There's nothing particularly special about a two million dollar cheque. While they aren't commonplace, the bank certainly has experience with them. Many ATMs won't allow a deposit of that size but the bank cashiers will certainly accept them. They will typically get a supervisor to sign off on the deposit and may ask about the source of the money, for fraud prevention reasons. They may be held for longer than a smaller cheque if the bank manager chooses to do so. If there's nothing remotely suspicious (for example, it is a cheque from an insurance company for an expected payout), you should expect it will clear in about a week. On the other hand, if it is a cheque from a bank in another country and the bank manager has any reason to suspect it may not be legitimate, they may hold it for a month or more. Even then, you are not guaranteed the cheque was legitimate. This is used in a common scam.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3008d82e9888fe8efeffb1adc8fa887d",
"text": "As of now you are doing that. When you start earning larger sums of money, you will not withdraw and keep it in your house. You will leave it in the bank and they will earn money on it( By lending it out at a higher interest rate). When you are broke, that same bank will offer you a credit card or some other instrument that will help you survive. They will charge you money on that and make interest of you. When you have too much money and you start wiring money they will charge you a wire transfer fees. There are more than 500 ways in which banks make money off you. If you plan receiving $100 and $250 all your life and withdraw it immediately and don't plan doing anything else all your life, then you will probably not let the bank make any money off you. However, there are a very few people like that and banks barely lose anything accepting those customers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c1e5f7c7acf12b8ee23c673cd73e1487",
"text": "How do I withdraw a large sum from my bank and give it to a money management firm? Either write a check to the Money Management firm or wire transfer the funds to the account mentioned.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dcea7783b7351064d9055d548d81d3ef",
"text": "I would advise to never cash out retirement funds unless you're actually retired, or in case of an extreme emergency. Not only because of the huge tax bill that you'd incur (as @Rick mentioned - in addition to your top bracket rate - add 10%), but also because you will never be able to recover from the loss. Your current retirement fund is the one that will compound the most. By the time you deposit the same amounts you're thinking of withdrawing now, the compound effect would have grown the original amount further. By the time you could catch up - it would compound further. You will never be able to repair the damage of early withdrawal at this stage. Consider this calculation (lets say you worked for 10 years out of 40 years of your career path, and have $1K to deposit a year, for ease of computation): Essentially, by withdrawing now, you'll reduce your retirement savings by about 50% in thirty years from now. How much is that 6% interest on your student loan? I seriously doubt its worth it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "299853db8bcf407fd6521d9673dc0cde",
"text": "One strategy to consider is a well-diversified index fund of equities. These have historically averaged 7-8% real growth. So withdrawing 3% or 4% yearly under that growth should allow you to withdraw 30+ years with little risk of drawing down all your capital. As a bonus you're savings target would come down from $10 million to $2.5 million to a little under $3.5 million.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "2afdb7895ff858324e1611105b470a98",
"text": "\"Bad plan. This seems like a recipe for having your money taken away from you by CBP. Let me explain the biases which make it so. US banking is reliable enough for the common citizen, that everyone simply uses banks. To elaborate, Americans who are unbanked either can't produce simple identity paperwork; or they got an account but then got blacklisted for overdrawing it. These are problems of the poor, not millionaires. Outside of determined \"\"off the grid\"\" folks with political reasons to not be in the banking and credit systsm, anyone with money uses the banking system. Who's not a criminal, anyway. We also have strong laws against money laundering: turning cash (of questionable origin) into \"\"sanitized\"\" cash on deposit in a bank. The most obvious trick is deposit $5000/day for 200 days. Nope, that's Structuring: yeah, we have a word for that. A guy with $1 million cash, it is presumed he has no choice: he can't convert it into a bank deposit, as in this problem - note where she says she can't launder it. If it's normal for people in your country to haul around cash, due to a defective banking system, you're not the only one with that problem, and nearby there'll be a country with a good banking system who understands your situation. Deposit it there. Then retain a US lawyer who specializes in this, and follow his advice about moving the money to the US via funds transfer. Even then, you may have some explaining to do; but far less than with cash. (And keep in mind for those politically motivated off-the-financial-grid types, they're a bit crazy but definitely not stupid, live a cash life everyday, and know the law better than anybody. They would definitely consider using banks and funds transfers for the border crossing proper, because of Customs. Then they'll turn it into cash domestically and close the accounts.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "074ea5e57c752ea120f2017f3eceb057",
"text": "\"You cant! There is the risk that between the time you get the check and the time you get to the bank that you will be murdered, have a heart attack, stroke, or aneurysm too. And they are probably more likely than the bank going out of business between the time you deposit the money and get access to it. Prior to accepting the check I would do the following: Get a lawyer that specializes in finance and tax law. There are some steps you can take to minimize your tax exposure. There is little you can do about the immediate tax on the winnings but there are things you can do to maximize the return of your money. You will want to do what you can to protect that money for yourself and your family. Also create or revise your will. This is a lot of money and if something happens to you people from your family and \"\"friends\"\" will come out of the woodwork trying to claim your money. Make sure your money goes where you want it to in the event something happens to you. Get a financial planner. This money can either make you or break you. If you plan for success you will succeed. If you trust yourself to make good decisions with out a plan, in a few years you will be broke and wondering what happened to your money. Even at 1% at 20million dollars that is 200k a year in interest... a pretty good income by itself. You do not have to save every penny but you can plan for a nice lifestyle that will last, if you plan and stick to your plan. Do research and know what bank you are going to deposit the money in. Talk to the bank let them know of your plans so they can be ready for it. It is not every day that they get a 20 million dollar deposit. They will need to make plans to handle it. If you are going to spread the money out among several banks they can prepare for that too. When choosing that bank I would look for one where their holdings are significantly more than you are depositing. I would not really go with one of the banks that was rescued. They have already shown that they can not handle large sums of money and assuming they will not screw it up with my money is not something I would be comfortable with. There were some nice sized banks that did not need a bail out. I would choose one of them.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5e43d052df5460eb9c1e6625c9febeee",
"text": "Here are your options. While you remain an Australian citizen you cannot withdraw super just because you are residing overseas. You could renounce your citizenship - just make sure you have another one to fall back on.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba7f05dd8c12100bd404a29439ed6c72",
"text": "Generally it is advisable to mention what country you're asking about, as tax laws differ. To the best of my knowledge, however, this particular issue is handled consistently in every tax jurisdiction I'm familiar with. You invested X, it appreciated and is now worth X + Y. In your example, X = $10,000 and Y = $40,000. Total X + Y = $50,000. When you withdraw an amount, say A (in your example A = $10,000), it is considered a withdrawal of both the earnings and the original capital, in proportion to the total of your account. Taxable portion of the withdrawal is proportional to the earnings. Lets mark it T. In your example, T = $10,000 - $10,000 * $10,000/$50,000 = $8,000. I.e.: 80% of the withdrawal will be attributed to earnings and would be taxable (short term in your case, if you're in the US), and 20% to the original capital. This will keep the proportion of the remained the same - 20% of the remaining amount will be attributed to the original capital (accidentally, it will be $8,000), and the remaining 80% will be attributed to the earnings. The withdrawn amount attributed to the capital ($2,000), and the remaining amount attributed to the capital ($8,000) will equal exactly to the invested amount.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ab3c233ff2a00b4dcb3ac2c66b635e2e
|
Are bonds really a recession proof investment?
|
[
{
"docid": "64c0b0145f00311c55adb823be67edff",
"text": "No, they are not recession proof. Assume several companies, that issued bonds in the fund, go bankrupt. Those bonds could be worthless, they could miss principle payments, or they could be restructured. All would mean a decline in value. When the economy shrinks (which is what a recession is) how does the Fed respond? By lowering interest rates. This makes current bonds more valuable as presumably they were issued at a higher rate, thus the recession proof prejudice. However, there is nothing to stop a company (in good financial shape) from issuing more bonds to pay the par value on high-interest bonds, thus refinancing their debt. Sort of like how the bank feels when one refinances the mortgage for a lower rate. The thing that troubles me the most is that rates have been low for a long time. What happens if we have a recession now? How does the Fed fix it? I am not sure exactly what the fallout would be, but it could be significant. If you are troubled, you should look for sectors that would be hurt and helped by a Trump-induced recession. Move money away from those that will be hurt. Typically aggressive growth companies are hurt (during recessions), so you may want to move money away from them. Typically established blue chip companies fare okay in a recession so you may want to move money toward them. Move some money to cash, and perhaps some towards bonds. All that being said, I'd keep some money in things like aggressive growth in case you are wrong.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1856f12fa004f6ee1b1d9889a4827b0d",
"text": "Bonds by themselves aren't recession proof. No investment is, and when a major crash (c.f. 2008) occurs, all investments will be to some extent at risk. However, bonds add a level of diversification to your investment portfolio that can make it much more stable even during downturns. Bonds do not move identically to the stock market, and so many times investing in bonds will be more profitable when the stock market is slumping. Investing some of your investment funds in bonds is safer, because that diversification allows you to have some earnings from that portion of your investment when the market is going down. It also allows you to do something called rebalancing. This is when you have target allocation proportions for your portfolio; say 60% stock 40% bond. Then, periodically look at your actual portfolio proportions. Say the market is way up - then your actual proportions might be 70% stock 30% bond. You sell 10 percentage points of stocks, and buy 10 percentage points of bonds. This over time will be a successful strategy, because it tends to buy low and sell high. In addition to the value of diversification, some bonds will tend to be more stable (but earn less), in particular blue chip corporate bonds and government bonds from stable countries. If you're willing to only earn a few percent annually on a portion of your portfolio, that part will likely not fall much during downturns - and in fact may grow as money flees to safer investments - which in turn is good for you. If you're particularly worried about your portfolio's value in the short term, such as if you're looking at retiring soon, a decent proportion should be in this kind of safer bond to ensure it doesn't lose too much value. But of course this will slow your earnings, so if you're still far from retirement, you're better off leaving things in growth stocks and accepting the risk; odds are no matter who's in charge, there will be another crash or two of some size before you retire if you're in your 30s now. But when it's not crashing, the market earns you a pretty good return, and so it's worth the risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c1abc18736c5ab5314bf49da7f5ab4ea",
"text": "Without providing direct investment advice, I can tell you that bond most assuredly are not recession-proof. All investments have risk, and each recession will impact asset-classes slightly differently. Before getting started, BONDS are LOANS. You are loaning money. Don't ever think of them as anything but that. Bonds/Loans have two chief risks: default risk and inflation risk. Default risk is the most obvious risk. This is when the person to whom you are loaning, does not pay back. In a recession, this can easily happen if the debtor is a company, and the company goes bankrupt in the recessionary environment. Inflation risk is a more subtle risk, and occurs when the (fixed) interest rate on your loan yields less than the inflation rate. This causes the 'real' value of your investment to depreciate over time. The second risk is most pronounced when the bonds that you own are government bonds, and the recession causes the government to be unable to pay back its debts. In these circumstances, the government may print more money to pay back its creditors, generating inflation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c5f637de23473422719e110e6896e210",
"text": "You're mixing up two different concepts: low-risk and recession-proof. I'll assume I don't need to explain risk: there is always risk, regardless what form you keep your assets in. With bonds, the interest rate is supposed to reflect the risk. If a company offers bonds with too low an interest rate for the risk level, few people will buy them. While if a company offers bonds with too high an interest rate for the level of risk, they are gypping themselves. So a bond is a slightly more transparent investment from a risk assessment perspective, but that doesn't mean the risk is necessarily low: if you buy a bond with a 20% effective annual yield, that means there is quite a high risk that the underlying company will fold (unless inflation is in the double-digit range as well, in which case a 20% yield is not that much). Whereas with a stock, no parameter directly tells you anything about the risk. Recession-proof is not the same thing as low-risk. Recession-proof refers to investing in (or holding debt for) industries that perform better in a recession. http://www.investopedia.com/articles/stocks/08/industries-thrive-on-recession.asp.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "ee9df2baa01931a2cecc8427e6ca0189",
"text": "During the hyperinflation of the Wiermer republic, corporate stocks and convertible bonds were thought second only to the species (gold, silver etc) as the only secure currencies. As Milton Friedman proved, inflation is caused solely by the monetary token supply increasing faster than productivity. In the past, days of species of currency, it was caused by governments debasing the currency e.g. streatching the same amount of silver in 50 coins to 100 coins. Sudden increases in the supply of precious metals can also trigger it. The various gold rushes in 19th century and later, improvements in extraction methods caused bouts of inflation. Most famously, the huge amounts of silver the Spanish extracted from the New World mines, devastated the European economy with high inflation. Governments use inflation as a form of stealth flat tax. Money functions as an Abstract Universal Trade Good and it obeys all the rules of supply and demand. If the supply of money goes up suddenly, then its value drops in relation to real goods and service. But that drop in value doesn't occur instantly, the increased quality of tokens has to percolate through the market before the value changes. So, the first institution to spend the infalted/debased currency can get the full current value from trade. The second gets slightly less, the third even less and so on. In 2008, the Federal reserve began printing money and loaning at 0% to insolvent backs who then used that money to buy T-Bill. This had the duel effect of giving the banks an (arbitrary) A1 rated asset for their fractional reserve while the Federal government got full pre-inflation value of the money paid for the T-bills. As the government spent that money, the number of tokens increased fast than the economy. In times of inflation, the value of money per unit drops as its supply increases and increases The best hedges against inflation are real assets e.g. land, equipment, stocks (ownership of real assets) and convertible bonds which are convertible to stock. It's important to remember that money is, of itself, worthless. It's just a technology that abstracts and smilies trading which at the base, is still a barter system. During inflation the barter value of money plunges owing to increased supply. But the direct barter value between any two real assets remain the same because their supplies have not changed. The value of stocks and convertible bonds is maintained by the economic activity of the company whose ownership they represent. Dividends, stock prices and bond equity, as measured in the inflated currency continue to rise in sync with inflation. Thus they preserve the original value of the money paid for them. Not sure why you expect more inflation. The only institution that can create inflation in the US is the Federal Reserve which Trump has no direct control off. Deregulation of banks won't cause inflation in and of itself as the private banks cannot alter the money supply. If banks fail, owing to deregulation, unlikely I think given the dismal nearly century long record of regulation to date, then the Federal Reserve might fix the problem with another inflation tax, but otherwise not.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "312d9c813916aa05b71e3fdeac51bd57",
"text": "\"Yes. Bonds perform very well in a recession. In fact the safer the bond, the better it would do in a recession. Think of markets having four seasons: High growth and low inflation - \"\"growing economy\"\" High growth and high inflation - \"\"overheating economy\"\" Low growth and high inflation - \"\"stagflation\"\" Low growth and low inflation - \"\"recession\"\" Bonds are the best investment in a recession. qplum's flagship strategy had a very high allocation to bonds in the financial crisis. That's why in backtest it shows much better returns.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c23b53bc04bcc29051aefdb3fdc28649",
"text": "Avoiding fees would not be the primary reason to buy bonds yourself. No, the reason to buy bonds yourself in a retirement account is that you can hold them to maturity. Bond funds can and do lose value if interest rates rise (and gain it if interest rates fall). Of course the same happens with the bond that you hold, but you can hang on to it until maturity and get the face value out of it. That said, it would take some effort to put together a decent bond portfolio, especially if you were going to buy anything rated lower than the absolute best. I think it'd be fun to do, but I'm weird that way.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f5f224b6fc38f1c0aa1c127dc0e0c132",
"text": "If I invest X each month, where does X go - an existing (low yield) bond, or a new bond (at the current interest rate)? This has to be viewed in a larger context. If the fund has outflows greater than or equal to inflows then chances are there isn't any buying being done with your money as that cash is going to those selling their shares in the fund. If though inflows are greater than outflows, there may be some new purchases or not. Don't forget that the new purchase could be an existing bond as the fund has to maintain the duration of being a short-term, intermediate-term or long-term bond fund though there are some exceptions like convertibles or high yield where duration isn't likely a factor. Does that just depend on what the fund manager is doing at the time (buying/selling)? No, it depends on the shares being created or redeemed as well as the manager's discretion. If I put Y into a fund, and leave it there for 50 years, where does Y go when all of the bonds at the time I made the purchase mature? You're missing that the fund may buy and sell bonds at various times as for example a long-term bond fund may not have issues nearing maturity because of what part of the yield curve it is to mimic. Does Y just get reinvested in new bonds at the interest rate at that time? Y gets mixed with the other money in the fund that may increase or decrease in value over time. This is part of the risk in a bond fund where NAV can fluctuate versus a money market mutual fund where the NAV is somewhat fixed at $1/share.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2333012e5a07165525b601550088a93f",
"text": "There will always be another recession ahead. Accept that. Depending on your strategy, it could make sense to forge ahead. During a recession it may just take longer to recognize gains. Not always; there's plenty of ways to make money during a recession, and not all of them involve short positions. Now, if you're 75, living off of an investment account, perhaps you should move things to something less volatile.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe87a107006a1c915292432f35ec1d5c",
"text": "Virtually zero risk of default; safety; diversification; guaranteed fixed income albeit very low; portfolio diversifier so it reduces total volatility; plus yields might drop even lower thus increasing the price of the bond. Very unlikely given how obscenely low yields already are but still possible. I thought nobody would ever buy a 10yr @ 3% and now look, rates are almost half as much and those 3% bonds are worth a lot more now on the secondary market. Timing the bond market is really hard.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0fefdf265d68165b40eb78ff66a2bdd9",
"text": "\"Historically, most economists considered a sustained negative interest rate impossible for just the reason you describe: an investor could outperform a bond with a negative interest rate by simply hoarding cash. For background, see Wikipedia. Experimentation by central banks in the wake of the 2007 financial crisis, however, demonstrates that slightly negative interest rates are possible. First of all, note that the \"\"zero lower bound\"\" on interest rates has everything to do with the existence of cash as an alternative. It's a lower bound on the nominal interest rate, rather than the real interest rate—that is, on the rate before adjusting for inflation. In most situations, the real interest rate is more economically meaningful, as it's the real interest rate that measures the market's preference for \"\"stuff now\"\" as opposed to \"\"stuff later.\"\" There's nothing in principle or in practice to stop a negative real interest rate: there are always some people who want stuff now and some people who want stuff later; a negative real interest rate just means that people who want stuff later are more dominant in the market. As I stated earlier, what creates the \"\"zero lower bound\"\" is the existence of cash as an alternative to bonds. Even though that lower bound applies, it's not strict: hoarding cash in large quantities can be difficult and expensive, especially when central banks are doing their best to prevent you from doing it. Consequently, investors who strongly prefer \"\"stuff later\"\" to \"\"stuff now\"\" are willing to pay a slightly negative nominal interest rate on bonds in order to avoid those costs. If it were significantly negative, however, you're right that no sane investor would buy such a bond.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "732d7e94a01d2d9f4a5574b742e151da",
"text": "Long term gov't bonds fluctuate in price with a seemingly small interest rate fluctuation because many years of cash inflows are discounted at low rates. This phenomenon is dulled in a high interest rate environment. For example, just the principal repayment is worth ~1/3, P * 1/(1+4%)^30, what it will be in 30 years at 4% while an overnight loan paying an unrealistic 4% is worth essentially the same as the principal, P * 1/(1+4%)^(1/365). This is more profound in low interest rate economies because, taking the countries undergoing the present misfortune, one can see that their overnight interest rates are double US long term rates while their long term rates are nearly 10x as large as US long term rates. If there were much supply at the longer maturities which have been restrained by interest rates only manageable by the highly skilled or highly risky, a 4% increase on a 30% bond is only about a 20% decline in bond price while a 4% increase on a 4% bond is a 50% decrease. The easiest long term bond to manipulate quantitatively is the perpetuity where p is the price of the bond, i is the interest payment per some arbitrary period usually 1 year, and r is the interest rate paid per some arbitrary period usually 1 year. Since they are expressly linked, a price can be implied for a given interest rate and vice versa if the interest payment is known or assumed. At a 4% interest rate, the price is At 4.04%, the price is , a 1% increase in interest rates and a 0.8% decrease in price . Longer term bonds such as a 30 year or 20 year bond will not see as extreme price movements. The constant maturity 30 year treasury has fluctuated between 5% and 2.5% to ~3.75% now from before the Great Recession til now, so prices will have more or less doubled and then reduced because bond prices are inversely proportional to interest rates as generally shown above. At shorter maturities, this phenomenon is negligible because future cash inflows are being discounted by such a low amount. The one month bill rarely moves in price beyond the bid/ask spread during expansion but can be expected to collapse before a recession and rebound during.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fa789c2d09c37555757096b57dbc6b56",
"text": "\"The answer depends on what is your portfolio's objective. If you are operating a multi-asset class portfolio (i.e. your portfolio has both bonds and stocks) and are targeting absolute returns, then yes, comparing a stock's beta (or correlation) to a bond benchmark makes sense. What you do with this stock's \"\"bond beta\"\" information further depends on what kind of return profile you want your multi-asset class portfolio to have. If you want stocks that appreciate in price when bond prices decline, then of course you want to buy \"\"negative bond beta\"\" stocks. If you are operating a purely relative equity portfolio (i.e. you are benchmarked to the stock market), then comparing the \"\"bond beta\"\" is of little use to you. Hope this helps.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "80d84c637b2391c22cd0374fda950391",
"text": "\"Investment strategies abound. Bonds can be part of useful passive investment strategy but more active investors may develop a good number of reasons why buying and selling bonds on the short term. A few examples: Also, note that there is no guarantee in bonds as you imply by likening it to a \"\"guaranteed stock dividend\"\". Bond issuers can default, causing bond investors to lose part of all of their original investment. As such, if one believes the bond issuer may suffer financial distress, it would be ideal to sell-off the investment.\"",
"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": "25642445db62867fabedea609cea9f71",
"text": "Long-term bonds -- any bonds, really -- can be risky for two main reasons: return on principal, or return of principal. The former is a problem if interest rates are low (which they are now in the US) because existing bonds will fall in price if interest rates rise. The second is a problem if the lender defaults: IOU nothing. No investment is riskless. Short-term bonds command a lower interest rate than long-term bonds (usually) because of their quicker maturity, but short-term bonds carry risk just like long-term bonds (though the interest rate risk is lower, sometimes quite a bit lower, than for long-term bonds).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4512c7e8fb9485106a8c13bb9e9efe9a",
"text": "(1) People have been predicting recessions as long as we can remember. That's a no-brainer. Participation trophy for being the next schmuck to do so. (2) It's still a given. Many are saying the bailouts that took place in response to the Great Recession didn't allow for a proper correction. That may be what worsens the effects of the next asset bubble burst.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "580b87fa9582f0ad27639ac85955d59a",
"text": "\"Looking at the list of bonds you listed, many of them are long dated. In short, in a rate rising environment (it's not like rates can go much lower in the foreseeable future), these bond prices will drop in general in addition to any company specific events occurred to these names, so be prepared for some paper losses. Just because a bond is rated highly by credit agencies like S&P or Moody's does not automatically mean their prices do not fluctuate. Yes, there is always a demand for highly rated bonds from pension funds, mutual funds, etc. because of their investment mandates. But I would suggest looking beyond credit ratings and yield, and look further into whether these bonds are secured/unsecured and if secured, by what. Keep in mind in recent financial crisis, prices of those CDOs/CLOs ended up plunging even though they were given AAA ratings by rating agencies because some were backed by housing properties that were over-valued and loans made to borrowers having difficulties to make repayments. Hence, these type of \"\"bonds\"\" have greater default risks and traded at huge discounts. Most of them are also callable, so you may not enjoy the seemingly high yield till their maturity date. Like others mentioned, buying bonds outright is usually a big ticket item. I would also suggest reviewing your cash liquidity and opportunity cost as oppose to investing in other asset classes and instruments.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9f23f29ee7298a4b0713f216a85b8eb2",
"text": "Can anyone suggest all type of investments in India which are recession proof? There are no such investments. Quite a few think bullions like Gold tend to go up during recession, which is true to an extent; however there are enough articles that show it is not necessarily true. There are no fool proof investments. The only fool proof way is to mitigate risks. Have a diversified portfolio that has Debt [Fixed Deposits, Bonds] and equity [Stocks], Bullion [Gold], etc. And stay invested for long as the effects tend to cancel out in the long run.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "41ffb7be0749b4171352551b6bcd46bc",
"text": "\"There was a time when government policy was actually pretty damn smart. There were a range of \"\"automatic stabilizers\"\" that kicked in when there was a recession and they had a fast and large impact. It wasn't until Reagan that we started to chip away at those as well as go into a perpetual debt stimulus posture. These two actions helped to prime the system for an inevitable \"\"large\"\" shock. Even now, after one of the longest expansions in history we're STILL running a substantial deficit. And as such the appetite to expand it when the next recession hits will be diminished (as it was during the great recession when we really needed 3 trillion in stimulus spending and got less than 1).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1cf9c7613a8b1d0fd44de8be4f8b61b0",
"text": "Keep in mind there are a couple of points to ponder here: Rates are really low. With rates being so low, unless there is deflation, it is pretty easy to see even moderate inflation of 1-2% being enough to eat the yield completely which would be why the returns are negative. Inflation is still relatively contained. With inflation low, there is no reason for the central banks to raise rates which would give new bonds a better rate. Thus, this changes in CPI are still in the range where central banks want to be stimulative with their policy which means rates are low which if lower than inflation rates would give a negative real return which would be seen as a way to trigger more spending since putting the money into treasury debt will lose money to inflation in terms of purchasing power. A good question to ponder is has this happened before in the history of the world and what could we learn from that point in time. The idea for investors would be to find alternative holdings for their cash and bonds if they want to beat inflation though there are some inflation-indexed bonds that aren't likely appearing in the chart that could also be something to add to the picture here.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
053a42495a814a3a1b13a586e7b62fc8
|
VAT in UK, case of cultural industry and overseas invoices
|
[
{
"docid": "e6c0ce6d855e23a095166cf2c36b03e8",
"text": "Your answer will need loads of information and clarification, so I will ask you to visit the VAT and have a peruse. 1) Obligation is for you to find out the correct rate of VAT, charge and pay tax accordingly. You can call up the HMRC VAT helpline for help, which they will be happy to oblige. Normally everybody pays VAT every 3 months or you can pay once in a year. 2) Depends on your annual turnover, including VAT. Less than £150000 you join the Flat rate scheme. There are schemes for cultural activities. Might be good to check here on GOV.UK. 3) If you pay VAT in EU countries, you can reclaim VAT in UK. You need to reclaim VAT while filing in your VAT returns. But be careful about your receipts, which can be checked to verify you are not defrauding HMRC. The basic rule is that B2B services are, as the name suggests, supplies from one business to another. And, subject to some exceptions, are treated as made where the customer belongs. No VAT is chargeable on B2B supplies to an overseas customer. But where you make a B2C supply, VAT depends on where your customer is located: 1) if they are outside the EU, you don’t need to charge VAT 2) if they are located in an EU country, then you must charge VAT. Source All in all keep all records of VAT charged and paid to satisfy the taxman. If the rules get complicated, get an accountant to help you out. Don' take chances of interpreting the law yourself, the fines you might pay for wrong interpretation might be a deal breaker.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "3560962730b36bd73e5f0bc79750065f",
"text": "With the W8-Ben filed, tax will be withheld at a lower rate. (I would expect 10%). Tax treaty treatment will mean that this witholding will reduce your UK tax even if this payment is not taxable there. This is only effective if you actually pay tax. This is how it works for lotteries and dividends as well.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2f60fb76c08ea1f64395a9964f0a8970",
"text": "I suspect that the new VATMOSS rules come in to play here. So you owe VAT for donations from EU countries, providing you are below £81k there would be no UK vat payable though, however then you couldn't recoup the vat you paid out. Note I am not an accountant but I did speak to one this week about a similar issue.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e9f94939f5b071e051a47b7b967a29dd",
"text": "It is breaking the law, it's just difficult to demonstrate it. It's easy for international companies to make individual territories look unprofitable, reducing local tax bills. The law forbids this when abused, but not easy to prove. In this case Starbucks execs have been mouthing off about how profitable it is in the UK!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "74d0fa61b92d8638efba87d10c7cae27",
"text": "This taxation guide may be helpful in sorting out some of your questions. I'm not entirely versatile with UK tax, so my answer will stay broad. I think the answer may be to consult a professional advisor. You may become non-resident but remain UK domiciled. Everybody has exactly one domicile and it is essentially their permanent home (the place where they intend to one day return and live. The test is based on your intent - do you intend to return to the UK or do you intend to make another land your permanent home? Simply traveling about the world will not establish a new domicile for you. So you may owe some taxes on your worldwide income or capital gains while a UK-domiciled non-resident, as suggested here. If it helps, the UK tax residence rules are listed by HMRC online. If your business is a corporation, there's a different analysis. You may also want to refer to the UK-BVI tax treaty. HMRC offers a tax residence calculator to help sort your residence, if you plan to return often.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "389d8a6a83455ead18724a4ee4a05f95",
"text": "The paper is appealing to its readership to consider the profit and loss generated by Starbucks in UK operations as independent of other operations in other countries. Starbucks was profitable in the UK, but they offset these profits with investments in other overseas operations (not UK), to lower their tax rate in the UK. To the Guardian this seems unfair, even though UK law permits this. Seems like there is some case to be made for considering a change in the law.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4bb02012bad3dddacdc41b24f133285a",
"text": "Assuming this to be in the UK, and I suspect the rules are similar elsewhere, this indeed may be true. There is a threshold beneath which a business does not have to register for VAT - currently a turnover of £81,000. A non VAT registered business does not charge VAT but also cannot reclaim the VAT on their business expenses. For some businesses below the threshold it is worthwhile registering because the amount they can reclaim is significant. However, there are also many small businesses that do a lot of cash only jobs so as to not put the money through the books and therefore avoid any tax liability. There are also many who will get the the customer to buy materials direct to avoid including these in their turnover. Like every type of tax rule there is a grey area between people trying to avoid paying more tax than is needed and dodgy deals to avoid paying their fair share of tax.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5bbb5414747ce9d5812c9eb7c8af0030",
"text": "Yes, you can. That the books were purchased from abroad is irrelevant: you incurred an expense in the course of earning your income. If the books are expensive (>$300 per set iirc) you will need to deprecate them over a reasonable life time rather than claiming the entire amount up front. It doesn't matter whether what you got was a VAT Invoice; as long as you have some reasonable documentation of the expense you're ok.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9fed7947cf3797ff10394446994e2c9d",
"text": "The most important thing to remember is that being VAT registered, you must add VAT to every bill, so every bill will be 20% higher. If the bill payer is a company, they don't care because they deduct the 20% VAT from their own VAT bill. If the bill payer is a private person, their cost of your services has just gone up by 20% and it is going to hurt your business. So the question is, what kind of customers do you have? But if your customers are companies, then the flat rate scheme mentioned above is very little work and puts a nice little amount of extra cash in your pocket (suitable if your bills are mostly for your work and not for parts that you buy for the customer and bill them for).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f3cb37eeb83f058f405b20ac90fddb52",
"text": "There's one huge difference. Generally speaking, the entire burden of paying VAT is intended to be placed upon end consumers, and not upon businesses themselves. So ditching corporation tax and increasing VAT would mean shifting a huge amount of the tax burden from corporations to every-day people. Such a policy could kill the party that attempted to push it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "48b53ceb967c84617f5899bbf19d2dc8",
"text": "Usually, your situation is a generalized form of import/export, with you as the net exporter of goods/services and the individual consuming your goods/service as net importer. Import export laws vary from country to country but following are the general tariffs/taxes applicable: Export tax/duty: From your sovereign jurisdiction (read country/region/EU region), there could be export restriction or tariffs applicable to your exported goods/services on the other hand there may not be any, check with EU export law on this and then your country specific law. If there is any tax/tariff payable, you shall have to pay the same on the transactions. Import tax/duty: This is more related to your customer who is purchasing the goods/services from you, however, you should know this. Your customer will be liable to pay any import tax/duty as applicable for importing of your goods/services in that country/region, if it is applicable. Shipping Insurance: If it is a physical goods, there would be shipping and with shipping comes insurance and indemnity (if applicable). So there is a cost to it, you need to be aware of this. Sales Tax: There is no Govt. on earth or history which does not or did not charge sales tax in some form or the other. EU/country will also have sales tax, you should be aware of this as per transaction you may have to pay sales tax to the Govt. This would add to the cost. Credit of Foreign Currency Payments: Some countries have tax/tariffs attached to foreign currency credits/transfers or bank charges attached to the same, you may have to open specific type of bank A/C to receive the credits. These laws are specific to country/region, you should be aware of the same. The above are generic considerations and not specific to EU and to a greater/lesser extent applicable to all countries/regions. Best would be to search the net on the above points for EU region and get answers or approach a chartered accountant who will give you all the information.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "75241ae021a30004005c57a56cb360ab",
"text": "If the VAT is offset by not having to pay for employees health insurance, then I wonder what net effect it would have on goods? Also, if the employees are no longer paying for their share of the employer funded health insurance, then that would, effectively, be more money in the employees pockets. You're right though, it all comes down to what the numbers look like.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "31dd8c969c8a715cae3a09966b339ea4",
"text": "\"Believe it or not, unless you directly contact an accountant with experience in this field or a lawyer, you may have a tough time getting a direct answer from a reputable source. The reason is two fold. First, legally defining in-game assets is exceptionally difficult from a legal/taxation stand point. Who really owns this data? You or the company that has built the MMO and manages the servers containing all of the data? You can buy-and-sell what is effectively \"\"data\"\" on their servers but the truth is, they own the code, the servers, the data, your access rights, etc. and at any point in time could terminate everything within their systems. This would render the value of your accounts worthless! As such, most countries have overwhelmingly avoided the taxation of in-game \"\"inventory\"\" because it's not really definable. Instead, in game goods are only taxed when they are exchanged for local currency. This is considered a general sale. There may be tax codes in your region for the sale of \"\"digital goods\"\". Otherwise, it should be taxed as sale a standard good with no special stipulations. The bottom line is that you shouldn't expect to find much reliable information on this topic, on the internet. Law's haven't been welled defined, regarding in-game content worth and taxing of sales and if you want to know how you should pay your taxes on these transactions, you need to talk to a good accountant, a lawyer or both.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed623c193cfc05a8c04cb3925bf45a18",
"text": "If you mostly do work for businesses/individuals who are VAT registered it's a no-brainer to become VAT registered yourself... Although you will have to charge your customers VAT (and pass this on to HMRC) because they are VAT-registered they will reclaim the amount so it won't actually 'cost' them anything. At the same time, you can reclaim all the VAT you're currently being charged on your business expenditure (business equipment, tickets to business events, business software, accountancy/other business services you pay for, web hosting etc etc etc) However, if most of your clients are not VAT-registered it's not worth you registering. You would have to charge your customers an extra 20% (and they wouldn't be able to claim it back!) and you would have to pass this on to HMRC. Although you could still claim for goods and services you purchase for business use, essentially you'd just be another tax collector for HMRC. That said, at the end of the day it's up to you! VAT returns are quarterly and dead simple. Just keep a spreadsheet with your invoices (output tax) and receipts (input tax) and then do some basic maths to submit the final numbers to HMRC. No accountant required!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "390033140caf6afd5b6091dd66fc7e81",
"text": "\"As far as I know any business can register for VAT regardless of the nature of the business. If all the goods you sell (or services you provide) are VAT-exempt or zero-rated then you will get refunds from HMRC on VAT your business pays. Any business whose non-VAT exempt turnover (which would include zero-rated goods and services provided) exceeds the registration threshold must register, again even if that means they are \"\"forced\"\" to claim refunds. So the only question would be whether your rather nebulous activities were enough to qualify you as a business or organisation to which the VAT regime applies at all. The one-liner answer to that is generally, if goods or services are provided in return for a charge, there’s a business activity for VAT purposes Inevitably there's a much bigger body of statute and case law and it won't always be obvious whether the one-liner answer applies or not to a particular activity so it may be necessary to seek specialist advice.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f124e58474b0b1306f55d91522c674b1",
"text": "The big problem I see with this article is it does not state what the profits would be minus the licensing fees. It only states revenue, which is obviously a bad indicator of taxes owed. Also, licensing fees are applicable in some markets. For example in markets like China that mandate a company do business under a subsidiary, licensing is a legitimate expense, considering the subsidiary might not be wholly owned by the parent company (per the country's laws). That said, this is the UK we're talking about, so it is clearly not in that situation. I was just pointing out in some markets it is a legitimate expense. Maybe the UK could make licensing fees a non-deductible expense after a certain percentage of subsidiary income. Its a complex problem, I would be interested to see if any other jurisdictions have tackled it.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
1fd5c78ce9c8b8e288dc31ad0eadaba0
|
Questions about government bonds that have already matured
|
[
{
"docid": "c30ba1d5f7e03c52a79cbf6b1b72e82d",
"text": "I am assuming that you are talking about US Savings Bonds: Here is a page that talks about maturity dates of US Savings bonds. If They aren'tSavings bonds but are another type ofUS Government Bond Assuming they are Savings bonds, here is information regarding redeeming of bonds. How do I redeem my EE/E Bonds? Electronic bonds: Log in to Treasury Direct and follow the directions there. The cash amount can be credited to your checking or savings account within one business day of the redemption date. Paper bonds You can cash paper EE/E Bonds at many local financial institutions. We don't keep a list of banks that redeem bonds, so check with banks in your area. What will I need to redeem a paper bond? Before taking in the bonds to redeem them, it's usually a good idea to check with the financial institution to find out what identification and other documents you'll need. When you present your paper bonds, you'll be asked to show your identity. You can do this by being a customer with an active account open for at least 6 months at the financial institution that will be paying the bonds, or presenting acceptable identification such as a valid driver's license if the >redemption value of the bonds is less than $1,000. If you are not listed as the owner or co-owner on the bond, you'll have to show that you >are entitled to cash in the bond. The treasury direct website also discusses converting bonds, rules regarding using them for education, how often they are credited with interest",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d366d4fe216e2fbe1d20e138f28688e1",
"text": "When the laws allow for bonds to be issued for anything other than infrastructure projects, you end up in financial ruin. Politicians can't help themselves, and spend future money, today on day to day expenses. Then future residents, are paying off bonds for items they see no current benefit on. It makes taxes appear high. Look at cities like Chicago as an example.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6a811ba05b575681ba2d20adffe6a2fc",
"text": "This is something you are going to have to work out with the leasing company because your goal is to get them to make an exception to their normal rules. I'm a little surprised they wouldn't take 6 months pre-payment, plus documentation of your savings. One option might be to cash in the bonds (since you said they are mature), deposit them in a savings account, and show them your account balance. That documentation of enough to pay for the year, plus an offer to pay 6 months in advance would be pretty compelling. Ask the property manage if that's sufficient. And if the lease is for one year and you're willing to pay the entire year in advance, I can't see how they would possibly object. If your employment prospects are good (show them your resume and explain why you are moving and what jobs you are seeking) a smart property manager would realize you'll be an excellent, low-risk tenant and will make an effort to convince the parent company that you should live there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2aa481ffa2d33951bfdbbab1ebf2c7cb",
"text": "Not really. You can have two bonds that have identical duration but vastly different convexity. Pensions and insurance portfolio managers are most common buyers as they're trying to deal with liability matching and high convexity allows them to create a barbell around their projected liabilities.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d97bf4bb1460ad297443f840144b63f",
"text": "To my knowledge, the only bond ever issued by a notable state into perpetuity was the Bank of England...and it was a miserable mess for all the obvious reasons. Edit : They were called consuls, and it appears i was wrong about them being catastriphic for the BOE. I'm sorry, i guess i must be cruising the permabear backwoods or something. Here's some interesting links i found. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consols http://www.immediateannuities.com/annuitymuseum/annuitycertificatesofthebankofengland/consolidatedannuities/ http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2012/03/debt-crisis-0?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/bl/hundredyearsofsolvency",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc7a11ffe10bae183558cb1ee4887bd4",
"text": "Well, define shitty. The assumption of perfect competition should imply that only the firms that can manage to breakeven while still owing outstanding bonds will continue to issue bonds in the first place, as the competing monetary systems themselves will become a competitive market of their own. Information on the specific bond you're using as a medium of exchange/legal tender should be easily be easy to find or public information. If it's kind of bondnote has existed for five years with no substantial changes, my safe bet is on that bond being worth something.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "43cc3e1388828369619c2a9314438375",
"text": "Savings accounts have limitations in case a bank goes belly up and you have a higher amount in the account (more than the insured amount). Mostly big corporations or pension funds cannot rely on a bank to secure their cash but a government bond is secured (with some fine print) and hence they are willing to take negative interest rates.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "77f2fb35a2beff9e1f1c485393fb6fd7",
"text": "\"Hey guys I have a quick question about a financial accounting problem although I think it's not really an \"\"accounting\"\" problem but just a bond problem. Here it goes GSB Corporation issued semiannual coupon bonds with a face value of $110,000 several years ago. The annual coupon rate is 8%, with two coupons due each year, six months apart. The historical market interest rate was 10% compounded semiannually when GSB Corporation issued the bonds, equal to an effective interest rate of 10.25% [= (1.05 × 1.05) – 1]. GSB Corporation accounts for these bonds using amortized cost measurement based on the historical market interest rate. The current market interest rate at the beginning of the current year on these bonds was 6% compounded semiannually, for an effective interest rate of 6.09% [= (1.03 × 1.03) – 1]. The market interest rate remained at this level throughout the current year. The bonds had a book value of $100,000 at the beginning of the current year. When the firm made the payment at the end of the first six months of the current year, the accountant debited a liability for the exact amount of cash paid. Compute the amount of interest expense on these bonds for the last six months of the life of the bonds, assuming all bonds remain outstanding until the retirement date. My question is why would they give me the effective interest rate for both the historical and current rate? The problem states that the firm accounts for the bond using historical interest which is 10% semiannual and the coupon payments are 4400 twice per year. I was just wondering if I should just do the (Beginning Balance (which is 100000 in this case) x 1.05)-4400=Ending Balance so on and so forth until I get to the 110000 maturity value. I got an answer of 5474.97 and was wondering if that's the correct approach or not.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c67e6f56f03164604bd82a3209ff6377",
"text": "\"According to Wikipedia, Treasury bills mature in 1 year or less to a fixed face value: Treasury bills (or T-Bills) mature in one year or less. Regular weekly T-Bills are commonly issued with maturity dates of 28 days (or 4 weeks, about a month), 91 days (or 13 weeks, about 3 months), 182 days (or 26 weeks, about 6 months), and 364 days (or 52 weeks, about 1 year). Treasury bills are sold by single-price auctions held weekly. The T-bills (as Wikipedia says, like zero-coupon bonds) are actually sold at a discount to their face value and mature to their face value. They do not return any interest before the date of maturity. Because the amount earned is fixed at purchase, \"\"return\"\" is a more accurate term than \"\"rate\"\" when referring to a specific T-bill. The \"\"rate\"\" is the difference between this return and the discount value you purchased it at. So, yes, your rate of return is guaranteed. T-notes (1-10 year) and T-bonds (20-30 year) also have an interest rate guaranteed, but have coupon payments (usually every 6 months), paying out a fixed amount of interest on the principal. (See more info on the same Wikipedia page.) Because those bonds are not compounding the interest it pays out, but instead paying out every 6 months, you'd have to purchase new securities to create a compound return, changing your rate of return over time slightly as the rates for new treasury securities changes.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d23059a1030f57f11c292f802661466c",
"text": "\"The only party that can pay back a government bond is the government that issued it itself. In the case of Argentina, US vulture funds have won cases against it, but it has yet to pay. The best one can do to collect is to sue in a jurisdiction that permits and hope to seize the defaulted government's assets held in such jurisdiction. One could encourage another state to go to war to collect, but this is highly unlikely since a state that doesn't repay is probably a poor state with nothing much to loot; besides, most modern governments do not loot the conquered anymore. Such a specific eventuality hasn't happened in at least a lifetime, anyways. It is highly unlikely that any nation would be foolish enough to challenge the United States considering its present military dominance. It is rare for nations with medium to large economies to spurn their government obligations for long with Argentina as the notable exception. Even Russia became current when they spontaneously disavowed their government debt during the oil collapse of 1998. Countries with very small economies such as Zimbabwe are the only remaining nations that try to use their central banks to fund debt repayments if they even repay at all, but they quickly see that the destruction caused by hyperinflation neither helps with government debt nor excessive government expenditure. Nevertheless, it could be dangerous to assume that no nation would default on its debt for any period of time, and the effects upon countries with defaulted government debt show that it has far reaching negative consequences. If the US were to use its central bank to repay its government obligations, the law governing the Federal Reserve would have to be changed since it is currently mandated to \"\"maintain long run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy's long run potential to increase production, so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices and moderate long-term interest rates.\"\" The United States Treasury has no power over the Federal Reserve thus cannot force the Federal Reserve to betray its mandate by purchasing government debt. It should be noted that while Japan has a government debt twice its GDP, it also has a persistent slight deflation which has produced incredibly low interest rates, allowing it to finance government debt more easily, a situation the US does not enjoy. For now, the United States seems to be able to pay expenditures and finance at low interest rates. At what ratio of government debt to GDP that would cause interest rates to climb thus put pressure on the US's ability to repay does not seem to be well known.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1956eda0d10bf584cee552b2658f379d",
"text": "Historically when short term treasuries (maturity less than 5 years) have a higher yield than long term treasuries (10+ years) a recession has followed within a year or so. Don't quote me on the bond maturities and how quickly a recession occurs but it's basically accurate. Edit: we are not there right now but that seems to be the trending direction.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ce6a9019ce22a1ff13282f68d93ca6f4",
"text": "\"A bond fund will typically own a range of bonds of various durations, in your specific fund: The fund holds high-quality long-term New York municipal bonds with an average duration of approximately 6–10 years So through this fund you get to own a range of bonds and the fund price will behave similar to you owning the bonds directly. The fund gives you a little diversification in terms of durations and typically a bit more liquidity. It also may continuously buy bonds over time so you get some averaging vs. just buying a bond at a given time and holding it to maturity. This last bit is important, over long durations the bond fund may perform quite differently than owning a bond to maturity due to this ongoing refresh. Another thing to remember is that you're paying management fees for the fund's management. As with any bond investment, the longer the duration the more sensitive the price is to change in interest rates because when interest rates change the price will track it. (i.e. compare a change of 1% for a one year duration vs. 1% yearly over 10 years) If I'm correct, why would anyone in the U.S. buy a long-term bond fund in a market like this one, where interest rates are practically bottomed out? That is the multi-trillion dollar question. Bond prices today reflect what \"\"people\"\" are willing to pay for them. Those \"\"people\"\" include the Federal Reserve which through various programs (QE, Operate Twist etc.) has been forcing the interest rates to where they want to see them. If no one believed the Fed would be able to keep interest rates where they want them then the prices would be different but given that investors know the Fed has access to an infinite supply of money it becomes a more difficult decision to bet against that. (aka \"\"Don't fight the Fed\"\"). My personal belief is that rates will come up but I haven't been able to translate that belief into making money ;-) This question is very complex and has to do not only with US policies and economy but with the status of the US currency in the world and the world economy in general. The other saying that comes to mind in this context is that the market can remain irrational (and it certainly seems to be that) longer than you can remain solvent.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b5c2d2d0b24bbc4e6e44fc699b7c4d8",
"text": "Maximizing income could mean a lot of things. What you really want is to maximize wealth. Doesn't matter if it comes from your bond appreciating in value or as dividends. In order to maximize your wealth (that's today's wealth), you need to make decisions based on the net present value of these bonds. The market is fairly priced, especially for a tight market like government bonds. That means if your bond falls in price, it has fallen by precisely the amount necessary so that an investor would be indifferent between purchasing it now, at its current price, and purchasing a new bond with a higher dividend. The bonds with higher dividends will simply have a higher price, so more of the money comes as dividends than as price appreciation (at maturity it will sell for face value). In other words, the animals are out of the barn and you have lost (or made) money already. Changing from one bond to another will not change your wealth one way or the other. The only potential effect of changing bonds will be changing the risk of your portfolio. If you buy a bond that matures later or has a lower dividend than your current bond, you will be adding additional interest rate risk to your portfolio. That risk should be compensated, so you will have a higher expected return as well. But regardless of your choice you will not be made wealthier or less wealthy by changing from one bond to another. Should you buy bonds that will earn you the most possible? Sure, if you are below your risk tolerance. Even among default free bonds, the longer the maturity and the lower the dividend, the greater the effect of future changes in interest rates on your bond. That makes them riskier, but also makes them earn more money on average. TL;DR: In terms of your wealth, which is what matters, it doesn't matter whether you hold your bond or buy a new one.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e538c046c14ab86ba88dc26048ac046",
"text": "\"What could happen to bonds such as these because of Detroit filing for bankruptcy? Depending on how the courts process Detroit's situation, there could be that some bonds become worthless since they are so low and the city can't pay anything on those low priority debts. Others may get pennies on the dollar. There could also be the case that some bailout comes along that makes the bonds good though I'd say that is a long shot at this point. Are these bonds done for, or will bondholders receive interest payments and eventual payment? I wouldn't suspect that they are done for in the sense of being completely worthless though at the same time, I'd be very careful about buying any of them given that they are likely to be changed a great deal. Could these bonds tend to rise over time after the bankruptcy? Yes, it is possible. If there was some kind of federal or state bailout that is done, the bonds could rise. However, that is one heck of an \"\"if\"\" as you'd need to have someone come to guarantee the bonds in a sense. What similar situations from the past might support this idea? Not that many as this is the biggest municipal bankruptcy ever, but here are a few links that may be useful as a starting point, though keep in mind Detroit's scale is part of the story as it is such a big amount being defaulted:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e5bf0acaab86f7c441d33d9a8c721f8",
"text": "\"Still waiting, still not seeing any that have.. When you debate someone, in a forum or somewhere other than your armchair, I suggest you forget about trying to demand a opposite answer from someone as an answer to a question. Its not only childish, its really quite silly. You are, by all definitions, a troglodyte. If you think of those ignorant \"\"republican christians\"\", thats how you are acting now. No country in the past has ever sold and bought there own debt at the same time I can promise you I worked in finance, for a large highly rated company, then got rich building a business. I know this hurts, but honestly, when you are wrong, just admit it and move on. Ignorance is just so sad to display and probably keeps you held back in life anyways. Im off to bed though I am sure you'll declare yourself victor of not naming a single country that bought and sold its own debt in history. But, maybe its ANY victory in your head you need right now. Who knows. ------------------------------------------- Update 1 * lol I see you changed your answer, let me do the same. The fact that the \"\"bank of england\"\" in 1694 is the model of \"\"modern\"\" central banks STILL doesn't show that they BOUGHT THERE OWN DEBT. Do you still not understand this yet? Modern central banking has NOTHING TO DO with buying your own debt. You really are clueless as to how \"\"economics\"\" works aren't you? ------------------------------------------- Update 2 * I think you keep changing them, because for some reason you just won't admit you have no understanding of modern/classical banking. Once again: >In order to induce subscription to the loan, the subscribers were to be incorporated by the name of the Governor and Company of the Bank of England. The bank was given exclusive possession of the government's balances, and was the only limited-liability corporation allowed to issue bank-notes.[12] The lenders would give the government cash (bullion) and also issue notes against the government bonds, which can be lent again. The £1.2m was raised in 12 days; half of this was used to rebuild the Navy. This statement still DOES NOT show that the government here simultaniously purchased its own bonds it issued. It issued debt, yes, no one is debating this. The bank, for all purposes, acted as the Treasury for England. But honestly, you are a fucking piece of work. I have watched you lie, change your answers, and pretty much do every childish thing in the book to try to win an arguement on Reddit. You are a little person, honestly. I know not of what world you live in, but it isn't this one. Seriously, get better, the world is alot more fun when you don't suck so bad at it.\"",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
25666b205feda35b41578beadfe92dda
|
S&P is consistently beating inflation?
|
[
{
"docid": "9b7c5fcd4fce83c37e92792c0c83ace5",
"text": "\"TL;DR: Because stocks represent added value from corporate profits, and not the price the goods themselves are sold at. This is actually a very complicated subject. But here's the simplest answer I can come up with. Stocks are a commodity, just like milk, eggs, and bread. The government only tracks certain commodities (consumables) as part of the Consumer Price Index (CPI). These are generally commodities that the typical person will consume on a daily or weekly basis, or need to survive (food, rent, etc.). These are present values. Stock prices, on the other hand, represent an educated guess (or bet) on a company's future performance. If Apple has historically performed well, and analysts expect it to continue to perform, then investors will pay more for a stock that they feel will continue pay good dividends in the future. Compound this with the fact that there is usually limited a supply of stock for a particular company (unless they issue more stock). If we go back to Apple as an example, they can raise their price they charge on an iPhone from $400 to $450 over the course of say a couple years. Some of this may be due to higher wage costs, but efficiencies in the marketplace actually tend to drive down costs to produce goods, so they will probably actually turn a higher profit by raising their price, even if they have to pay higher wages (or possibly even if they don't raise their price!). This, in economics, is termed value added. Finally, @Hart is absolutely correct in his comment about the stocks in the S&P 500 not being static. Additionally, the S&P 500 is a hand picked set of \"\"winners\"\", if you will. These are not run-of-the-mill penny stocks for companies that will be out of business in a week. These are companies that Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC thinks will perform well.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf488aa5ec973e17a92d53852a16100c",
"text": "\"Inflation and stock returns are completely different things The CPI tracks the changes in the prices of a basket of goods a consumer might buy, the S&P 500 tracks the returns earned by investors in the equity of large companies. The two are very different things, and not closely linked. Example: A world without inflation Consider a world in which there was no inflation. Prices are fixed. Should stocks return zero? Certainly not. Companies take raw materials and produce goods and services that have value greater than that of the raw materials. They create new wealth. This wealth becomes profit for the company, which then is passed on to the owners of the company (equityholders) either in the form of dividends or, more commonly, price increases. Example: A world with no inflation and no economic growth Note that I have not implied above that companies have to grow in order for returns to outperform inflation. Total stock returns depend on the current and expected profit of the firm. Firms can remain the same size and continually kick out profits. Total returns will be positive in this environment even if there is no growth and no inflation. If the firms pay the money out as dividends, investors get a cash flow. If they retain these earnings, the value of the firm's equity increases. Total returns take both types of income into account. Technically the S&P 500 is not a total return index, but in our current legal and corporate culture environment, there is a preference for retaining profits rather than paying them out. This causes price increases. Risk bearing In principle, if profit was assured, then investors would bid up stock prices so high that profit would have to compete with the risk-free rate, which often is close to inflation (like, right now). However, profit is not assured. Firm profit swings around over time and constitutes a significant source of risk. We can think of the owners of the firm as being the bondholders and equityholders. These assets are structured such that almost all the profit risk is born by equityholders. We can therefore think of equityholders as being compensated for bearing the risk that would otherwise be born by bondholders. Because equityholders are bearing risk, stock prices must be low enough that stocks have a positive expected return (above the risk-free rate, which is presumably not significantly below inflation). This is true for the same reason that insurance premiums are positive--people have to be compensated for bearing risk. See my answer to this question for a discussion of why risk means we should expect stock prices to increase indefinitely (even if inflation halts). The S&P is not a measure of firm size or value The S&P measures the return earned by investors, not the size of US companies. True, if constituent companies grow and nothing else changes, the index goes up, but if a company shrinks a lot, it gets dropped out, rather than dragging the index down. By the way, please note that dollars \"\"put into\"\" equities are not stuck somewhere. They are passed on to the seller, who then uses it to buy something (even if this is a new equity issuance and the seller is the firm itself). The logic that growth of firms somehow sucks money out of usage is incorrect.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "636c82034cad8c30b43c9f13cad4e238",
"text": "\"The U.S. economy has grown at just under 3% a year after inflation over the past 50 years. (Some of this occurred to \"\"private\"\" companies that are not listed on the stock market, or before they were listed.) The stock market returns averaged 7.14% a year, \"\"gross,\"\" but when you subtract the 4.67% inflation, the \"\"net\"\" number is 2.47% a year. That gain corresponds closely to the \"\"just under 3% a year\"\" GDP growth during that time.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "8d2417fd1e8eb8a7ede06951fc8de9c8",
"text": "\"Yes. The definition of unreasonable shows as \"\"not guided by or based on good sense.\"\" 100% years require a high risk. Can your one stock double, or even go up three fold? Sure, but that would likely be a small part of your portfolio. Overall, long term, you are not likely to beat the market by such high numbers. That said, I had 2 years of returns well over 100%. 1998, and 1999. The S&P was up 26.7% and 19.5%, and I was very leverage in high tech stock options. As others mentioned, leverage was key. (Mark used the term 'gearing' which I think is leverage). When 2000 started crashing, I had taken enough off the table to end the year down 12% vs the S&P -10%, but this was down from a near 50% gain in Q1 of that year. As the crash continued, I was no longer leveraged and haven't been since. The last 12 years or so, I've happily lagged the S&P by a few basis points (.04-.02%). Also note, Buffet has returned an amazing 15.9%/yr on average for the last 30 years (vs the S&P 11.4%). 16% is far from 100%. The last 10 year, however, his return was a modest 8.6%, just .1% above the S&P.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b2c844760b10919a890be503d0f7d801",
"text": "\"They don't, actually. Though in some time frames S&P 500 growth out performs S&P 500, it often lags. This is because \"\"growth\"\" doesn't refer to what happens to your account, but rather the type of stock in the index -- roughly speaking, it's the half of the S&P with the best earnings growth. That would be great, except it's not looking for is to see if that growth is worth buying. A stock with a 20% growth rate is a great buy at a P/E of 15, but a terrible buy at P/E/ 50. That leads to what JB King was talking about -- there's also the S&P 500 Value, which is roughly the cheapest stocks relative to earnings. Value does tend to beat the broad index over the long haul, because there's nothing like getting a good deal (note a stock can be in both the growth and value categories). This holds true with other indexes as well like the Russel 2000. All that said, you're not going to see a huge difference between S&P 500 and S&P 500 Growth. I believe this is because the S&P 500 itself leans a bit to the growthy side. PS: With VOOG Vanguard is tracking the S&P 500 Growth Index, which is actually a thing and not Vanguard itself filtering stocks.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "84b3cf05ee6db62987649b0d8dafb074",
"text": "\"You can see how much of a percentage the S&P 500 is of the GDP over the past 10 years in this handy graph: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=oCZ When the stock market was doing poorly (2009) it was only 0.06% of GDP. When it's doing well (now) it's 0.12% of the GDP. It's also not useful to directly compare percentages like you're doing. Just because one averages 6% growth and one averages 3% growth, that doesn't mean that the 6% one will take over. It doesn't take much of a correction to wipe out decades of S&P vs GDP growth. You might also be interested in knowing that this ratio is similar to the \"\"Buffet Indicator\"\", how Warren Buffet decides if stocks are overvalued as a whole: https://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/2017/04/04/market-cap-to-gdp-an-updated-look-at-the-buffett-valuation-indicator\"",
"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": "2649f29b989d8e7f895fca5b3d7d7194",
"text": "\"At the bottom of Yahoo! Finance's S & P 500 quote Quotes are real-time for NASDAQ, NYSE, and NYSE MKT. See also delay times for other exchanges. All information provided \"\"as is\"\" for informational purposes only, not intended for trading purposes or advice. Neither Yahoo! nor any of independent providers is liable for any informational errors, incompleteness, or delays, or for any actions taken in reliance on information contained herein. By accessing the Yahoo! site, you agree not to redistribute the information found therein. Fundamental company data provided by Capital IQ. Historical chart data and daily updates provided by Commodity Systems, Inc. (CSI). International historical chart data, daily updates, fund summary, fund performance, dividend data and Morningstar Index data provided by Morningstar, Inc. Orderbook quotes are provided by BATS Exchange. US Financials data provided by Edgar Online and all other Financials provided by Capital IQ. International historical chart data, daily updates, fundAnalyst estimates data provided by Thomson Financial Network. All data povided by Thomson Financial Network is based solely upon research information provided by third party analysts. Yahoo! has not reviewed, and in no way endorses the validity of such data. Yahoo! and ThomsonFN shall not be liable for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Thus, yes there is a DB being accessed that there is likely an agreement between Yahoo! and the providers.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5fe88507bbc13e2adef09b375816123b",
"text": "\"Being long the S&P Index ETF you can expect to make money. The index itself will never \"\"crash\"\" because the individual stocks in it are simply removed when they begin performing badly. This is not to say that the S&P Index won't lose 80% of its value in an instant (or over a few trading sessions if circuit breakers are considered), but even in the 2008 correction, the S&P still traded far above book value. With this in mind, you have to realize, that despite common sentiment, the indexes are hardly representative of \"\"the market\"\". They are just a derivative, and as you might be aware, derivatives can enable financial tricks far removed from reality. Regarding index funds, if a small group of people decide that 401k's are performing badly, then they will simply rebalance the components of the indexes with companies that are doing well. The headline will be \"\"S&P makes ANOTHER record high today\"\" So although panic selling can disrupt the order book, especially during periods of illiquidity, with the current structure \"\"the stock market\"\" being based off of three composite indexes, can never crash, because there will always exist a company that is not exposed to broad market fluctuations and will be performing better by fundamentals and share price. Similarly, you collect dividends from the index ETFs. You can also sell covered calls on your holdings. The CBOE has a chart through the 2008 crisis showing your theoretical profit and loss if you sold calls 2 standard deviations out of the money, at every monthly interval. If you are going to be holding an index ETF for a long time, then you shouldn't be concerned about its share price at all, since the returns would be pretty abysmal either way, but it should suffice for hedging inflation.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd66966f0541ccfd05860777d41fc257",
"text": "Eh using a benchmark that's designed for Hedge Funds is a little different. I was guessing the other comment was referring to SPX or similar for the 10%. Most people don't understand HF as investment vehicles. They are meant to be market neutral and focused on absolute returns. Yes, you can benchmark them against each other / strategy but most people here seem to think that HFs want to beat the S&P 500.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "340b75b1e37eecd052b891c6d5bbe629",
"text": "Inflation can be a misleading indicator. Partly because it is not measured as a function of the change in prices of everything in the economy, just the basket of goods deemed essential. The other problem is that several things operate on it, the supply of money, the total quantity of goods being exchanged, and the supply of credit. Because the supply of goods divides - as more stuff is available prices drop - it's not possible to know purely from the price level, if prices are rising because there's an actual shortage (say a crop failure), or simply monetary expansion. At this point it also helps to know that the total money supply of the USA (as measured by total quantity of money in bank deposits) doubles every 10 years, and has done that consistently since the 1970's. USA Total Bank Deposits So I would say Simon Moore manages to be right for the wrong reasons. Despite low inflation, cash holdings are being proportionally devalued as the money supply increases. Most of the increase, is going into the stock market. However, since shares aren't included in the measures of inflation, then it doesn't influence the inflation rate. Still, if you look at the quantity of shares your money will buy now, as opposed to 5 years ago, it's clear that the value of your money has dropped substantially. The joker in the pack is the influence of the credit supply on the price level.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c84d0cd8ba4ce0d23663e0591844911",
"text": "Gold is a risky and volatile investment. If you want an investment that's inflation-proof, you should buy index-linked government bonds in the currency that you plan to be spending the money in, assuming that government controls its own currency and has a good credit rating.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "57165bce8395c150584db3d30c37a8d3",
"text": "Well, you can't really have it both ways. You said that they were both using the same method, but, in fact, they aren't. You can call the weighting biased, but in fact if appears that BPP is doing little or minimal weighting, and yet still is showing that prices, in general, are mapping similarly to the BLS published CPI. Unless you're arguing an MIT 'academic conspiracy' (and even if you are), I think you've failed to make your case. BPP is independant, it uses a different methodology, and yet the results confirm those of the BLS.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4db9c2c21d5bcb01b3362aa9694b5d97",
"text": ">I would be interested in knowing how much of the recent returns of the S&P are being driven purely by the Fed bond purchase program, controlling for other macro-economic variables. The correlation of asset purchase dollars and SPX level does not answer this question.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f1688c0affff288ef6402d045731b746",
"text": "The answer would depend on the equities held. Some can weather inflation better than others (such as companies that have solid dividend growth) and even outpace inflation. Some industries are also safer against inflation than others, such as consumer staples and utilities since people usually have to purchase these regardless of how much $ they have. In looking over the data comparing S&P 500 returns, dividends, and inflation, the results are all over the map. In the 50's the total return was 19.3% with inflation at 2.2%. Then in the 70's returns were 5.8% with inflation at 7.4 percent, leading one to think that inflation diminished returns. But then in the 80's inflation was 5.1%, yet the return on the S&P was up to 17.3% Either way, aside from the 70's every other decade since 1950 has outpaced inflation (as long as you are including dividends; hence my first paragraph). S&P 500: Total and Inflation-Adjusted Historical Returns Also, the 7% average stock appreciation you mention is just that, an average. You are comparing a year-over-year number (7% inflation) with an aggregated one (stock performance over x number of years) and that is a misrepresentation and is not being weighted for the difference in what those numbers mean. Finally, there are thousands of things that have an effect on the stock market and stocks. Some are controllable and others are not. The idea that any one of them, such as inflation, has any sort of long-term, everlasting effect on prices that they cannot outmaneuver is improbable. This is where researching your stocks comes in...and if done prudently, who cares what the inflation rate is?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3bb9adeade58010a31af818f57c0402f",
"text": "Ok opinion but too bad it's not supported by data in the article. The opinion is backed by a survey of opinions, not actual inflation and employment figures. If prices are rising generally (and not just in individual commodities), why isn't that being reflected in inflation and employment numbers? Wouldn't we expect to see gross employment numbers trending downwards and inflation trending upwards since the beginning of the year?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fbcdc4709a26a75edae1f33af053105b",
"text": "This didn't answer his question. Also, while I agree with you that the Dow is meaningless (and your explanation why). In the investment industry, we don't only focus on the S&P Index.. Many have a specific benchmark they aim to outperform that matches their investment strategy (i.e. Russell Mid Cap Value, Russell 3000, etc.).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "802d65fbf36c083b5d83d94fbb814bc0",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-13/fed-s-patient-or-preemptive-clash-looms-as-inflation-misses-goal?cmpId=flipboard) reduced by 91%. (I'm a bot) ***** > The debate over whether the Fed should get ahead of the inflation curve or stick with a wait-and-see approach is heating up ahead of the Federal Open Market Committee&#039;s meeting next week. > Part of the doubt is due to low inflation expectations, which may represent the underlying, trend level of inflation. > &quot;The key question in my mind is how to achieve an improvement in longer-run inflation expectations to a level that will allow us to achieve our inflation objective,&quot; Brainard said. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6zwx8i/act_or_wait_fed_debate_heats_up_after_inflation/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~209135 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*: **inflation**^#1 **whether**^#2 **market**^#3 **policy**^#4 **year**^#5\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ecf61f86b1560704e794ab8eb179c88b
|
Is there a standard check format in the USA?
|
[
{
"docid": "bfd3eb0b7e5e8a780a7c355f643759a2",
"text": "\"Legally, a check just needs to have a certain list of things (be an instruction to one's bank to pay a specific amount of money to bearer or to a specific entity, have a date, have a signature, etc.) There are anecdotes around of a guy depositing a junk mail check and it accidentally qualifying as a real check (which he turned into a live show), or of writing a check on a door, cow, or \"\"the shirt off your back\"\". What kind of checks your bank will process is technically up to them. Generally, if you get your blank checks printed up by any reputable firm, they'll have similar information in similar places, as well as the MICR line (the account and routing number in magnetic ink on the bottom) to allow for bank to process the checks with automated equipment. As long as it's a standard size, has the MICR line, and has the information that a check needs, your bank is likely to be fine with it. So, there are some standards, but details like where exactly the name of the bank is, or what font is used, or the like, are up to whoever is printing the check. For details on what standards your bank requires in order to process your checks, you'd have to check with your bank directly. Though, it wouldn't surprise me if they just directed you to their preferred check printer provider, as they know that they accept their check format fine. Though as I said, any reputable check printer makes sure that they meet the standards to get processed by banks without trouble. Unless you're a business that's going to be writing a lot of checks and pay a lot of fees for the privilege, a bank is not likely to want to make exceptions for you for your own custom-printed octagonal checks written in ancient Vulcan.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c743e2b0aae682b2668a1394df2d6d16",
"text": "\"Many years ago, I worked on software that had to print the date, payee, and amounts on pre-printed checks. Other than the MICR line (which had a particular placement with respect to the bottom edge and required a particular font in a particular point size), most aspects of the check layout and format were up to the particular check provider. Then there was a desire to start using optical character recognition to further automate check handling. A standard came out, that most checks I see now seem to follow. The standard dictated the exact dollar sign glyph to be printed to the left of the amount box. This glyph was used by the OCR to locate the amount. There were specific tolerances for where you could print/write the amount relative to that dollar sign. There were also some requirements for the box containing the amount to have some clearance from the noisy backgrounds pre-printed on many checks. But what font you used inside the amount box was, as far as I could tell, unspecified. After all, customers could always hand-write the amount. Interestingly, the part of the check where you spell out the amount is known as the \"\"legal amount.\"\" If the amount in numerals and the amount in words don't match, the spelled version takes precedence, legally. (The theory being that it's easier to doctor the numerals to change the apparent value of the check than it is to change the words.) I always found it ironic that the layout standard to enable OCR standard was focused on reading the numerals rather than the legal amount. OCR has come a long way since then, so I wouldn't be surprised if, nowadays, both amounts are read, even on hand-written checks. A little search shows that current (voluntary) standards are put out by the ANSI X9 group.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "daf503bdb47cbd99db8a0575dccf9bc1",
"text": "No, there is no standard. I see all kinds of paper sizes, and the amount, date, etc. is all over the place. They are all rectangular, but otherwise there seems to be a lot of freedom.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "667d32f4e1e3404eca02464fa3df91b6",
"text": "\"Nope, anything is that has the required information is fine. At a minimum you need to have the routing number, account number, amount, \"\"pay to\"\" line and a signature. The only laws are that it can't be written on anything illegal, like human skin, and it has to be portable, not carved on the side of a building ( for example) https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-20434,00.html http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/12/people-actually-cash-big-novelty-checks-even-possible/ That said, the MICR line and standard sizes will make things eaiser for they bank, but are hardly required. You could write your check on notebook paper so long as it had the right information, and the bank would have to \"\"cash it\"\". Keep in mind that a check is an order to the bank to give your money to a person and nothing more. You could write it out in sentence form. \"\"Give Bill $2 from account 12344221 routing number 123121133111 signed _________\"\" and it would be valid. In practice though, it would be a fight. Mostly the bank would try to urge you to use a standard check, or could hold the funds because it looks odd, till they received the ok from \"\"the other bank\"\". But.... If you rant to fight that fight....\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "a52af80db391a615a2d0e6454abb495b",
"text": "They are valid checks, but you're going to get hassled when you try to use them. There's a perception that people using starter checks are more likely to bounce or otherwise be troublesome. When more payments were made with checks, some vendors would not accept checks with low numbers either! Checks are very cheap to get printed these days, save yourself some trouble and get some printed.",
"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": "a604457a8b2691dc2a260e9b318da026",
"text": "\"In general, a lack of endorsement (meaning nothing written by the receiver on the back of the check) is equivalent to it being endorsed \"\"as deposit only\"\" to a bank that the depositor has an account with. (See Uniform Commercial Code §4-205.) That is, the bank that receives a deposit without any endorsement promises to the banks that process the check along the line all the way back to your bank, that they properly deposited the money into the account of the entity that the check was made out to. With checks being processed with more and more automation, it's getting fairly common for there to be little writing needed on the check itself, as the digital copy gets submitted to the banking system for clearing. If you're concerned about there being some sort of fraud, that perhaps the entity that you're sending money to isn't the ones that should be getting it, or that they're not actually getting the money, or something like that, that's really an entirely different concern. I would expect that if you were saying that you paid something, and the payee said that you hadn't, that you would dispute the transaction with your bank. They should be able to follow the electronic trail to where the money went, but I suspect they only do so as part of an investigation (and possibly only in an investigation that involved law enforcement of some type). If you're just curious about what bank account number your deposit went into, then it just looks like you're the one trying to commit some sort of fraud (even if you're just being curious), and they don't have much incentive to try to help you out there.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "de5b3b9faab2ae254ca546bb6740d4e1",
"text": "In the US, paper checks are still the rule, and there is a large amount of the population that does not care to use online banking. As a result, those people need to go to the bank once a week or more often, to deposit checks they get from anywhere, to get cash, etc.; so all those little banks have traffic. This is slowly changing, and banks start to automatic the processes even in the brick-and-mortar location, but for now, they are around.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d7c55f0acbaef0b64df8e7e0a1cda7f8",
"text": "\"Read the check: it says \"\"Pay to the order of ...\"\". It's simply an order from you to your bank to give money to someone. It can be written on anything. Back in the olden days (a hundred years or so ago) it would have simply been a letter to the bank. Those rules haven't changed much with today's automation. What matters is that the order comes from you, which means it must have your signature. If the bank pays a check with a fraudulent signature they're responsible. Granted, banks don't look very carefully at checks any more (I once accidentally swapped two checks when I paid bills, and the phone company simply gave me a $700 credit on my $50-a-month account), but if they screw up it's their problem.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c608f69c9e18b78cf31cbd7865b487d1",
"text": "There is no difference they are both insufficient in 1 form or another.Bad slang for any check the bank won't cash, for any reason, Ie. insf. unreadable amount, acct or routing number, the acct.has been closed, or you didn't write the check(fraud). Bounced is slang for bank returned check unpaid.I wrote a bad check but it didn't bounce.The check is still insufficient but the bank didn't return it. $500.00 is the felony threshold in okla. less than $500.00 is a misdemeanor. but insf. fees ranging from ($25.00 to $50.00 vendor returned check fee + amount of check) x (bank insf fees of $25 to $50)is an effective deterent.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d2acf99226ed0dfb29bdfd1c8bfa6d16",
"text": "\"In the US, Section 3.114 of the Uniform Commercial Code sets the rules for how any confusion in checks or other business transactions is handled: “If an instrument contains contradictory terms, typewritten terms prevail over printed terms, handwritten terms prevail over both, and words prevail over numbers.” If there was any ambiguity in the way you wrote out the amount, the institution will compare the two fields (the written words and the courtesy box (digits)) to see if the ambiguity can be resolved. The reality is that the busy tellers and ATM operators typically are going to look at the numeric digits first. So even if they happen to notice the traditional \"\"and...\"\" missing, it seems highly unlikely that such an omission would cause enough ambiguity between these the two fields to reject the payment. Common sense dictates here. I wouldn't worry about it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3189b23d3dcbfdb99fbde707af816777",
"text": "Some check as part of a background investigation. Money problems can make it hard to establish a level of trust. If your credit is bad you might be easy to bribe. Or you might steal from the company. The level of importance will depend on the job you are applying for, or for the customer you will be working for. Government jobs or government contracts frequently require background checks. Jobs that will involve having access to high value items or money will also require a check.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8cb2a9643708b5505e3ebd3fc591d30f",
"text": "\"Technically it doesn't matter what size the check is. In fact, it doesn't even have to be written on paper. While writing it on a cow may not always fly, almost any object actually will. That said, more to the question asked - you can definitely use the smaller \"\"personal\"\"-sized checks for a business account. The larger checks formatted to the \"\"letter\"\" page size: if you cut it into three equal pieces with a tiny bit left for the binder holes - you'll get exactly three check-sized pieces. This is convenient for those printing checks, keeping carbon-copy records etc. Regarding the MICR line: I just checked my business check book, which is of a smaller \"\"personal\"\" size (that I got for free from the bank) - the check number is at the end.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fffb74ba8313f7a711cd5eb56455bbde",
"text": "Navy Federal Credit Union recently added this feature. It is free for members making a deposit to their personal checking account, though you have to be a member for at least 90 days to be eligible. I have an all-in-one printer with flatbed scanner and availed myself of the service a couple of days ago. There wasn't any additional software involved as everything was done through the web browser, as shown the scan deposit demo. The only problem I had was figuring out how to align the check for it to be scanned completely (had to place the check in the middle of the scanner, aligned lengthwise; that was more of a hassle to figure out that one would suppose). That was it. I immediately received an e-mail confirmation that my deposit had been approved and processed. While Navy Federal's scan deposit FAQ is specific to them, of course, it is pretty comprehensive and gives one an idea of the general restrictions applied to the service.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b06c4c5629a4c4f0af1e5c054ff97484",
"text": "Actually banks aren't required to (and don't) report on 8300 because they already report $10k+ cash transactions to FinCEN as a Currency Transaction Report (CTR), which is substantively similar; see the first item under Exceptions in the second column of page 3 of the actual form. Yes, 8300 is for businesses, that's why the form title is '... Received In A Trade Or Business'. You did not receive the money as part of a trade or business, and it's not taxable income to you, so you aren't required to report receiving it. Your tenses are unclear, but assuming you haven't deposited yet, when you do the bank will confirm your identity and file their CTR. It is extremely unlikely the government will investigate you for a single transaction close to $10k -- they're after whales and killer sharks, not minnows (metaphorically) -- but if they do, when they do, you simply explain where the money came from. The IRS abuses were with respect to people (mostly small businesses) that made numerous cash deposits slightly under $10k, which can be (but in the abuse cases actually was not) an attempt to avoid reporting, which is called 'structuring'. As long as you cooperate with the bank's required reporting and don't avoid it, you are fine.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a8935f4f9f839987be51bdc9ca58e298",
"text": "\"You can (usually) take it to your bank, and with appropriate identification, endorse the check with the words, \"\"not used for the purpose intended.\"\" The one time I needed to not-use a money order, I was instructed to do so by the cashier/clerk at the bank.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c3849e3003518435903391eaf972f235",
"text": "The paper check method also allows the bank to use your money while the check is in the mail. My bank debits my account immediately, so while my $100 utility bill is traveling the U.S. Postal System for two days, they can make use of my $100 in whatever slush fund they like.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b492f20ffd670ec5f37f67561c177c5",
"text": "\"You do not need to write anything on the second line. There are a variety of helpful things that you can add, e.g.: For Deposit Only. This tells the bank to deposit the check into your account and ignore other signatures. Your account number. Especially useful when added to \"\"For Deposit Only\"\". A countersignature. This tells the bank to pay the check to someone other than you. Countersigned checks used to be much more common than they are now. Someone who didn't have a bank account might ask someone who did to cash a check for them. See also: Four ways to endorse a check which gives the correct format for endorsing a check in these ways.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4c03d7d3c2bfc374ae93d7b90d38fdd3",
"text": "most def. When I have an algorithmic trading strategy I want to spitball, or some question about how to exploit netback pricing inefficiency between West Texas Intermediate and Brent prices based on some sort of shipping rate change, I'd like to post here. When I want a new job, I'll go to r/financialcareers.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
d1a7532ef1032b047c63db4b82fdc953
|
Could the loan officer deny me even if I have the money as a first time home buyer?
|
[
{
"docid": "c7ef1a2fdbb1359261574b34d2c11589",
"text": "A financial institution is not obligated to offer you a loan. They will only offer you a loan if they believe that they will make money off you. They use all the info available in order to determine if offering you a loan is profitable. In short, whether they offer you a loan, and the interest rate they charge for that loan, is based on a few things: How much does it cost the bank to borrow money? [aka: how much does the bank need to pay people who have savings accounts with them?]; How much does the bank need to spend in order to administer the loan? [ie: the loan officer's time, a little time for the IT guy who helps around the office, office space they are renting in order to allow the transaction to take place]; and How many people will 'default' and never be able to repay their loan? [ex: if 1 out of 100 people default on their loans, then every one of those 100 loans needs to be charged an extra 1% in order to recover the money the bank will lose on the person who defaults]. What we are mostly interested in here is #3: how likely are you to default? The bank determines that by determining your income, your assets, your current debts outstanding, your past history with payments (also called a credit score), and specifically to mortgages, how much the house is worth. If you don't have a long credit history, and because you don't have a long income history, and because you are putting <10% down on the condo [20% is often a good % to strive for, and paying less than that can often imply you will need mandatory mortgage insurance, depending on jurisdiction] the bank is a little more uncertain about your likelihood to pay. Banks don't like uncertainty, and they can deal with that uncertainty in two ways: (1) They can charge you a higher interest rate; OR (2) They can refuse you the loan. Now just because one bank refuses you a loan, doesn't mean all will - but being refused by one bank is probably a good indication that many / most institutions would refuse you, because they all use very similar analytical tools to determine your 'risk level'. If you are refused a loan, you can try again at another institution, or you can wait, save a larger down payment, and build your credit history by faithfully paying your credit card every month, paying your utilities, and making your car and rent payments on time. This will give the banks more comfort that you will have the ability to pay your mortgage every month, and a larger down payment will give them comfort that if the housing market dips, you won't owe more than the house is worth. My parting shot is this: If you are new in your career with no income history, be very careful about buying a property immediately, even if you get approved. A good rule of thumb is to only buy a property when you plan on living there for at least 5 years, or else you are likely to lose money overall, after factoring closing costs and maintenance fees. If you are refused a loan, that's probably a good sign that you aren't financially ready yet, but even if a bank approves you for a loan, you might not be ready yet either.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4c8dc8cbfd95b961f3ef5a7719eb7907",
"text": "My credentials: I used to work on mortgages, about 5 years ago. I wasn't a loan officer (the salesman) or mortgage processor (the grunt who does the real work), but I reviewed their work fairly closely. So I'm not an absolute authority, but I have first-hand knowledge. Contrary to the accepted answer, yes the bank is obligated to offer you a loan - if you meet their qualifications. This may sound odd, and as though it's forcing a bank to give money when it doesn't want to, but there is good reason. Back in the 1950's through 1980's, banks tended to deny loans to African Americans who were able to buy nicer homes because the loan officer didn't quite 'feel' like they were capable of paying off an expensive house, even if they had the exact same history and income as a white person who did get approved. After several rounds of trying to fix this problem, the government finally decreed that the bank must have a set, written criteria by which it will approve or decline loans, and the interest rates provided. It can change that criteria, but those changes must apply to all new customers. Banks are allowed a bit of discretion to approve loans that they may normally decline, but must have a written reason (usually it's due to some relationship with the customer's business (this condition adds a lot of extra rules), or that customer has a massive family and all 11 other siblings have gotten loans from the same loan officer - random rare stuff that can be easily documented if/when the government asks). The bank has no discretion to decline a loan at will - I've seen 98-year-olds sign a 30-year mortgage, and the bank was overjoyed because it showed that they didn't discriminate against the elderly. The customer could be a crackhead, and the bank can't turn them down if their paperwork, credit, and income is good. The most the loan officer could do is process the loan slowly and hope the crackhead gets arrested before the bank spends any more money. The regulations for employees new to the workforce are a bit less wonderful, but the bank will want 30+ days of income history (30 days, NOT 4 weeks) if you have it. BUT, if you are a fresh new employee, they can do the loan using your written and signed job offer as proof of income. However, I discourage you from using this method to buy a house. You are much, much better off renting for a while and learning the local area before you shop for a house. It's too easy to buy a house without knowing the city, then discover that you have a hideously slow drive to work and are in the worst part of town. And, you may not like the company as much, or you may not be a good fit. It's not uncommon to leave a company within a year or two. You don't want a house that anchors you to one place while you need the freedom to explore career options. And consider this: banks love selling mortgages, but they hate holding them. They want to collect that $10,000 closing fee, they couldn't care less about the 4% interest trickling in over 30 years. Once they sign the mortgage, they try to sell it to investors who want to buy high-grade debt within a month. That sale gives them all the money back, so they can use it to sell another mortgage and collect another $10,000. If the bank has its way, it has offloaded your mortgage before you send the first payment to them. As a result, it's a horrible idea to buy a house unless you expect to live there at least 5 or 10 years, because the closing costs are so high.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "070ac502bf02c2917462be84acc46be8",
"text": "I've been a mortgage broker for almost 20 years. I get people loans all of the time thru FHA and Conventional (Fannie Mae) with just one year work history; however, as a student, you must submit your school transcripts and your major needs to be in line with your current job. I'm closing a guy next week that has only been in his job for 8 months but he just graduated with his Masters in Biology. He's currently a wild life manager and the underwriter signed off on it easily.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8401508cd262c9959657b24535973b9b",
"text": "I’ve been in the mortgage business for nearly 15 years. Your question is sort of multi-faceted and I’m surprised by some of these answers I’ve read! Anyway, I digress. Yes, you can be denied even if you have money for a down payment. One of the BIGGEST factors lenders are now required to take into account when approving mortgages now is a person’s “Ability to Repay.” Whether your traditional mortgages like Conventional, FHA, USDA, or VA loans, or even an “in-house” mortgage from a local bank —either way, the lender MUST be able to verify someone’s ability to repay. Your issue is that you won’t have any verifiable income until May. A couple people have answered correctly in that 1) if you have a firm offer letter that can be verified with the employer, and 2) you can use your education/college to substitute for a two year work history as long as you’re graduating with and working in the same line of work. Some programs require proof of 30 days of pay history once you actually start earning paychecks; some programs will use the offer letter as long as you will start earning paychecks within a certain number of days after the note date (basically when the payments start). Also I’m making the assumption that there is some sort of credit history that can be verified. Most lenders want at least a couple of accounts reporting a history just to show good use of credit and showing that you can manage your finances over a longer period of time. Just about every lender has some sort of minimum FICO score requirement. I hope this helps. If you have questions, just reply in a comment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4dde14078360ebe61ec0b131b96c43aa",
"text": "There are loan options for those in your situation. It is very common. I am a licensed loan officer nmls 1301324 and have done many loans just like this. Your schooling is counted as your work history Contrary to popular belief. We want to write loans and guidelines are easing. Banks are a different story and their loan officers aren't licensed. If you talk to a bank you aren't getting an educated loan officer. They also have what are called overlays that make guidelines stricter.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "ac5e3eceb0f3f7efed7542521895e212",
"text": "I have gotten a letter of credit from my credit union stating the maximum amount I can finance. Of course I don't show the dealer the letter until after we have finalized the deal. I Then return in 3 business days with a cashiers check for the purchase price. In one case since the letter was for an amount greater then the purchase price I was able drive the car off the lot without having to make a deposit. In another case they insisted on a $100 deposit before I drove the car off the lot. I have also had them insist on me applying for their in-house loan, which was cancelled when I returned with the cashiers check. The procedure was similar regardless If I was getting a loan from the credit union, or paying for the car without the use of a loan. The letter didn't say how much was loan, and how much was my money. Unless you know the exact amount, including all taxes and fees,in advance you can't get a check in advance. If you are using a loan the bank/credit Union will want the car title in their name.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8538425a1512cb2ef656089209391114",
"text": "Being a guarantor means you have explicitly agreed that you will make the loan payments if the primary borrower doesn't. That means you have given them permission to demand those payments, which means they can force you to sell things if you can't find the money any other way. Essentially, you have promised to buy the loan from the bank if they decide it's a bad loan. Where you would find the money to pay for it is your problem. Obviously, this is not a situation you want to get into if you don't trust that the borrower will do everything in their power to protect you or repay you, or if you aren't willing to make them a gift of the money if they can't or don't, or if you can't afford to lend them the money yourself.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b07c7636d56c874eee129e2b74e5253e",
"text": "I recommend you ask this question to a qualified mortgage broker. We just closed on our first house. My wife & I have had several years of stable jobs, good credit scores, and a small side business with 1040 Schedule-C income... and we were surprised by the overwhelming amount of documentation we needed for the loan. For example, we had 3 checks deposited to our bank account for $37.95. We had to provide copies of the checks, deposit slip and a letter explaining the deposit. One reason we might have had so much trouble: the mortgage broker we selected sold our loan to a very picky lender. On the plus side, we obtained a competitive rate with extremely low closing costs on a 30 year fixed mortgage. However, I can't imagine the headaches we would've incurred if one of us were changing jobs to 1099 income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22583fa50c9ff6f21a1e127b4bdeed3b",
"text": "Most states do have a cooling-off period where the buyer can rescind the purchase as well as a legally allowed limit to how long the dealer has to secure financing when they buyer has opted for dealer-financing. If the dealer did inform you during the allowed window, they will refund your down payment minus mileage fees at a state set cost per mile that you used the car. If the dealer did not inform you during the allowed window, depending on the state, they may have to refund the entire down payment. In any case, the problem is that the bank does not want to offer you the loan, you can try to negotiate and have the dealer use what leverage they have to coerce the bank, but there is probably no way for you to force the loan through. Alternatively you can seek your own financing from your own bank or credit union, which will likely allow the sale to go through. UPDATE - Colorado laws allow the dealer 10 days to inform you that they cannot obtain financing on the terms agreed upon in the original contract. That contract contained wording related to the mileage fees. You can find that info on page 8 of the linked PDF under the heading D. USAGE FEE AND MILEAGE CHARGE",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1539d63a7428b2820667f161daba9011",
"text": "While it is possible to have pre-printed checks with a limit on them, I'd be worried about two things: That limit somehow getting ignored by the banks and the resulting hassle on your part. Anyone unscrupulous could try to talk dad into simply writing more than one check. Dad should give you power of attorney and let you dole out a monthly allowance into his account. Yeah, it's a tough conversation, just like the one about not driving anymore.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b74742b32b99f9bd32cd60cc84d3206f",
"text": "\"Often the counter-party has obligations with respect to timelines as well -- if your buying a house, the seller probably is too, and may have a time-sensitive obligation to close on the deal. I'm that scenario, carrying the second mortgage may be enough to make that deal fall through or result in some other negative impact. Note that \"\"pre-approval\"\" means very little, banks can and do pass on deals, even if the buyer has a good payment history. That's especially true when the economy is not so hot -- bankers in 2011 are worried about not losing money... In 2006, they were worried about not making enough!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "042b242265023ff11bf09c68b010334d",
"text": "If you can qualify for two mortgages, this is certainly possible. For this you can talk to a banker. However, most people do not qualify for two mortgages so they go a different route. They make offers on a new home with a contingency to sell the existing home. A good Realtor will walk you through this and any possible side effects. Keep in mind that the more contingencies in an offer the less attractive that offer is to sellers. This is how cash buyers can get a better deal (no contingencies and a very fast close). Given the hotness of your market a seller might reject your offer as opposed to first time home buyer that does not need to sell an old home. On the other hand, they may see your contingency as low risk as the market is so hot. This is why you probably need a really good agent. They can frame the contingency in a very positive light.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6564b849fddb495c63f688e149b585d0",
"text": "Are there any known laws explicitly allowing or preventing this behavior? It's not the laws, it's what's in the note - the mortgage contract. I read my mortgage contracts very carefully to ensure that there's no prepayment penalty and that extra funds are applied to the principal. However, it doesn't have to be like that, and in older mortgages - many times it's not like that. Banks don't have to allow things that are not explicitly agreed upon in the contract. To the best of my knowledge there's no law requiring banks to allow what your friend wants.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d2c5c75a3a4275cd1e4dd42f690d634",
"text": "If you are putting down less than 20% expect to need to pay PMI. When you first applied they should have described you a group of options ranging from minimal to 20% down. The monthly amounts would have varied based on PMI, down payment, and interest rate. The maximum monthly payment for principal, interest, taxes, and insurance will determine the maximum loan you can get. The down payment determines the price of the house above the mortgage amount. During the most recent real estate bubble, lenders created exotic mortgage options to cover buyers who didn't have cash for a down-payment; or not enough income for the principal and interest, or ways to sidestep PMI. Many of these options have disappeared or are harder to get. You need to go back to the bank and get more information on your different options, or find a lender broker who will help you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b80cfd67567b2482cfe5fb29d67f9c5",
"text": "It depends on how much equity you have in your home. Scenario 1: Your home is worth $100K, and your current mortgage is for $100K (or more which means you are underwater.) In this case you can't get a 2nd mortgage because: That being said, you can use different portions of equity in your home as collateral for multiple mortgages, as long as none of the equity overlaps, but you may need permission from the primary mortgage bank first, for example: Scenario 2: Your home is worth $100K, and your current mortgage is for $80K meaning you currently have $20K in equity. It is possible to get a 2nd mortgage or home equity line of credit for $20K. As a side note, if your loan agent is telling you to use a different bank, it sounds like she is trying (and willing) to do something shady. If you are in Scenario 1, I'd find a new agent.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "750a1ab4a779a1150815ad21426169ae",
"text": "\"Wouldn't be advisable, it's not a bank account. However, some plans have emergency \"\"hardship\"\" provisions. Some that I'm familiar with would only be allowable if you are ineligible for a loan. Some of the reasons are purchase of a primary residence, college expenses, funeral costs, or to prevent eviction. Hope this helps.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "40a3ed42a95a261f1ea50c917cd0b435",
"text": "Make sure that when you have the loan you still contribute enough to get the company match. For example: An inability to maximize the match might need to be figured into the opportunity cost of the loan. Some companies will suspend your contributions for a specific number of months for a hardship withdraw. Make sure you understand where the money comes from for the loan. Can you count the money that the company matched but you are not vested with, when determining the maximum amount of the loan? If the money is in what is now a closed fund can you replenish the funds back into that fund if use it to fund the loan? Know what the repayment time period is of the loan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e511afc8eba41870dd7e88e079f1499a",
"text": "The most likely reason for this is that the relocation company wants to have a guaranteed sale so as to get a new mortgage in the new location. Understand that the relocation company generally works for a prospective employer. So they are trying to make the process as painless as possible for the homeowner (who is probably getting hired as a professional, either a manager or someone like an engineer or accountant). If the sale is guaranteed to go through regardless of any problems, then it is easy for them to arrange a new mortgage. In fact, they may bridge the gap by securing the initial financing and making the downpayment, then use the payout from the house you are buying to buy out their position. That puts them on the hook for a bunch of money (a downpayment on a house) while they're waiting on the house you're purchasing to close. This does not necessarily mean that there is anything wrong with the house. The relocation company would only know about something wrong if the owner had disclosed it. They don't really care about the house they're selling. Their job is to make the transition easy. With a relocation company, it is more likely that they are simply in a hurry and want to avoid a busted purchase. If this sale fails to go through for any reason, they have to start over. That could make the employment change fall through. This is a variation of a no contingencies sale. Sellers like no contingencies sales because they are easier. Buyers dislike them because their protections are weaker. But some buyers will offer them because they get better prices that way. In particular, house flippers will do this frequently so as to get the house for less money than they might otherwise pay. This is better than a pure no contingencies sale, as they are agreeing to the repairs. This is a reasonable excuse to not proceed with the transaction. If this makes you so uncomfortable that you'd rather continue looking, that's fine. However, it also gives you a bit of leverage, as it means that they are motivated to close this transaction quickly. You can consider any of the following: Or you can do some combination of those or something else entirely that makes you fell more secure. If you do decide to move forward with any version of this provision, get a real estate lawyer to draft the agreement. Also, insist on disclosure of any previous failed sales and the reason for the failure before signing the agreement. The lawyer can make that request in such a way as to get a truthful response. And again, in case you missed it when I said this earlier. You can say no and simply refuse to move forward with such a provision. You may not get the house, but you'll save a certain amount of worry. If you do move forward, you should be sure that you are getting a good deal. They're asking for special provisions; they should bear the cost of that. Either your current deal is already good (and it may be) or you should make them adjust until it is.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "97346439b9bda6cb87eaf6f87a228137",
"text": "Keep in mind that lenders will consider the terms of any loans you have when determining your ability to pay back the mortgage. They'll want to see paperwork, or if you claim it is a gift they will require a letter to that effect from your relative. Obviously, this could effect your ability to qualify for a loan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b65061af07fa3aa550a3bee5c4c8e631",
"text": "Is she correct in that you generally can't even apply until the cash transaction is complete? Probably. How can you commit to mortgage something you do not own? Makes sense for them to wait not even until the transaction is complete - but until the transaction is recorded. Is 45 days reasonable to complete the financing? Yes.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
c6582385fda393114d3306dc1bf6e3b1
|
Why can't the government simply payoff everyone's mortgage to resolve the housing crisis?
|
[
{
"docid": "9d9b714554609920f47430c4bc01b60a",
"text": "Could it be done? Yes, it could, subject to local law. A variant of such an approach has been suggested for those countries experiencing collapse of demand. One might consider whether whether it applied to secured loans (such as mortgages), unsecured loans, or both; whether it would be capped at a certain absolute (say £100k) or proportional (first 50%) of each mortgage; whether it would cover first homes only, or all homes; and so on. These details would radically change the feasibility and consequences of any such intervention. See the related question: https://economics.stackexchange.com/q/146/104 Such a policy of debt cancellation would have several consequences beyond initial stimulation of demand, that would need additional policies to deal with them. Inflation The resultant surge in demand would, in the absence of any other intervention, result in a massive surge in inflation. There are some interesting questions about whether this burst of inflation would be a one-off, or not. One could make an argument that as housing has become much more affordable (at least for home-owners), it would increase the downward pressure on wages, which would be in itself counter-inflationary in the medium-long term. Nevertheless, it would be injecting much more money into the economy than has been seen in QE to date, so the risks would be of extraordinarily high inflation, which might or might not get entrenched. In order to manage the short-term risk, and long-term inflation expectations, it might be necessary to incorporate a lot of tightening, either fiscal (higher taxes and/or lower public spending), or monetary: (higher interest rates, unwinding QE, new requirements for higher core capital for banks) Moral hazard There are risks of moral hazard for individuals: however, as a society, we were prepared to accept the moral hazard for financial institutions and their staff, so that may or may not be an issue: it is likely to be a question of long-term expectations. If the expectation is that this is at most a once-in-a-lifetime occurrence, then the consequential risk from moral hazard ought to be lower. Excess profits to lenders Lenders will typically work on the basis of a certain proportion of defaults, so paying off all loans effectively gives them an artificial boost to their profits. Worsening balance of payments There is to a degree a prisoners' dilemma facing nations here. Pressing the reset-button on personal debt across many of the countries experiencing demand-collapse would benefit all of them. However, if just one such country were to do it alone, they alone would increase domestic demand, resulting in a large increase in imports, but no significant increase in exports.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e849b3d211a31435403e20341ec5b7ed",
"text": "\"Just looking at the practicality: Because the total value of outstanding mortgages in the US is about $10 trillion, and the government can't afford it without printing enough money to cause hyperinflation. The cost of saving the banks was actually much less than the \"\"hundreds of billions of dollars\"\" that is quoted, because most of it was loans that have been or will be repaid, not cash payments.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e482c7b1177a5e9b7900478b922445d3",
"text": "\"Interestingly, ancient Judaism and Christianity held a Jubilee year every 50 years in which all debts were forgive, slaves were freed, etc. \"\"The land must not be sold permanently, for the land belongs to me. You are only foreigners, my tenant farmers.\"\" -Leviticus 25:23 Jubilee would more resemble \"\"the government declares all mortgages and credit card debts void\"\" with FDIC caping the payouts when banks fell into receivership, not simply \"\"the government pays off all mortgages\"\". Yet, it still demonstrates that primitive societies employed tools similar to what you describe. There is surely all manor of interesting analysis of the economic impacts of Jubilee by Jewish religious historians. You might even find arguments that communism was invented because Western Judeo-Christian societies abandoned Jubilee. As an aside, I'm surprised that nobody here directly discussed the velocity of money. If you wipe out a mortgage, you might convert a spender into a saver, especially during a recession, meaning you've injected slow money. Conversely, anyone too poor for a mortgage probably spends all their money, meaning giving them a job injects faster money. In addition, it's much cheaper to hire tons of poor people to do useful things, like repairing bridges.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b13ce3e4a1c377d4ab7c7c98c30d3ebf",
"text": "Government purchases of mortgages simply transfers the debt burden from households to the sovereign. Taxes pay sovereign debt (65% of whom are homeowners anyway). No debt has been restructured -- it's now paid via taxes instead of monthly mortgage payments -- and those paying include persons who responsibly avoided housing speculation. The U.S. has a debt-to-GDP ratio just shy of the critical point of 90%. Purchasing $10 trillion in mortgage debt (about a year of GDP) would put the U.S. on an inexorable path towards insolvency and inflation. There are all sorts of other risks (loss of a risk-free asset, moral hazard, nationalization of the housing industry, etc.) but this should make the point clear that it's not a good idea. There are only three ways to reduce debt: 1) default, 2) restructure, or 3) lower the real debt burden by de-valuing currency in which the debt is denominated.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ea2c1074eaffb004f46e2eeceee96ef5",
"text": "I think Energy and Mike point out the some serious issues but the prospects for the futures also need to be considered. If the banks no longer have those loans then they need to rebuild their income base that is wiped out by the payoff of their loans. They would be incentivised to make a large number of loans so that they could quickly reestablish their base so they can maintain profitability. This is likely to lead to more poor lending practices that lead to this location in the first place. The high earning heavily leveraged would benefit far more from this than the poor. A function of income is that as it increases the ability to leverage increases in a non lineal fashion. So single person making 250k a year(the benchmark set by the current administration) with a 2 million dollar mortgage(probably underwater currently) on a home would benefit much more than a family of 4 making 50k a year with a 100k mortgage. Assuming that government does pay off all mortages now people can sell of their now fully paid homes for less than their value, as its basically free money, leverage that money to move into a better home, so home values actually crash, in some areas as people sell them off cheap, people try to gamble on cheap houses(like we just saw), etc. It takes a market that is on the verge of recovery and stabilization and shakes it up. How long before it stabilizes again would be a matter of debate but I would not expect to see it in less than a decade. Business and the Economy thrives on stability and retreats from instability. So while this would appear to be an injection to the economy the chaos it creates would likely actually severely retard future economic growth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b1b03fc22452d5e27707aa69e1af778a",
"text": "\"TARP was ~$475 billion of loans to institutions. Loans that are to be paid back, with interest (albeit very low interest). A significant percentage of the TARP loans have been (or will be) paid back. So, the final price tag of the TARP was only a few $billion (pretty low considering the scale of the program). There is ~$10 trillion in mortgage debt outstanding. That's a much higher price tag than TARP. Secondly, paying off the mortgages = no repayment to the government as there was with TARP. The initial price tag of your plan would be ~$10 trillion, instead of a few $billion. Furthermore how does a government with >$15 trillion in debt already come up with an extra ~$10 trillion to pay off people's mortgages? Should the government go deeper into debt? Print more money and trigger inflation? (Note: Some people like to talk about a \"\"secret bailout\"\" by the Fed, implying that the true cost of TARP was much higher than claimed by the government. The \"\"secret bailout\"\" was a series of short-term low/no interest loans to banks. Because they were loans, which were paid back, my point still stands.) Some other issues to consider: Remember that the principal balance of your mortgage is only a small portion of your payments to the bank. Over 30 years, you pay a lot of $$$ in interest to the bank (that's how banks make a profit). Banks are expecting that revenue, and it is factored into their financial projections. If those revenue streams suddenly disappeared, I expect it would majorly screw the up the financial industry. Many people bought houses during the real estate boom, when housing prices were inflated far beyond the \"\"real\"\" value of the house. Is it right to overpay for these houses? This rewards the banks for accepting the inflated value during the appraisal process. (Loan modification forces banks to accept the \"\"real\"\" value of the house.) The financial crisis was triggered by people buying houses they could not afford. Should they be rewarded with a free house for making poor financial decisions?\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "318b176230b8586dd9fc2cab38336566",
"text": "tl;dr: when everything is going great, it's not really a problem. It's when things change that it's a problem. Finally, home loans are extended over extremely long periods (i.e. 15 or 30 years), making any fluctuations in their value short-lived - even less reason to be obsessed over their current value relative to the loan. Your post is based on the assumption that you never move. In that case, you are correct - being underwater on a mortgage is not a problem. The market value of your house matters little, except if you sell it or it gets reassessed. The primary problem arises if you want to sell. There are a variety of reasons you might be required to move: In all of these scenarios it is a major problem if you cannot sell. Your options generally are: In the first option, you will destroy your credit. This may or may not be a problem. The second is a major inconvenience. The third is ideal, but often people in this situation have money related problems. Student loans can deferred if needed. Mortgages cannot. A car is more likely to be a lower payment as well as a lower amount underwater. Generally, the problem comes when people buy a mortgage assuming certain things - whether that's appreciation, income stability/growth, etc. When these change they run into these problems and that is exactly a moment where being underwater is a problem.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c41ef51067ef9347fe25a6bcd81ebdf3",
"text": "\"**Put aside the politics?** That's laughable for an article that is nothing BUT politics. For starters the artificially false conflation of *everyone* as if their behavior were homogeneous, when in reality it is a full spectrum (there are many people with not only ZERO debt, but substantial assets, including very productive assets). Ergo the argument that there is some egalitarian \"\"solution\"\" to this by treating everyone the same way... is in fact a POLITICAL assumption (and a very biased one at that).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "51b61510b05690018847d6b23c1d1012",
"text": "\"I refuse to vote for Mitt Romney but I don't see what's wrong with his position in this instance. Homes are way too expensive currently and helping people with underwater mortgages would be akin to propping up unsustainable home prices. The only way to fix the housing market it so value homes at a value that people are willing or able to pay. Given the wage deflation going on in the USA coupled with a good portion of an entire generation of new home buyers saddle with a mortgage sized student loan debts, it's ridiculous to think current home prices represent the \"\"bottom\"\" of the market.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d35a275785ad334b43d00e02d8ea4291",
"text": "\"Just like foreclosing is less than optimal for the banks, a tax sale has drawbacks for the county. At a minimum, there the manpower needed to process the foreclosure and sale, and in many cases the value for which the property can be sold is probably less than the taxes due. The problem is this flies in the face of the \"\"personal responsibility\"\" talking point that many bankers have been spreading since the beginning of the financial crisis. It's a moral failing for a homeowner to walk away from an upside-down mortgage, but when the bank does the same thing for a tax bill it's a simple business decision.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "45b83b7db238444d8aad9d45593540a6",
"text": "I believe the reason is because society and the economy is set up a certain way, and re-enforced by the government. Your options are: So, people usually go with the most attractive of their limited options, getting a mortgage. If you want to dig deeper, do some research as to why housing is expensive. Some things to consider: you need the government's permission to build houses, thus limiting the competition in the home building market, the housing bubble, artificially setting house prices, etc.) To summarize: people need mortgages because houses are expensive, and houses are expensive for many reasons, big ones having to do with the government.",
"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": "e59ad8c7c5de49cc6ae7a7f7dbbf3db6",
"text": "I agree. Money has been funnelled to the top and debt on the those at the bottom for so long people just can't afford to buy a house. Student loans are as expensive as a house. Who can afford two payments like that?",
"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": "64b06d542cb789cc6df9422c049c888d",
"text": "All this may be true but rampant fraud was not at the core of the housing crisis. Middle managers fired because Human Resources could do middle manager work on management software for low wages -- that is the core of the housing crisis. Fired middle managers who were paying their home loans walked away from their homes because they no longer were able to get a high paying job to pay for those homes. The middle class of lower populated Canada is greater than the middle class in the U.S. today. As a former manager of hundreds of home loan officers, I should know.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "87fa4388d86ef6ac67a14c7af86ab51a",
"text": "And so what was the logical alternative? How does Hank Paulson: 1. Get $150-300 billion dollars into the hands of individual taxpayers so that they don't default on their home mortgages and wipe out the banking system? 2. Make sure the $150-300 B is going to individuals who actually need the capital, weren't bad actors in taking on too much debt and causing everyone else significant harm by engaging in risky borrowing? 3. Sufficiently protect the $150-300 B in loans so that the US Gov't can get paid back and not have it be some massive giveaway of taxpayer dollars? And all this had to be done within a matter of days. Ontop of which, why aren't you railing against the irresponsible automakers who didn't pay back their TARP loans and instead were forgiven, while the banks paid back their loans in full with interest and a profit to the US Taxpayer? The automakers and the unions basically got free money (after Obama came into office and under his direction) on the back of the taxpayer. Isn't that crony capitalism when unions who are Democratic sympathizing voters get loans that are ultimately forgiven by the federal government? The whining you make about private entities like Berkshire, who did nothing to create the crisis and merely took advantage of it, with little to no help from the federal government is remarkable. It's like straight out of a socialist playbook.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c9331a3c65771f1e4731b192eb5ed521",
"text": "Pay the the smallest balance first. The sooner you pay that off, the sooner you can pay more on the mortgage.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "53205f3ae9cc5c0fa3b952d110994482",
"text": "\"I think a big part of the issue is ignorance. For instance, the US govt cannot default on its loans, yet you keep hearing people speak as if it could. The US govt also does not have to borrow to pay for anything, it creates its own money whenever it wants. These 2 facts often evade many people, and they feel the US govt should act like a household, business, or a state govt. This disconnect leads to a lot of confusion, and things like \"\"fiscal crisis\"\". Just remember Rahm Emanuel - don't let a crisis go to waste. Disclaimer: this is not to say the US should create money whenever it wants without thought. However, the simple fact is it can. For those interested in more, check out Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). Its economic study in a world not based on gold standard, or convertible currency (fiat currency).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a4cad748806759ebd93c5e6f88334d1",
"text": "No. Bank of America helped out during the financial crisis by buying Merrill Lynch (I am not suggesting they did this for altruistic reasons, just trying to describe the position they were in despite already purchasing Countrywide). They were forced to accept TARP but they paid it all back by the end of 2009. If the IRS fucked up their math like BofA is suggesting then they deserve to be compensated. Edit: Countrywide is one word.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "52feda2bfa5b003fa24d3ee131ed0895",
"text": "Because people are going deeper into debt and filing for bankruptcy more often, there is more risk on behalf of the credit company. Therefore, they limit their risk by lower limits and increasing interest. For every person that goes bankrupt, there might be 10 that pay that new higher interest rate, thereby netting a profit even though they lost out completely on the one customer. The recent legislation limited how and under what circumstance rate are adjusted and raised, but not forbidden. As for the fact that these banks took tax money under the idea (we all thought) I see two points of view. We never should have had the credit we did, so they are correcting and you (like me and millions of others) are suffering for their prior mistakes. It is an honest attempt to correct the system for long term stability even if we suffer in the short term. We gave them tax money, they need to not screw us over. In response to the still frozen credit markets I would suggest penalty taxes to companies that do not lend. Penalties to companies that do not modify mortgages. The second you take government money is the last second a you are entitled to a profit of anything. Furthermore, we the people bought you and we the people get to decide your salary. The bottom line is there is truth in both statements. Things are totally screwed up right now because we ALL made mistakes in the past trying to get a bigger profit or own a bigger house. There are those among us who didn't make a mistake, and those among us who made nothing but mistakes. As a society, we have to pay the piper either way. The best thing you can do now is pay down your debts, live simply and spend your money wisely.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4af29a241248699704bf23cf1c31c9ea",
"text": "The core competency of banks is to lend money from depositors and re-lend that money to borrowers. They do not have the expertise to develop real estate. They have trouble evening managing foreclosed real estate, such that they have to sell them at a discount.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
21c861c229bbcf5a42e1ea490c28b95f
|
For the first time in my life, I'm going to be making real money…what should I do with it?
|
[
{
"docid": "a6538981686b2af921afea0fb21d7b9c",
"text": "\"Fool's 13 steps to invest is a good starting point. Specifically, IFF all your credit cards are paid, and you made sure you've got no outstanding liabilities (that also accrues interest), stock indexes might be a good place for 5-10 years timeframes. For grad school, I'd probably look into cash ISA (or local equivalent thereof) -the rate of return is going to be lower, but having it in a separate account at least makes it mentally \"\"out of sight - out of mind\"\", so you can make sure the money's there WHEN you need it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "979cd6d920dba200d173a0bf21da30fd",
"text": "Fund your retirement accounts first. Even as an intern, it is still worthwhile to open a Roth IRA and start contributing to it. See my answer to a similar question: Best way to start investing, for a young person just starting their career?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "154937e77d1c1a746274efc561edfd30",
"text": "If I may echo the Roth comment - The Roth is a tax designation, not an end investment, so you still need to research and decide what's appropriate. I recommend the Roth for the long term investments, but keep in mind, even if you feel you may need to tap the Roth sooner than later, all deposits may be withdrawn at any time with no tax or penalty. Roth is great to store the emergency money for many if they aren't 100% sure they have enough cash to save for retirement. As you get further along, and see that you don't need it, change how it's invested to longer term, a mix of stocks (I prefer ETFs that mimic the S&P)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "482d51606548f12a512f4ea8051c8227",
"text": "Your attitude is great, but be careful to temper your (awesome) ambition with a dose of reality. Saving is investing is great, the earlier the better, and seeing retirement at a young age with smooth lots of life's troubles; saving is smart and we all know it. But as a college junior, be honest with yourself. Don't you want to screw around and play with some of that money? Your first time with real income, don't you want to blow it on a big TV, vacation, or computer? Budget out those items with realistic costs. See the pros and cons of spending that money keeping in mind the opportunity cost. For example, when I was in college, getting a new laptop for $2000 (!) was easily more important to me than retirement. I don't regret that. I do regret buying my new truck too soon and borrowing money to do it. These are judgment calls. Here is the classic recipe: Adjust the numbers or businesses to your personal preferences. I threw out suggestions so you can research them and get an idea of what to compare. And most importantly of all. DO NOT GET INTO CREDIT CARD DEBT. Use credit if you wish, but do not carry a balance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0b554c68ca04fc57f74a5dffea17ef61",
"text": "On the one hand, it's a great idea to open a Roth IRA now, once you've got the cash to contribute. It's a tax designation sounds like it would fit your meager earnings this year. The main reason to open one now rather than later is that some types of withdrawls require the account be aged 5 years. But you can also withdraw the amount you've contributed tax free any time. Student loans right now are pricey, so if you're carrying a balance at say 6.8 percent fixed you should pay that down ASAP. Beyond that, I'd keep the rest liquid for now. Having that kind of liquid cash is extremely reassuring, and many of the biggest returns on investment are going to be in your personal life. More fuel efficient vehicles, energy efficient appliances, computer backups, chest freezers and bulk meat purchases, etc. One example I see every six months is car insurance: I can pay for six months in full or I can pay a smaller monthly bill plus a small fee. That fee is well above current market rates. You see this everywhere; people searching for lower minimum payments rather than lower total costs. Save your money up and be the smart buyer. It's too damn expensive to be broke.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "02bb9d727e9d196b12321ebeac226451",
"text": "Put it in the bank and earn the meager interest rate. By far your most important investment is finishing your education and as such this money might be needed to do so. If you don't need the money during your education you will undoubtedly need it for a new apartment/furnishings/moving expenses.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af223850d5c390d6a986d4bdb93cfedf",
"text": "Establish good saving and spending habits. Build up your savings so that when you do buy a car, you can pay cash. Make spending decisions, especially for housing, transportation and entertainment, that allow you to save a substantial portion of your income. The goal is to get yourself to a place where you have enough net worth that the return on your assets is greater than the amount you can earn by working. (BTW, this is basically what I did. I put my two sons through top colleges on my dime and retired six years ago at the age of 56).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd3c6e4a2fd7f18be93d7d51a00d951f",
"text": "That's what I would do; 1.2 million dollars is a lot of money, but it doesn't make you retired for the rest of your life: There is a big crisis coming soon (my personal prediction) in the next 10-15 years, and when this happens: government will hold your money if you leave them in the bank (allowing you to use just part of it; you will have to prove the reason you need it), government will pass bills to make it very hard to close your investment positions, and government will pass new laws to create new taxes for people with a lot of money (you). To have SOME level of security I would separate my investment in the following: 20% I would buy gold certificates and the real thing (I would put the gold in a safe(s)). 20% I would put in bitcoin (you would have to really study this if you are new to crypto currency in order to be safe). 40% I would invest in regular finance products (bonds, stocks and options, FX). 20% I would keep in the bank for life expenses, specially if you don't want work for money any more. 20% I would invest in startup companies exchanging high risk hoping for a great return. Those percentages might change a little depending how good/confident you become after investing, knowing about business, etc...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d12a01b8f903137662fada452e2939e5",
"text": "\"Congratulations. The first savings goal should be an emergency fund. Think of this not as an investment, but as insurance against life's woes. They happen and having this kind of money earmarked allows one to invest without needing to withdraw at an inopportune time. This should go into a \"\"high interest\"\" savings account or money market account. Figure three to six months of expenses. The next goal should be retirement savings. In the US this is typically done through 401K or if your company does not offer one, either a ROTH IRA or Traditional IRA. The goal should be about 15% of your income. You should favor a 401k match over just about anything else, and then a ROTH over that. The key to transforming from a broke college student into a person with a real job, and disposable income, is a budget. Otherwise you might just end up as a broke person with a real job (not fun). Part of your budget should include savings, spending, and giving. All three areas are the key to building wealth. Once you have all of those taking care of the real fun begins. That is you have an emergency fund, you are putting 15% to retirement, you are spending some on yourself, and giving to a charity of your choice. Then you can dream some with any money left over (after expenses of course). Do you want to retire early? Invest more for retirement. Looking to buy a home or own a bunch of rental property? Start educating yourself and invest for that. Are you passionate about a certain charity? Give more and save some money to take time off in order to volunteer for that charity. All that and more can be yours. Budgeting is a key concept, and the younger you start the easier it gets. While the financiers will disagree with me, you cannot really invest if you are borrowing money. Keep debt to zero or just on a primary residence. I can tell you from personal experience that I did not started building wealth until I made a firm commitment to being out of debt. Buy cars for cash and never pay credit card interest. Pay off student loans as soon as possible. For some reason the idea of giving to charity invokes rancor. A cursory study of millionaires will indicate some surprising facts: most of them are self made, most of them behave differently than pop culture, and among other things most of them are generous givers. Building wealth is about behavior. Giving to charity is part of that behavior. Its my own theory that giving does almost no good for the recipient, but a great amount of good for the giver. This may seem difficult to believe, but I ask that you try it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d51a448fad7717083cd1dff308d57a4c",
"text": "\"I agree with Grade 'Eh' Bacon's answer, but there are a couple of ideas that are relevant to your particular situation: If I were you, I would invest at least half of the cash in growth ETFs because you're young enough that market variability doesn't affect you and long term growth is important. The rest should be invested in safer investments (value and dividend ETFs, bonds, cash) so that you have something to live off in the near term. You said you wanted to invest ethically. The keyword to search is \"\"socially responsible ETFs\"\". There are many, and if this is important to you, you'll have to read their prospectus to find one that matches your ethics. Since you're American, the way I understand it, you need to file taxes on income; selling stocks at a gain is income. You want to make sure that as your stocks appreciate, you sell some every year and immediately rebuy them so that you pay a small tax bill every year rather than one huge tax bill 20 years from now. Claiming about $20600 of capital gains every year would be tax free assuming you are not earning any other money. I would claim a bit more in years where you make a lot. You can mitigate your long term capital gains tax exposure by opening a Roth IRA and maxing that out. Capital gains in the Roth IRA are not taxable. Even if you don't have income from working, you can have some income if you invest in stocks that pay dividends, which would allow you to contribute to a Roth IRA. You should figure where you're going to be living because you will want to minimize the currency risk of having your money in USD while you're living abroad. If the exchange rate were to change by a lot, you might find yourself a lot poorer. There are various hedging strategies, but the easiest one is to invest some of your money in securities of the country you'll be living in. You should look into how you'll be converting money into the foreign currency. There are sometimes way of minimizing the spread when converting large amounts of money, e.g., Norbert's gambit. Shaving off 1.5% when exchanging $100k saves $1500.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7986fd6da389b272c45d94c9feac0dcf",
"text": "\"From what you say, a savings account sounds like the most appropriate option. (Of course you should keep your checking account too to use for day-to-day expenses, but put money that you want to sock away into the savings account.) The only way to guarantee you won't lose money and also guarantee that you can take the money out whenever you want is to put your money in a checking or savings account. If you put it in a savings account you will at least earn some paltry amount of interest, whereas with a checking account you wont. The amount of interest you earn with only a few hundred (or even a few thousand) dollars will be miniscule, but you know that the nominal value of your money won't go down. The real value of your money will go down, because the interest you're earning will be less than inflation. (That is, if you put $1000 in, you know there will be at least $1000 in there until you take some out. But because of inflation, that $1000 won't buy as much in the future as it does today, so the effective buying power of your money will go down.) However, there's no way to avoid this while keeping your money absolutely safe from loss and maintaining absolute freedom to take it out whenever you want. To address a couple of the alternatives you mentioned: It's good that you're thinking about this now. However, you shouldn't worry unduly about \"\"getting the most out of your money\"\" at this stage. As you said, you have $400 and will soon be making $200/week. In other words, two weeks after your job starts, you'll have earned as much as your entire savings before you started the job. Even if all your cash \"\"went down the drain\"\", you'd make it up in two weeks. Of course, you don't want to throw your money away for nothing. But when your savings are small relative to your income, it's not really worth it to agonize over investment choices to try to get the maximum possible return on your investment. Instead, you should do just what you seem to be doing: prioritize safety, both in terms of keeping your money in a safe account, and try to save rather than spending frivolously. In your current situation, you can double your savings in one month, by working at your part-time job. There's no investment anywhere there that can even come close to that. So don't worry about missing out on some secret opportunity. At this stage, you can earn far more by working than you can by investing, so you should try to build up your savings. When you have enough that you are comfortable with more risk, then you will be in a position to consider other kinds of investments (like stock market index funds), which are riskier but will earn you better returns in the long run.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4b8f5ad2035755610aa45bc32b482f3c",
"text": "I'd say only look for business opportunities in areas where you have quite a lot of specific knowledge, or the ability to learn from someone who already has it. Further, particularly in a saturated market like the one you describe, you need to have a clear idea of how you're going to be better than other players. It's not enough to just want to do something to make money. You need a solid plan and a solid angle on how you're going to be better than others. If you don't have those things yet for what you're looking at, do more research until you do. If you never get there, don't bother. You're essentially saying you want to exploit arbitrage opportunities, which is a legitimate way to make a living, but it requires a LOT of market knowledge, because there are probably millions of people doing the exact same thing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "416ef7846826a6105c8771f921f2ad33",
"text": "\"You don't state a long term goal for your finances in your message, but I'm going to assume you want to retire early, and retire well. :-) any other ideas I'm missing out on? A fairly common way to reach financial independence is to build one or more passive income streams. The money returned by stock investing (capital gains and dividends) is just one such type of stream. Some others include owning rental properties, being a passive owner of a business, and producing goods that earn long-term royalties instead of just an immediate exchange of time & effort for cash. Of these, rental property is probably one of the most well-known and easiest to learn about, so I'd suggest you start with that as a second type of investment if you feel you need to diversify from stock ownership. Especially given your association with the military, it is likely there is a nearby supply of private housing that isn't too expensive (so easier to get started with) and has a high rental demand (so less risk in many ways.) Also, with our continued current low rate environment, now is the time to lock-in long term mortgage rates. Doing so will reap huge benefits as rates and rents will presumably rise from here (though that isn't guaranteed.) Regarding the idea of being a passive business owner, keep in mind that this doesn't necessarily mean starting a business yourself. Instead, you might look to become a partner by investing money with an existing or startup business, or even buying an existing business or franchise. Sometimes, perfectly good business can be transferred for surprisingly little down with the right deal structure. If you're creative in any way, producing goods to earn long-term royalties might be a useful path to go down. Writing books, articles, etc. is just one example of this. There are other opportunities depending on your interests and skill, but remember, the focus ought to be on passive royalties rather than trading time and effort for immediate money. You only have so many hours in a year. Would you rather spend 100 hours to earn $100 every year for 20 years, or have to spend 100 hours per year for 20 years to earn that same $100 every year? .... All that being said, while you're way ahead of the game for the average person of your age ($30k cash, $20k stocks, unknown TSP balance, low expenses,) I'm not sure I'd recommend trying to diversify quite yet. For one thing, I think you need to keep some amount of your $30k as cash to cover emergency situations. Typically people would say 6 months living expenses for covering employment gaps, but as you are in the military I don't think it's as likely you'll lose your job! So instead, I'd approach it as \"\"How much of this cash do I need over the next 5 years?\"\" That is, sum up $X for the car, $Y for fun & travel, $Z for emergencies, etc. Keep that amount as cash for now. Beyond that, I'd put the balance in your brokerage and get it working hard for you now. (I don't think an average of a 3% div yield is too hard to achieve even when picking a safe, conservative portfolio. Though you do run the risk of capital losses if invested.) Once your total portfolio (TSP + brokerage) is $100k* or more, then consider pulling the trigger on a second passive income stream by splitting off some of your brokerage balance. Until then, keep learning what you can about stock investing and also start the learning process on additional streams. Always keep an eye out for any opportunistic ways to kick additional streams off early if you can find a low cost entry. (*) The $100k number is admittedly a rough guess pulled from the air. I just think splitting your efforts and money prior to this will limit your opportunities to get a good start on any additional streams. Yes, you could do it earlier, but probably only with increased risk (lower capital means less opportunities to pick from, lower knowledge levels -- both stock investing and property rental) also increase risk of making bad choices.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fbcc31b3b194bb4a06218bfa4438d6f3",
"text": "The stock market at large has about a 4.5% long-term real-real (inflation-fees-etc-adjusted) rate of return. Yes: even in light of the recent crashes. That means your money invested in stocks doubles every 16 years. So savings when you're 25 and right out of college are worth double what savings are worth when you're 41, and four times what they're worth when you're 57. You're probably going to be making more money when you're 41, but are you really going to be making two times as much? (In real terms?) And at 57, will you be making four times as much? And if you haven't been saving at all in your life, do you think you're going to be able to start, and make the sacrifices in your lifestyle that you may need? And will you save enough in 10 years to live for another 20-30 years after retirement? And what if the economy tanks (again) and your company goes under and you're out of a job when you turn 58? Having tons of money at retirement isn't the only worthy goal you can pursue with your money (ask anyone who saves money to send kids to college), but having some money at retirement is a rather important goal, and you're much more at risk of saving too little than you are of saving too much. In the US, most retirement planners suggest 10-15% as a good savings rate. Coincidentally, the standard US 401(k) plan provides a tax-deferred vehicle for you to put away up to 15% of your income for retirement. If you can save 15% from the age of 20-something onward, you probably will be at least as well-off when you retire as you are during the rest of your life. That means you can spend the rest on things which are meaningful to you. (Well, you should also keep around some cash in case of emergencies or sudden unemployment, and it's never a good idea to waste money, but your responsibilities to your future have at least been satisfied.) And in the UK you get tax relief on your pension contribution at your income tax rate and most employers will match your contributions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1a1341a13f2f501d6371c61107829c7",
"text": "\"I don't understand the OP's desire \"\" I'd love to have a few hundred dollars coming in each month until I really get the hang of things. \"\" When growing your wealth so that it will be large enough in retirement to throw off enough profits to live on ... you must not touch the profits generated along the way. You must reinvest them to earn even more profits. The profits you earn need not show up as 'cash'. Most investments also grow in re-sale value. This growth is called capital gains, and is just-as/more important than cash flows like interest income or dividends. When evaluating investing choices, you think of your returns as a percent of your total savings at any time. So expecting $100/month equals $1,200/year would require a $12,000 investment to earn 10%/yr. From the sounds of it the OP's principal is not near that amount, and an average 10% should not be expected by an investment with reasonable risk. I would conclude that 'There is no free lunch'. You need to continually save and add to your principal. You must invest to expect a reasonable return (less than 10%) and you must reinvest all profits (whether cash or capital gains). Or else start a business - which cannot be compared to passive investing.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "78376c71017ce85c9868e6f3729b6df2",
"text": "Your edit indicates that you may not yet be ready to get heavily involved in investing. I say this because it seems you are not very familiar with foundational finance/investing concepts. The returns that you are seeing as 'yearly' are just the reported earnings every 12 months, which all public companies must publish. Those 'returns' are not the same as the earnings of individual investors (which will be on the basis of dividends paid by the company [which are often annual, sometimes semi-annual, and sometimes quarterly], and by selling shares purchased previously. Note that over 3 months time, investing in interest-earning investments [like bank deposits] will earn you something like 0.5%. Investing in the stock market will earn you something like 2% (but with generally higher risk than investing in something earning interest). If you expect to earn significant amounts of money in only 3 months, you will not be able to without taking on extreme levels of risk [risk as high as going to a casino]. Safe investing takes time - years. In the short term, the best thing you can do to earn money is by earning more [through a better job, or a second part-time job], or spending less [budget, pay down high interest debt, and spend less than you earn]. I highly recommend you look through this site for more budgeting questions on how to get control of your finances. If you feel that doesn't apply to you, I encourage you to do a lot more research on investing before you send your money somewhere - you could be taking on more risk than you realize, if you are not properly informed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd88013d135507b19b21b17d512fc998",
"text": "\"My father imparted this advice to me when I was a teenager, and it hasn't failed me yet. > Pay yourself first What this means is that the first \"\"bill\"\" you pay should always be your savings. Preferably in a way that automatically comes out of your paycheck or account without requiring you to take an active step to make it happen. I save a ton of money, but I am no more disciplined than anyone else. I just realized that over the years of progressing in my career that I gradually got higher and higher salaries, yet never had a substantial increase in the money I had leftover in my bank at the end of the month despite the fact that I make about 8x the money I used to live reasonably comfortably on. Therein is the point, we spend whatever money we see, so you almost have to hide it from yourself. First, participate to the fullest in your company's 401k if they offer it. After a while you will adjust naturally to the net take home pay and won't miss the savings you are accumulating. Absent that, or in addition to that, set up a separate bank or investment account and arrange an automatic transfer from your checking account every month. Then set up automatic investing in CD's or some other less-liquid-than-cash investment so you it is just enough hassle to get at the money that you won't do it on a whim. It sounds too simple, but it works.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6913ee4ec4b8cc12d1a45e16e86dc931",
"text": "\"E) Spend a small amount of that money on getting advice from a paid financial planner. (Not a broker or someone offering you \"\"free\"\" advice; their recommendations may be biased toward what makes them the most money). A good financial planner will talk to you about your plans and expectations both short and long term, and about your risk tolerance (would a drop in value panic you even if you know it's likely to recover and average out in the long run, that sort of thing), and about how much time and effort you want to put into actively managing your portfolio. From those answers, they will generate an initial proposed plan, which will be tested against simulations of the stock market to make sure it holds up. Typically they'll do about 100 passes over the plan to get a sense of its probable risk versus growth-potential versus volatility, and tweak the plan until the normal volatility is within the range you've said you're comfortable with while trying to produce the best return with the least risk. This may not be a perfect plan for you -- but at the very least it will be an excellent starting point until you decide (if you ever do decide) that you've learned enough about investing that you want to do something different with the money. It's likely to be better advice than you'll get here simply because they can and will take the time to understand your specific needs rather than offering generalities because we're trying to write something that applies to many people, all of whom have different goals and time horizons and financial intestinal fortitude. As far as a house goes: Making the mistake of thinking of a house as an investment is a large part of the mindset that caused the Great Recession. Property can be an investment (or a business) or it can be something you're living in; never make the mistake of putting it in both categories at once. The time to buy a house is when you want a house, find a house you like in a neighborhood you like, expect not to move out of it for at least five years, can afford to put at least 20% down payment, and can afford the ongoing costs. Owning your home is not more grown-up, or necessarily financially advantageous even with the tax break, or in any other way required until and unless you will enjoy owning your home. (I bought at age 50ish, because I wanted a place around the corner from some of my best friends, because I wanted better noise isolation from my neighbors, because I wanted a garden, because I wanted to do some things that almost any landlord would object to, and because I'm handy enough that I can do a lot of the routine maintenance myself and enjoy doing it -- buy a house, get a free set of hobbies if you're into that. And part of the reason I could afford this house, and the changes that I've made to it, was that renting had allowed me to put more money into investments. My only regret is that I didn't realise how dumb it was not to max out my 401(k) match until I'd been with the company for a decade ... that's free money I left on the table.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd09e8a1db0d28c7d37ad2059e0bdf28",
"text": "\"I would advise against \"\"wasting\"\" this rare opportunity on mundane things, like by paying off debts or buying toys - You can always pay those from your wages. Plus, you'll inevitably accumulate new debts over time, so debt repayment is an ongoing concern. This large pile of cash allows you to do things you can't ordinarily do, so use the opportunity to invest. Buy a house, then rent it out. Rent an apartment for yourself. The house rent will pay most (maybe all) of the mortgage, plus the mortgage interest is tax-deductible, so you get a lower tax bill. And houses appreciate over time, so that's an added bonus. When you get married, and start a family, you'll have a house ready for you, partially paid off with other people's money.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ecc92bf2b99166b4148b7fa1afc61d2f",
"text": "You're in a good spot: making good money with prospects for that to continue for the foreseeable future. Even if/when you quit dancing nursing pays quite well. Leaving all that money in a savings account is a mistake. At a minimum: Open an IRA account at any of the discount brokers (Schwab, Fidelity, etc). Roth is fine to start, once your taxable income goes up consider switching to a traditional IRA. Max out your IRA every year. Invest in low-fee index funds. There are frankly too many options these days, but an S&P 500 Index fund is almost never a mistake. Open a regular taxable investment account where you can invest additional money. Leave some cash/savings for emergencies. But if you do #3 you can always sell some investments in a cash emergency. Yes, it may lose money in the short term, but given your steady income, not a huge concern. I think if you read all the investment advice out there, you'll see a familiar theme along these lines. Your nest egg will grow considerably when you invest.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
d2bb5fbe8e2400f1b35bf7be3c2cb8a7
|
Higher auto insurance costs: keep car or switch to public transit?
|
[
{
"docid": "06401fa62af7f32b1642d8d2ea6771fc",
"text": "\"Looking at your numbers, I would definitively consider selling the car, and use the public transportation instead. You could easily save $450 month, plus gas and maintenance. As you mentioned, public transportation will be only a fraction of this amount, so you might end up saving around $400 monthly. If you decide to keep the car, the amount that you will spent monthly is easily a payment for a brand-new car. What if, God forbid, for any kind of reason, you get a traffic ticket that can increase your insurance premium? What if the engine stops working, and you will need to spent thousands of dollars fixing the car? With this, and all of the other expenses pilled up, you might be unable to afford all this at some point. If you decide to sell the car, the money that you will save monthly can be put in a savings account (or in any other sort of \"\"safe\"\" investment instrument). In this way, if your situation changes where you need a car again, you will be able to easily afford a new car. Regarding your need to visit your friends on the suburbs every other weekend, I think you can just talk with them, and meet on places where public transportation is available, or ask them to pick you up in the nearest station to the suburbs. In conclusion, based on what you said, I do not think the \"\"little\"\" convenience that you get in owning the car outweighs the big savings that you get monthly, if you decide to sell the car.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5680461d1e37048d549d2fff2ab12f24",
"text": "So you will be saving $450 + price of commuting gas - cost of transportation + cost of commuting maintenance - the cost of recreational car rentals if decide to go without a car. For some people that cost is not enough to forego the convenience of owning a car. One factor you have not alluded too is your current financial goals. Are you attempting to live a spartan lifestyle in order to dramatically change your net worth? Give up the car. There really is more then the math you are presenting so the decision is very much based upon your behavior and your goals in life. It is very likely that owning the car will be more expensive, but it will also be less convenient. Is that cost great enough to forego the convenience? Only you can decide.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f06c64f3954dc1ce53ca1017d37773a",
"text": "\"I've lived this decision, and from my \"\"anecdata\"\": do #3 I have been car-free since 2011 in a large United States city. I was one month into a new job on a rail line out in the suburbs, and facing a $3000 bill to pass state inspection (the brakes plus the emissions system). I live downtown. I use a combination of transit, a carshare service, and 1-2 day rentals from full service car rental businesses (who have desks at several downtown hotels walking distance from my house). I have not had a car insurance policy since 2011; the carshare includes this and I pay $15 per day for SLI from full service rentals. I routinely ask insurance salesmen to run a quote for a \"\"named non-owner\"\" policy, and would pull the trigger if the premium cost was $300/6 months, to replace the $15/day SLI. It's always quoted higher. In general, our trips have a marginal cost of $40-100. Sure, this can be somewhat discouraging. But we do it for shopping at a warehouse club, visiting parents and friends in the suburbs. Not every weekend, but pretty close. But with use of the various services ~1/weekend, it's come out to $2600 per year. I was in at least $3200 per year operating the car and often more, so there is room for unexpected trips or the occasional taxi ride in cash flow, not to mention the capital cost: I ground the blue book value of the car from $19000 down to $3600 in 11 years. Summary: Pull the trigger, do it :D\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c9fbcff82a0a01ff954a2c75351c5c23",
"text": "I'm guessing Toronto? Sell the car! Use public transit. Save a ton of money. You can always rent a car for the day or weekend (or use a service like Uber) when necessary at a fraction of the cost of car ownership, and feel good about it!",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e401a8ff82d95f592eab06973e952461",
"text": "While this question is old and I generally agree with the answers given I think there's another angle that needs a little illuminating: insurance. If you go with an 84 month loan your car will likely be worth less than the amount owed for substantially all of the entire 84 month loan period; this will be exacerbated if you put zero down and include the taxes and fees in the amount borrowed. Your lender will require you to carry full comprehensive/collision/liability coverage likely with a low maximum deductible. While the car is underwater it will probably also be a good idea to carry gap insurance because the last thing you want to do is write a check to your lender to shore up the loan to value deficit if the thing is totaled. These long term car loans (I've seen as high as 96 months) are a bear when it comes to depreciation and related insurance costs. There is more to this decision than the interest calculation. Obviously, if you had the cash at the front of this decision presumably you'll have the cash later to pay off the loan at your convenience. But while the loan is outstanding there are costs beyond interest to consider.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "86044438cd8e8eda0053178579e091ae",
"text": "\"My wife and I have been car-free since 2011. We spent about $3500 on car shares and rentals last year (I went through it recently to flag trips that were medical transportation and unreimbursed work related for taxes). This compares favorably with the last year of car ownership. I had reached a point I started needing $200+ repairs every couple of months and the straw that broke the camels back was a (dealer mechanic estimate but still) $3000 estimate to pass emissions inspection. Over 11 years the value went from $24000 to $3600, so it depreciated about 2k per year. I was easily spending $40 per week on gasoline on my last commute. I now use transit with the IRS commuter benefit so I do have a base after tax transportation expense of 1200 per year. We use weekend rentals about 2x per month (and do use a warehouse club) She uses rentals for her job about 12 times per year, and the medical transportation came in an intense burst. Access: Our nearest carshare pod is 0.22 miles (3 blocks); there are two hotels with full service rental car desks about half a mile from our house and every brand at the Amtrak station a mile away. There are concrete benefits to density, take every advantage. Insurance: I always take the rental company SLI daily insurance for $15 per day. Certain no annual fee credit cards automatically include CDW. Every time an insurance agent cold calls me, I ask for a quote for a \"\"named non owner\"\" policy, I'd probably take it if the premium was $300 or less per 6 months. Tips and tricks: a carshare minivan or truck rate is probably higher than a carshare car, but compared to a full service rental, may be much lower . The best value I spend no time in my life looking for a parking spot, and spend \"\"this hour\"\" tapping away on SE on a train instead of driving.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2f4bc315f09f7f8e774ac7636da8583a",
"text": "\"One way to look at insurance is that it replaces an unpredictable expenses with a predictable fees. That is, you pay a set monthly amount (\"\"premium\"\") instead of the sudden costs associated with a collision or other covered event. Insurance works as a business, which means they intend to make a substantial profit for providing that service. They put a lot of effort in to measuring probabilities, and carefully set the premiums to get make a steady profit*. The odds are in their favor. You have to ask yourself: if X happened tomorrow, how would I feel about the financial impact? Also, how much will it cost me to buy insurance to cover X? If you have a lot of savings, plenty of available credit, a bright financial future, and you take the bus to work anyway, then totaling your car may not be a big deal, money wise. Skip the insurance. If you have no savings, plenty of debt, little prospects for that improving, and you depend on your car to get to work just so you can pay what you already owe, then totaling your car would probably be a big problem for you. Stick with insurance. There is a middle ground. You can adjust your deductible. Raise it as high as you can comfortably handle. You cover the small stuff out of pocket, and save the insurance for the big ticket items. *Insurance companies also invest the money they take as premiums, until they pay out a claim. That's not relevant to this discussion, though.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd279259b01d20f763a01c8e1039cfca",
"text": "You may not have considered this, and it will depend on your local laws, but if someone causes you damage, you can sue them for the damages. In your case, two drivers forced you to be involved in an accident, which made your premiums go up, which is a real damage for which they might be responsible.",
"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": "0986fd839af7054f8dc1c66d227bf882",
"text": "The smaller and more quantifiable and consistent risks will probably result (obviously in addition to smaller premiums) in a smaller spread in favor of the insurance company since there is a lot more leverage for companies like Tesla to negotiate with to drive down prices. It may reduce costs for Geico but it sure as hell will reduce profits too.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a2d0cb962219105b787335a74806013",
"text": "\"Discussions around expected values and risk premiums are very useful, but there's another thing to consider: cash flow. Some individuals have high value assets that are vital to them, such as transportation or housing. The cost of replacing these assets is prohibitive to them: their cashflow means that their rate of saving is too low to accrue a fund large enough to cover the asset's loss. However, their cashflow is such that they can afford insurance. While it may be true that, over time, they would be \"\"better off\"\" saving that money in an asset replacement fund, until that fund reaches a certain level, they are unprotected. Thus, it's not just about being risk averse; there are some very pragmatic reasons why individuals with low disposable income might elect to pay for insurance when they would be financially better off without it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "00898fcd7b8859f9e0eda121c1e97619",
"text": "Welcome to Money.SE. It appears there's public transportation to get you to work? And the area by your house is walkable? i.e. you and your wife can get groceries and other needs by walking. If it will take 5 years to pay the loans even without a car, how long if you get one? Will you even be able to afford the payments? There's not enough detail here except to say that all purchases aside from true needs have a cost/reward to consider. Whatever the car's total cost is, will it add that much pleasure to your life? People in cities with great transportation save quite a bit on the expenses a car brings. Personal anecdote - Mom lives in a city. She never drives out of the city. Ever. Between insurance, maintenance, and gas, even with low miles, she spends $3000/yr. Once per week, she drives 1500 ft (.3mi) each way to the grocery store. Once every month or 2 to a mall 6 miles away. She can walk and groceries delivered for free. In the end, she spends $250/mo for the feeling of freedom. I get that. When I am 70+, as she is, I will gladly pay car service the $20 to drive me around. You are young, and need to sit with your partner (your wife is your partner in the business of running the family finances, or so I hope) and decide if the benefit is worth the cost. How does she take the kids to a doctor? How do you go out to dinner?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "856ebc015448f3a9c82589737b792e91",
"text": "\"If you can afford to replace your car, it is more cost effective, on average and over time, not to carry comprehensive and collision insurance. The insurance companies do make a profit, after all. However, you may be able to worry less (\"\"What if someone steals my car if I park here?\"\") with the insurance, and you have the knowledge the you won't have to spend your own money on a new car if something happens to this one, which may help with financial planning.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "33b6f2e8779b315f359445ac5be75ab5",
"text": "\"I think the key to this question is your last sentence, because it's applicable to everyone, high net-worth or not: How would one determine whether they are better off without insurance? In general, insurance is a net good when the coverage would prevent a 'catastrophic' event. If a catastrophic event doesn't happen, oh well, you wasted money on insurance. If it does happen, you just saved yourself from bankruptcy. These are two separate outcomes, so taking the 'average' cost of a catastrophic event (and weighing that against the more expensive insurance premiums) is not practical. This is a way of reducing risk, not of maximizing returns. Let the insurance company take the risk - they benefit from having a pool of people paying premiums, and you benefit because your own life has less financial risk. Now for something like cheap home electronics, insurance is a bad idea. This is because you now have a 'pool' of potential risks, and your own life experience could be close to the 'average' expected result. Meaning you'll pay more for insurance than you would just replacing broken things. This answer is another good resource on the topic. So to your question, at what point in terms of net-worth does someone's house become equivalent to you and your toaster? Remember that if you have home fire insurance, you are protecting the value of your house, because that loss would be catastrophic to you. But a high net-worth individual would also likely find the loss of their house catastrophic. Unless they are billionaires with multiple 10M+ mansions, then it is quite likely that regardless of wealth, a significant portion of their worth is tied up in their home. Even 10% of your net worth would be a substantial amount. As an example, would someone worth $1M have only a 100k home? Would someone worth $10M have only a $1M Home? Depends on where they live, and how extravagantly. Similarly, if you were worth $10M, you might not need extra insurance on your Toyota Camry, but you might want it if you drive a $1M Ferrari! Not to mention that things like auto insurance may cover you for liability, which could extend beyond the value of your car, into medical and disability costs for anyone in an accident. In fact, being high net-worth may make you more vulnerable to lawsuits, making this insurance even more important. In addition, high net-worth individuals have insurance that you or I have no need of. Things like kidnapping insurance; business operation insurance, life insurance used to secure bank loans. So yes, even high net-worth individuals may fear catastrophic events, and if they have so much money - why wouldn't they pay to reduce that risk? Insurance provides a service to them the same as to everyone else, it's just that the items they consider too 'cheap' too insure are more expensive than a toaster. Edit to counter concerns in some other answers, which say that insurance is \"\"always a bad idea\"\": Imagine you are in a kafka-esque episode of \"\"Let's Make a Deal\"\". Monty Hall shows you two parallel universes, each with 100 doors. You must choose your universe, then choose a door. The first universe is where you bought insurance, and behind every door is a penalty of $200. The second universe is where you didn't buy insurance, and behind 99 doors is nothing, with one random door containing a penalty of $10,000. On average, playing the game 99,999 times, you will come out ahead 2:1 by not buying insurance. But you play the game only maybe 3 times in your life. So which universe do you choose? Now, you might say \"\"pfft - I can cover the cost of a 10k penalty if it happens\"\". But this is exactly the point - insurance (unless already required by law) is a net good when it covers catastrophic losses. If you are wealthy enough to cover a particular loss, you typically shouldn't buy that insurance. That's why no one should insure their toaster. This is not a question of \"\"average returns\"\", it is a question of \"\"risk reduction\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b3d1e961c626c0fa9fd975e9eb47b271",
"text": "\"As others have pointed out, it's all about a fixed, small cost versus the potential of a large cost. If you have insurance, you know you will pay a fixed amount per month. There is a 100% probability that you will have to pay this premium. If you don't have insurance, there is a large chance that you will have no cost in any given month, and a small chance that you will have a large cost. Like my home-owners insurance costs me about $50 per month. If I didn't have insurance and my house burned down, I would be out something like $100,000. What's the chance that my house will burn down this month? Very small. But I'd rather pay $50 and not have to worry about it. On the other hand, I just bought a filing cabinet for $160 and the store offered me an \"\"extended warranty\"\" for something like $20 a year. What's the probability that some accident will happen that damages my filing cabinet? Pretty small. Even if it did, I think I could handle shelling out $160. I can imagine my stomach in knots and lying awake at nights worrying about the possibility of losing $100,000 or finding myself homeless. I can't imagine lying awake at nights worrying about losing $160 or being force to stuff my files under the bed. I'll take my chances. When I was young and had even less money than I have now, I bought cars that cost me a thousand dollars or. Even poor as I was, I knew that if the car was totaled I could dig up the cash to buy another. It wasn't worth paying the insurance premium. These days I'm driving a car that cost me $6,000. I have collision and comprehensive insurance, but I think it's debatable. I bought the car with cash to begin with, and if I had to I could scrape up the cash to replace it. Especially considering that my last payment for my daughter's college tuition is due next month and then that expense is gone. :-)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a46c54bd1e04b5785a720314fd5d6f80",
"text": "Not really. You just pay the other side of payroll taxes your employer typically pays. That's 7.65% more on your net. Not that much, all things considered. Plus, on part time Uber driving, the depreciation deduction on a car should exceed true depreciation costs. Putting 10K more miles on a car each year does not result in that much extra depreciation. 2010 Honda Civic DX Sedan 4D with 100K miles is worth $4,500 in Good condition, according to KBB. With 130K miles, it's worth $3,900. That's a difference of $600, or $0.02 per mile. You'll have more oil changes, brake replacements, gas, and other operating costs. But depreciation is small potatoes compared to the $0.535 in deductions per mile. Edit: If you would own a car regardless of whether or not you drive for Uber, Uber isn't a bad deal. It's a bad deal if you have to buy a car just to drive for Uber. It's all about the marginal cost of a mile.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "137304a6d70a9b27ece9809f15ac64d2",
"text": "I think your math is fine, and also consider insurance costs and the convenience factor of each scenario. Moving a car frequently to avoid parking tickets will become tedious. I'd rather spend an hour renting a car 20 times in a year rather than have to spend 15 minutes moving a car every three days. And if there's no other easy parking, that 15 minutes can take a lot longer. Plus it'll get dirty sitting there, could get vandalized. Yuck. For only 20 days/year, I don't see how owning a car is worth the hassle. I recommend using a credit card that comes with free car rental insurance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b0fb5cba058c456c114ffc9ce3f7ea1",
"text": "\"You have several issues at work. If in the next few years you have a leak in the roof that causes another insurance claim, they may decide not to cover it because they already paid you to replace the roof, and it is your fault that it wasn't. That might also mean they don't pay you for the stuff that is damaged because of the \"\"new\"\" leak. If you minimize the claim that may make it less likely that they will drop you in the future, or increase you rate next year. But if you don't return the excess funds they will evaluate you on the larger claim size. Of course if they are sending the money directly to the repair company they will only pay the bill up to a maximum amount. Usually the issue has been that the repair company wants to do a larger repair. The dispute resolves around some aspect of the building code. I had a car repair that had to be increased because the roof damage was within x inches of the windshield, so the windshield had to be replaced. The insurance company eventually agreed but it slowed down the process for a couple of days because they wanted to measure it. It is possible that the insurance company has rules related to the age of the roof and the amount of damage that triggers a total replacement.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c6821fb6e4cff1782e53e6c1d8065879",
"text": "Watch pawn stars. Whatever someone offers offer 1/3 or less then go up from there. At least that's how to get the number. The rest is having the tact to make someone believe what you are offering is a good deal as that gentlemen clearly demonstrated.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
4a71fc85c032d32e46004b813b79a49e
|
How can I increase my hourly pay as a software developer?
|
[
{
"docid": "193f580ba1062108b845286f5f5880af",
"text": "Short term: ask for a raise or look for a new job that pays more. Longer term:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "94146b4330555818feda573df22bae17",
"text": "\"It's a tough thing to do. You should look for a salaried position. Your freelance skills will be much better received, if you've worked for a couple of companies doing programming full time. Nothing beats working at it all day long for a few years. If you're set on being freelance, write some utility that will be popular, and submit it to Freshmeat.net. Now that's asking a lot. Those on the Web looking for programmers will most likely want you to work for 'sweat equity'. That is, a share in the company for you labour. In other words \"\"FREE\"\". I've done my share of those, and if you're just getting into this, you should steer away from them. You may hit the jackpot, but you won't sleep for the next few years ;-)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "df4a00aae5b2594165f3e3303ca50dd7",
"text": "You are paid hourly? I would have expected most IT people to be on salary Depends what your boss is like, he might be easy going and just give a raise if you ask for it. Failing that, do some self improvements, learn something new, take a course, maybe take some PHP certifications or even java certifications? Then at least you can say you're trying to move up In regards to pay, have a look on monster or some US job sites, at jobs similar to what you do and with the similar requirements, that should give you an idea of what you should be on. If all else fails, find a new job, that is always a good way of moving up Hope this helps",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ede1689ace9138ad13e74f51779bd45",
"text": "\"Start by going to Salary.com and figuring out what the range is for your location (could be quite wide). Then also look at job postings in your area and see if any of them mention remuneration (gov't jobs tend to do this). If possible go and ask other people in your field what they think the expected range of salary should be. Take all that data and create a range for your position. Then try and place yourself in that range based on your experience and skill set. Be honest. Compare that with your own pay. If your figures indicate you should be making significantly more, schedule a meeting with your boss (or wait for a yearly review if it's relatively soon) and lay out your findings. They can say: Be ready for curve balls like benefits, work environment and other \"\"intangibles\"\". If they say no and you still think your compensation is unfair, it's time to polish up your CV. The easiest way to get a job is to already have one.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1440d96150367e0bcb8955123665157",
"text": "Most full time developer jobs in the US are paid on a salary basis rather than hourly unless you are a contractor. Also, the pay varies widely by region in the US with the West and East coast typically paying the most, but also having the highest cost of living. A site I really like for getting salary data by region and keyword for technical jobs is indeed.com. Here is a link to a chart on that site comparing salary trends for PHP and Joomla.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "f370d8a71f896a0c56549e8a543631df",
"text": "Yeah, I mean, what it really comes down to is the fact that life isn't fair. I would think that if your company is squeezed enough that it's paying a lot more for new employees who do what you do already, then if you go to your boss and ask for a raise, he's not going to say no. It's way easier (and cheaper) to keep an employee, particularly a good one, than to find someone new. Just a thought.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf158f27289716139a40b5d8f7e24976",
"text": "Like a lot of people have said you get what you put in. If you want a 9-5 you can have that but the pay reflects it. I took a job just over a year ago, the money was good but the hours were tough. My longest shift was 27 hours, it formed part of a 64 hour Friday morning to Monday morning weekend. But the long hours and the dedication I showed meant that I could turn down a 34% pay rise 6 months in and negotiate for 43%. That project finished, I'm down to a 45 hour week and I've still got the pay. You just have to work out if it'll get better down the line or if it won't how long you can handle it",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d32e6bbf3e8763cd8d17876bd46ca6a3",
"text": ".. No If I can make a job offer for $7 per hour and people apply.. Why would I ever pay more? I'm not forcing people to apply. They want the job. If $7 an hour is good enough for the workers who apply, then it's good enough for me. Why pay more when I can pay less? I'll need to hire people soon for packing and shipping and you bet I'll be paying the state minimum wage because I know I'll have people applying to work.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d428d95466090dd66bf8d67878fa2ee4",
"text": "I don't count bonuses because they fluctuate from 5% to 200% which depends, up to 50%, on how the company does as a whole, not just how well you perform. Can't count on something like that. The guys I see working 70+ hours are the ones that end up with the big bonuses and great jobs without having to go to a top program after work. Anyway, best of luck to you in your career. It seems like you know what you need to do.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d5a2c50b5203029f48d9b4038438591b",
"text": "Yes. I have personally signed such contracts (fixed budget software development) and lost money every single time. And yes, it is quite possible for you to get paid under minimum wage if you take too long. Scope creep is the primary culprit for these kinds of contracts, so make sure you put together iron-clad explanations of what is and is not covered by the contract (and pad the asking price for good measure).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f0d4324ef1df19543e25b7cba2b0dddf",
"text": "\"This is really the best thing you can do for any salary job in the interview process. It makes negotiating salaries SO much easier and you have a baseline to tell if they're trying to short you or what they thought of your interview. Granted you should be adjusting for experience on a case-by-case basis but I've pointed to this in interviews when salary came up and (politely) said \"\"<here's> the average, I have a lot of experience in the field so I think <this> is an appropriately adjusted amount.\"\" None of my counter offers have been lower than the average.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c277aaf9069da26a989115ac40be1bc8",
"text": "\"With your knowledge/experience, you should easily be able to find work through one of the freelance developer sites out there. It would let you work flexibly on your own schedule, and you can decide what types of work you're willing to do at rates you choose to work for. You could always come up with your own ideas for a commercial website of some kind that could help generate some degree of passive income that won't interfere with your full-time work. That's only limited by your imagination and creativity. The third alternative is to find a \"\"real\"\" job (I chuckle at that one!) like most people do. I hope this helps. Good luck!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9219a8134feb003165157fd8cc842b8c",
"text": "\"Hey, I hope I didnt come off as harsh on you. I'm not sure how much I can help, but Id be glad to give you tips on getting you name in the door with the big companies, and other career-y advice. If you haven't already though, please read this article on [negotiating from the perspective of an engineer](http://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/01/23/salary-negotiation/). I don't think anyone truly enjoys negotiating, but with experience it becomes much easier and more natural. See yourself as an asset - because you obviously are if they are offering their money to you! And in reading your post - let me say this. Never see your company as your friend. Yeah, you might be friends with your boss and coworkers, you all might be in a softball league and hangout, but when it comes to the hours of 9-5, to someone somewhere in your chain of command you are a line item that costs them X amount of money and makes them X amount. Don't forget that, and don't let yourself have \"\"feelings\"\" towards the company. If the company isn't smart enough to hire a backup, even after you have advised them to do so, that is their doing and any repercussions are for them to take. I'm not saying be unflexible, but if you ever, ***ever***, start to think about making or not making a major decision (such as not leaving a company) that is bad for your bottom line in exchange for helping out the company or due to \"\"feeling\"\" in some way towards the company, stop, forget your feelings, and do what logic alone tells you to do. You and your company are not friends. If the company can find someone cheaper to do your job, they will do so with no feelings towards you. And the being solo part -- yeah, thats not a good way to go early in your career. I've made it my objective to surround myself with people smarter than me who are willing to guide me, even at the cost of current financial gains, simply because as a young professional learning from others is one of the top priorities for me now. Running solo - being shoved to a corner to do your work alone - is a huge no-no IMO.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d6a8e9b812dee0861eded0b48d1a0846",
"text": "\"Your employer appears to be stealing from you. I know, Canada -- but I'm assuming you have the distinct pleasure of getting paid in local currency. I know it's easier said than done, but if you can code decently in something like Ruby, just look online for local hackathons and Startup Weekend events. Every single on I have attended, one or more professional speakers ends their presentation with \"\"and we're hiring developers\"\". Even if that doesn't happen, you'll get some great opportunities for networking and you will have a rudimentary public project to share with potential leads. Plus they are fun.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a837dc409208f2fa5f1fa6cf016495b",
"text": "\"I worked for a company a few years back that insisted all of us were \"\"non-supervised exempt technical workers,\"\" and they wanted 45 hours out of each person. No matter to them that that was a 12.5% cut in hourly pay. Unfortunately, they did no research and didn't bother to actually apply for any exemptions. One of the analysts got sick of it, found another job, then turned over his timecards to the labor department. Said company had to write him a check for $10k, as well as write smaller checks for every other person working there.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ec1d0cde477f4f5b3cbf886bfe067706",
"text": "\"I am not sure if I would get any benefit besides the hourly payment as an intern. What are the benefits I can expect while working for this company (or any other software company) Probably none. Changes from company to company but usually only full-time employees are entitled for benefits. For example, could I ask them to reimburse my bus fare or fuel costs in addition to the hourly pay? You can always ask:-) If it's not in the offer - better ask now, you'll get paid what is written in the offer you accepted. Highly unlikely though. What kind of an \"\"employee\"\" is an intern? (Read about exempt and non-exempt employee, but that's all very confusing) As intern you're non-exempt. As a professional (i.e.: Not part of internship) you would be exempt. Since this is the second time, since my interview, that I have requested, and been offered a higher rate, should I continue to ask them for a value near a $35/hr rate Have you asked them for $35? Or just for more? Anyway, I don't think that if they raised the offer from $17 to $21.75 that there's a chance for you to get $35 from them.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0b4a1700a7564c815a47509ce6a9008c",
"text": "The hours you list are all over the place. Is it 40 hours/week or 65-80? You best clarify it during your interviews. My only tip is familiarize yourself with: http://gipsstandards.org/ They may not use it, but at least know what the industry standard is.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "75019fd7b1f430fe4279514984cefb53",
"text": "\"You have to be firm. Refuse to work excessive overtime. This is why I switched to consulting. 16 hour days suck, but if you're billing for 16 hours, it makes it more bearable. I've recently switched to the \"\"I only care about money\"\" mode of thinking, and switched to hourly pay after being salaried for almost 10 years. And it's not that it's the only thing that matters, but a lot of the rest of this stuff falls into place. It really simplifies things. You don't work for free. Your time is seen as a commodity. You are given goals and targets. You're not dragged into unnecessary meetings. Your opinion is respected. If you have to work saturday, you're sure as hell billing for it. If I take off at 2pm because I want to watch a hockey game, I just stop billing at 2 and there isn't this \"\"I'm not getting my money's worth!\"\" feeling from the manager.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8da34da6ec8ad4ad3b909968309d6816",
"text": "\"What makes a \"\"standard\"\" raise depends on how well the economy is doing, how well your particular industry is doing, and how well your employer is doing. All these things change constantly, so anyone who says, \"\"a good raise is 5%\"\" or whatever number is being simplistic. Even if true when he said it, it won't necessarily be true next year, or this year in a different industry, etc. The thing to do is to look for salary surveys that are reasonably current and applicable. If today, in your industry, the average annual raise is 3% -- again, just making up a number -- then that's what you should think of as \"\"standard\"\". If you want a number, okay: In general, as a first-draft number, I look for a raise that's 2% or so above the current inflation rate. Yes, of course I'd LIKE to get a 20% raise every year, but that's not going to happen in real life. On the other hand if a company gives me raises that don't keep pace with inflation, than barring special circumstances I'm going to be looking for another job. But there are all sorts of special circumstances. If the economy is in a depression and unemployment in my field is 50%, I'll probably figure I'm lucky to have a job at all and not be too worried about raises. If the economy is booming and all my friends are getting 10% and 20% raises, then I'll want that too. As others have said, in the United States at least, the best way to get a pay raise is to change jobs. I think most American companies are absolutely stupid about this. They don't want to give current employees big raises, so they let them quit, and then hire replacements at a much higher salary than they were paying the guy they just drove to quit. And the replacement doesn't know the company and may have a lot to learn before he is fully productive. And then they congratulate themselves that they kept raises this year to only 3% -- even though total salaries paid went up by 10% because the new hires demanded higher salaries. They actively punish employees for staying with the company. (Reminds me of an article I read in a business magazine by an executive of a cell phone company. He bemoaned the fact that in the cell phone industry it is very hard to keep customers: they are constantly switching to other vendors. And I thought, Duh, maybe it's because you offer big discounts for the first year or two, and after that you jack your prices up through the roof. You actively punish your customers for staying with you more than 2 years, and then you wonder why customers leave after 2 years.) Oh, if you do change jobs: Absolutely do not buy a line of \"\"we'll start you off with this lower salary but don't worry because you'll get a big raise in a year\"\". When you're looking for a job, it's very easy to turn down a poor offer. Once you have taken a job, leaving to get another job is a big decision and a lot of work. So you have way more bargaining power on starting salary than on raises. And the company knows it and is trying to take advantage of it. Also consider not just percentage increase but what you're making now versus what other people with similar experience are making. If people comparable to you are making $50k and you're making $30k, you're more likely to get a big raise than if you're already making $80k. If the company says, \"\"We just don't have the budget to give you a raise\"\", the key question is, \"\"Is that true?\"\" If the company is tottering on the edge of bankruptcy and trying to cut costs everywhere, then even if they know you're a good and productive employee, they may really just not have the money to give you a good raise. But if business is booming, this could just be an excuse. It might be an excuse for \"\"we're trying to bleed employees white so the CEO can get another million dollar bonus this year\"\". Or it might be a euphemism for \"\"you're really not a very useful employee and we're seriously thinking of firing you, no way we're going to give you a raise for the little bit of work you do when you bother to show up\"\". My final word: Be realistic. What matters isn't what you want or think you need, but what you are worth to the company, and what other people with similar skills are willing to work for. If you are doing work that brings in $20k per year for the company, there is no way they are going to pay you more than $20k for very long. You can go on and on about how expensive it is these days to pay the mortgage and pay medical bills and feed your 10 children and support your cocaine addiction, but none of that is relevant to what you are worth to the company. Likewise if there are millions of people out there who would love to have your job for $20k, if you demand a lot more than that they're going to fire you and hire one of them. Conversely, if you're bringing in $100k a year for the company, they'll be willing to pay you a substantial percentage of that.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d701e65d752ded1d87e896f088aea506",
"text": "\"Somehow I just stumbled onto this thread... > You essentially robbed the person holding the debt (since you promised to pay it off). Depends on leverage, with fractional reserve lending. Banks are permitted to loan out 30x their actual assets, or more. If I have $1 but can loan out $30, and anything more than $1 gets paid back, I haven't lost any money. In addition, I can write off the amount defaulted, *and the government will pay me back* for certain types of loans. With student loans, since they are almost impossible to discharge, gov't will pursue the borrower for years and decades, and ultimately collect more interest. Here is an article on it: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704723104576061953842079760.html > According to Kantrowitz, the government stands to earn $2,010.44 more in interest from a $10,000 loan that defaulted than if it had been paid in full over a 20-year term, and $6,522.00 more than if it had been paid back in 10 years. Alan Collinge, founder of borrowers' rights advocacy Student Loan Justice, said the high recovery rates provide a \"\"perverted incentive\"\" for the government to allow loans to go into default. Kantrowitz estimates the recovery rate would need to fall to below 50% in order for default prevention efforts to become more lucrative than defaults themselves. Not to mention: http://studentloanjustice.org/defaults-making-money.html > So essentially, the Department is given a choice: Either do nothing and get nothing, or outlay cash with the knowledge that this outlay will realize a 22 percent return, ultimately (minus the governments cost of money and collection costs). From this perspective, it is clear that based solely on financial motivations, and without specific detailed knowledge of the loan (i.e. borrower characteristics, etc.), the chooser would clearly favor the default scenario, for not only the return, but perhaps the potential savings in subsidy payment as well, And don't forget the penalties accruing to the person defaulting; they will probably have to move out of the country in order to escape collection. And let's factor in the huge ROI the lender sees by creating an indentured servant class. Plus, the gov't will issue as much currency as it wants, to make *itself* whole. And how much of a loss IS the loss, when the whole of the loan amount went right back into the local economy, paying professors, janitors, landlords, grocery stores, etc.? And don't forget all THOSE taxes (income and sale) that the gov't collects. Government will collect ~30%-50% of the loan immediately as income and sales tax, plus a portion of it every time the money changes hands (I pay income tax, then use some of my after-tax money to pay you for a product or service, and you still have to pay tax on that money, and so on). So it's more complicated than having \"\"robbed the person holding the debt\"\". Banks at 30x leverage don't lose money as long as they get back 1/30th of the total amount lent out, including interest, fees, and penalties, before considering write-offs and government repayment. In fact, the point of over-leverage is so you CAN make loans that have risk attached. If you could only lend what you actually had, you would have to stay away from anything risky because it would be too easy to lose money. Having virtual $ to bet means you can serve market segments that have higher risk. This makes MORE money for the banks, that's why they do it. They are already playing with funny money, so they don't lose any even if you default and move to another country. And the money you \"\"spent\"\" has also made its way back to them in various amounts, such as your professor's mortgage payments, auto loan, etc. Your taking on debt already helped the bank get its OTHER loans repaid. So, roughly speaking, if you took out $90,000 and $3,000 of that made its way back to the bank through various means, they haven't lost any money, because it only cost them $3,000 actual dollars in the first place.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
9d4a98e94a42ba1b25a23c2cc56b97f4
|
How to protect your parents if they never paid Social Security?
|
[
{
"docid": "4c2f05fb85d04c105e4c15559d75fbd1",
"text": "Wow. She really is in a pickle. Even though I can intellectualize that she ought have paid more attention to her family's finances, and assuming she wasn't complicit in her husband's obvious tax evasion, I can sympathize to some extent. This is a great demonstration of how dangerous it is to just let your spouse handle all the finances because they understand the money stuff. Even if they pay the bills you should have at least a fundamental understanding of the taxes being paid, estate and retirement plans. So here's some practical advice based on the hole she has dug for herself:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "81d4c9dde5cf45b2a21452b978de607f",
"text": "I'm not unsympathetic, but insurance of what kind? I don't know how he'd have owned a restaurant but failed to pay into the social security system. Was he paying taxes at all? As for the 'why,' there's not enough checks and balances to make sure that nothing is done under the table. I believe 40 quarters of work would have qualified her for a benefit of some kind, but you say she didn't pay in either. Both people didn't pay into the system, either on purpose or by not understanding the need to do so. This is a sad situation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ca04e72c93197fa230569f9cddd65d4",
"text": "I am unsympathetic. His mother made a conscious choice to evade taxes that would have provided her with at least a minimal security when she was too old to work. First while as business owner she should have been paying self employment tax on the income they made through the restaurant and his other merchant activities. Second while working in her own career selling Mary Kay and side work she should have paid her taxes on her income from that. There is a part of me that says good on you for getting by with out getting caught. But her ultimate failure was to plan for her future. She should have known she would be ineligible for SSI and saved for her retirement. Instead she choose to spend her money while benefiting from the government services that the rest of us pay taxes for. Now we will provide her with medicaid as well as welfare benefits. She has placed her son in the unenviable situation of having to either provide for his mother because she failed to do the minimum planning for herself or turn his back on her. He might be able to find a sympathetic prosecutor who would prosecute her for tax evasion. The government would take care of her needs(food and housing) and she would get her medical care taken care of. He could also move to Alaska. The oil industry provide residents of Alaska with a stipend, there is lots of work for people willing to work hard, and the compensation for that work is pretty good and would likely put him in a position where he is able to provide care for his mother.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "24e7fcdfb6bcd46bf5f29fde5e5fd71d",
"text": "\"Of course, doing nothing would mean that Social Security won't be able to meet its full obligations two decades from now. But it's not going bankrupt. Bankrupt, as defined in Oxford English Dictionary: \"\"[U]nable to pay outstanding debts.\"\" Am I missing something?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5f03235ea83b12adf6d7f70d2b314c1",
"text": "The difference is, outside of a small period in the 70s, this is the first time that events are converging that will very likely make it true. Short of the emergence of an industry that can economically support us for the next 20-30 years (which is essentially one part of what saved us during the 70s, with the computer revolution), the options that exist for Social Security are: 1. Increase benefits age. 2. Decrease payouts (either by nominally decreasing them, or de facto decreasing them by not keeping pace with inflation). 3. Print the money to pay back the IOUs that are the foundation of Social Security today (resulting in massively inflated money supply and lower purchasing power of the payouts). So while it might be true that this was discussed, because of the massive size of the system and the economic might of the United States, there was never really a threat of it actively impacting a generation until now. That aside, the Social Security argument was only one arm of the discussion. The Gen X generation, if the economy doesn't recover, is going to be the first generation to have to figure out what retirement means when your entire generation is lacking resources to support itself (compared against the WWI generation (savings, not possible now with inflation), the Greatest Generation (pensions, which are gone), and the Baby Boomers (401k and remnants of Social Security system)).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d2b3ac3e04f16008caaa1ceb136d3ef0",
"text": "If you think that your parents' home is in danger, you might want to check what it would take to make sure their house is safe, and what the financial situation actually is. You are paying rent, there are brothers who may or may not be paying rent. We don't have the information, you have. Saving that house might be a worthwhile investment. I assume that if you moved out, either rented or by buying a house, they wouldn't get any rent from you anymore and whatever the situation is, it would be much worse.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ae41578fb8efac0c135eb85fedcc4559",
"text": "The request for your parent's income comes from Form 8615, Tax for Certain Children Who Have Unearned Income. I typically see this form appear as I'm doing my daughter's taxes and start to enter data from stock transactions. In other words, your earned income is your's. But if you are a dependent, or 'can be,' the flow avoids the potentially lucrative results from gifting children appreciated stock, and have them take the gain at their lower, potentially zero cap gain rate. I suggest you grab a coffee and thumb through Pub 929 Tax Rules for Children and Dependents to understand this better. From page 14 of the linked doc - Parent's return information not available. If a child can’t get the required information about his or her parent's tax return, the child (or the child's legal representative) can request the necessary information from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). How to request. After the end of the tax year, send a signed, written request for the information to the Internal Revenue Service Center where the parent's return will be filed. (The IRS can’t process a request received before the end of the tax year.) It also suggests that you file for an extension for the due date of your return. Include payment for the tax you expect to pay, say by plugging in $200K for parent income as an estimate. My parents' accountant tells them I do not need it. Well, a piece of software told you that you do, and 3 people on line who collectively qualify as experts documented why. (Note, I am not full of myself. This board operates via the wisdom of crowds. Members DStanley, and Ben Miller, commented and edited to help me form a well documented response that would be tough to argue against.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f21ec97109e0e7d9f35394f8d38f6c5",
"text": "If you can still work or have income to support yourself, I would wait. contrary to some media reports, Social Security has enough money to cover full benefits for a number of years to come, and there are solutions that don't involve cutting payouts. And as mentioned before it is likely you'll be grandfathered in if there are cuts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "91059ff2cd7123e0b0c1010e72cb10c7",
"text": "If anyone hasn't done this yet, all three companies have waived the fees. I just did it and a couple weeks ago, I set up an account with the Social Security Administration where you can get notified any time someone is trying to use your social security number. There's two-step authentication as well.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4c678bd788c38788989da1ab4bd3e480",
"text": "Why is it OK for companies to lose all of our personal information with absolutely no penalties? If the government fined these companies a dollar per SS number lost you bet your ass they'd start actually paying attention to security for a change.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "110b7d50a5d8e2def6023335f627ac1b",
"text": "While stealing the identities of the deceased for claiming their social security benefits and so on is not new, this is the first I'd heard of someone stealing identities for the purpose of going after their tax refunds. I'd think it wouldn't be that worthwhile, considering the punishment likely if you get caught.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4217f4b58b17bf01e6deb8e2a43bf894",
"text": "The Employee Benefits Security Administration within the US Department of Labor is tasked with keeping track of pension and 401K programs. The even have a website to search for abandoned plans: it helps participants and others find out whether a particular plan is in the process of being, or has been, terminated and the name of the Qualified Termination Administrator (QTA) responsible for the termination. The Employee Benefits Security Administration discuss all types of details regarding retirement programs. This document What You Should Know About Your Retirement Plan has a lot of details including this: If your former employer has gone out of business, arrangements should have been made so a plan official remains responsible for the payment of benefits and other plan business. If you are entitled to benefits and are unable to contact the plan administrator, contact EBSA electronically at askebsa.dol.gov or by calling toll free at 1-866-444-3272. There are also EBSA offices spread thought the United States",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "de6d817069222c9fc39f519b322d65f8",
"text": "\"Step one: Contact the collection agency. Tell them that they have the wrong person, and the same name is just a coincidence. I would NOT give them my correct social security number, birth date, or other identifying information. This could be a total scam for the purpose of getting you to give them such personal identifying information so they can perform an identity theft. Even if it is a legitimate debt collection agency, if they are overzealous and/or incompetent, they may enter your identifying information into their records. \"\"Oh, you say your social security number isn't 123-45-6789, but 234-56-7890. Thank you, let me update our records. Now, sir, I see that the social security number in our records matches your social security number ...\"\" Step two: If they don't back off, contact a lawyer. Collection agencies work by -- call it \"\"intimidation\"\" or \"\"moral persuasion\"\", depending on your viewpoint. Years after my wife left me, she went bankrupt. A collection agency called me demanding payment of her debts before the bankruptcy went through. I noticed two things about this: One, We were divorced and I had no responsibility for her debts. Somehow they tracked down my new address and phone number, a place where she had never even lived. Why should I pay her debts? I had no legal obligation, nor did I see any moral obligation. Two, Their pitch was that she/I should pay off this debt before the bankruptcy was final. Why would anyone do that? The whole point of declaring bankruptcy is so you don't have to pay these debts. They were hoping to intimidate her into paying even though she wouldn't be legally obligated to pay. If you don't owe the money, of course there's no reason why you should pay it. If they continue to pursue you for somebody else's debt, in the U.S. you can sue them for harassment. There are all sorts of legal limits on what collection agencies are allowed to do. Actually even if they do back off, it might be worth contacting a lawyer. I suspect that asking your employer to garnish your wages without a court order, without even proof that you are responsible for this debt, is a tort that you could sue them for.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "57287b1883e7c6b41e47eb1e7699abab",
"text": "What happens to a minor if the parents are missing, or incapacitated, or deceased should be planned now, and not end up a matter for the courts to decide. You might need to sit down with a family lawyer as well as a fee based financial planner, to make sure you have addressed all the relevant details. These details would include where they would live, money, and what the money should be used for.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "04e75850e4483364cea159dc4e7a85ee",
"text": "The biggest issue I can see is that in order to have your parents protected properly, they'll have to register an interest in the property (ie, the 25%). I can't see the mortgage lender being too happy to have a second lienholder on the house for a total of 100% of the purchase price. Usually their conditions state that they'll need to be informed of other debts secured on the house and might actually have a say in that. Another way of accomplishing this is putting your parents on the house's deeds but that might also complicate matters with the lender and cause additional problems when it comes to selling the property. Not to mention that if anything bad happens to your parents, their stake in your property would be counted as one of their assets and you might find yourself in the situation where you have to come up with 25% of the property value right now or you might find that you have to sell the property to the first bidder simply because you do need the money as quickly as possible. Personally I wouldn't do it (especially without legal advice), the legal structure can be a nightmare and you'll just end up painted into a corner.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c7dd0a115c57770d3e36a8504cef1e68",
"text": "What, if anything, do I need to do? Thanks! Nothing really. Depending on what information you provided on SS-4, the IRS may come asking for payroll tax returns etc. In that case you'll have to respond describing the situation. If they don't - you won't.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "78acae2e9f2f66879ed59137f5c79dba",
"text": "This is a topic you need to sit down and discuss with your parents. Income taxes probably aren't going to be a big issue, and will be refunded in April. Social Security and Medicare will not be refunded, but start you on the road to qualifying for them in the future. How much of you expenses you will now cover will be a family decision; how much of your college expenses you will be responsible for will also need to be discussed. These topics need to be understood before it is time to apply to schools in the fall of your senior year of high school. It is nice to know that you are at least thinking about saving money for your future and for emergencies.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "76946623d9eb300b802e6cd320d93f6b",
"text": "\"If they allowed people to skip reporting the funds \"\"even though I might not intend to use this money to help my kids through college\"\", then children of a Billionaire would be eligible for financial aid. In addition you might have reported all your income to the IRS, but the rest of the government isn't able to see that information.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
be98cea16eb8e879b9c19fa82d69e8be
|
Why does an option lose time value faster as it approaches expiry
|
[
{
"docid": "e4eb607ed1a2b9f4566a845d2b5bb690",
"text": "If you think about it, the value of an option comes from the chance that the price at the expiration date can exceed the strike price. As it gets closer to the expiration date, the chance is getting smaller, because there is simply not enough time for an out-of-money option to hit that strike. Therefore, the value of an option decays.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "262e7e5fd2ce5bb84fb3f35d9644cb26",
"text": "\"This is because volatility is cumulative and with less time there is less cumulative volatility. The time value and option value are tied to the value of the underlying. The value of the underlying (stock) is quite influenced by volatility, the possible price movement in a given span of time. Thirty days of volatility has a much broader spread of values than two days, since each day benefits from the possible price change of the prior days. So if a stock could move up to +/- 1% in a day, then compounded after 5 days it could be +5%, +0%, or -5%. In other words, this is compounded volatility. Less time means far less volatility, which is geometric and not linear. Less volatility lowers the value of the underlying. See Black-Scholes for more technical discussion of this concept. A shorter timeframe until option expiration means there are fewer days of compounded volatility. So the expected change in the underlying will decrease geometrically. The odds are good that the price at T-5 days will be close to the price at T-0, much more so than the prices at T-30 or T-90. Additionally, the time value of an American option is the implicit put value (or implicit call). While an \"\"American\"\" option lets you exercise prior to expiry (unlike a \"\"European\"\" option, exercised only at expiry), there's an implicit put option in a call (or an implicit call in a put option). If you have an American call option of 60 days and it goes into the money at 30 days, you could exercise early. By contract, that stock is yours if you pay for it (or, in a put, you can sell whenever you decide). In some cases, this may make sense (if you want an immediate payoff or you expect this is the best price situation), but you may prefer to watch the price. If the price moves further, your gain when you use the call may be even better. If the price goes back out of the money, then you benefited from an implicit put. It's as though you exercised the option when it went in the money, then sold the stock and got back your cash when the stock went out of the money, even though no actual transaction took place and this is all just implicit. So the time value of an American option includes the implicit option to not use it early. The value of the implicit option also decreases in a nonlinear fashion, since the value of the implicit option is subject to the same valuation principles. But the larger principle for both is the compounded volatility, which drops geometrically.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b2faf32fa6949c64df1a9126366fa459",
"text": "NL7 is right and his B-S reference, a good one. Time decay happens to occur in a way that 2X the time gives an option 1.414X (the square root of 2) times the value, so half the time means about .707 of the value. This valuation model should help the trader decide on exactly how far out to go for a given trade.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e080f52dc5ab00a2c1dee3097206fc9",
"text": "Don´t forget that changing volatility will have an impact on the time value too! So at times it can happen that your time value is increasing instead of decreasing, if the underlying (market) volatility moves up strongly. Look for articles on option greeks, and how they are interdependent. Some are well explaining in simple language.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "45743fe1204527eb442e748805b613fa",
"text": "\"Not cumulative volatility. It's cumulative probability density. Time value isn't linear because PDFs (probability distribution function) aren't linear. It's a type of distribution e.g. \"\"bell-curves\"\") These distributions are based on empirical data i.e. what we observe. BSM i.e. Black-Scholes-Merton includes the factors that influence an option price and include a PDF to represent the uncertainty/probability. Time value is based on historical volatility in the underlying asset price, in this case equity(stock). At the beginning, time value is high since there's time until expiration and the stock is expected to move within a certain range based on historical performance. As it nears expiration, uncertainty over the final value diminishes. This causes probability for a certain price range to become more likely. We can relate that to how people think, which affects the variation in the stock market price. Most people who are hoping for a value increase are optimistic about their chances of winning and will hold out towards the end. They see in the past d days, the stock has moved [-2%,+5%] so as a call buyer, they're looking for that upside. With little time remaining though, their hopes quickly drop to 0 for any significant changes beyond the market price. (Likewise, people keep playing the lottery up until a certain age when they're older and suddenly determine they're never going to win.) We see that reflected in the PDF used to represent options price movements. Thus your time value which is a function of probability decreases in a non-linear fashion. Option price = intrinsic value + time value At expiration, your option price = intrinsic value = stock price - strike price, St >= K, and 0 for St < K.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ab1a33618eb34680f2d6c4335cdccbc",
"text": "Here's another attempt at explanation: it's basically because parabolas are flat at the bottom. Let me explain. As you might know, the variance of the log stock price in Black Scholes is vol^2 * T, in other words, variance of the log stock price is linear in time to expiry. Now, that means that the standard deviation of your log stock price is square root in time. This is consequential. For normally distributed random variables, in 68% of cases we end up within one standard deviation. So, basically, we expect our log stock price to be within something something times square root of T. So, if your stock has a vol of 16%, it'll be plus/minus 32% in 4 years, plus/minus 16% for one year, plus/minus 8% for 3m, plus/minus 4% for 3-ish weeks, and plus/minus 1% for a business day. As you see, the decay is slow at first, but much more rapid as we get closer. How does the square root function look? It's a sideways parabola. As we come closer to zero, the slope of the square root function goes to infinity. (That is related to the fact that Brownian motion is almost surely no-where differentiable - it just shoots off with infinite slope, returning immediately, of course :-) Another way of looking at it is the old traders rule of thumb that an at-the-money option is worth approximately S * 0.4 * vol * sqrt(T). (Just do a Taylor expansion of Black Scholes). Again, you have the square root of time to expiry in there, and as outlined above, as we get closer to zero, the square root drops slowly at first, and then precipitously.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "0400607794f04d15bf9fdfe8a22e00b3",
"text": "\"I thought the other answers had some good aspect but also some things that might not be completely correct, so I'll take a shot. As noted by others, there are three different types of entities in your question: The ETF SPY, the index SPX, and options contracts. First, let's deal with the options contracts. You can buy options on the ETF SPY or marked to the index SPX. Either way, options are about the price of the ETF / index at some future date, so the local min and max of the \"\"underlying\"\" symbol generally will not coincide with the min and max of the options. Of course, the closer the expiration date on the option, the more closely the option price tracks its underlying directly. Beyond the difference in how they are priced, the options market has different liquidity, and so it may not be able to track quick moves in the underlying. (Although there's a reasonably robust market for option on SPY and SPX specifically.) Second, let's ask what forces really make SPY and SPX move together as much as they do. It's one thing to say \"\"SPY is tied to SPX,\"\" but how? There are several answers to this, but I'll argue that the most important factor is that there's a notion of \"\"authorized participants\"\" who are players in the market who can \"\"create\"\" shares of SPY at will. They do this by accumulating stock in the constituent companies and turning them into the market maker. There's also the corresponding notion of \"\"redemption\"\" by which an authorized participant will turn in a share of SPY to get stock in the constituent companies. (See http://www.spdrsmobile.com/content/how-etfs-are-created-and-redeemed and http://www.etf.com/etf-education-center/7540-what-is-the-etf-creationredemption-mechanism.html) Meanwhile, SPX is just computed from the prices of the constituent companies, so it's got no market forces directly on it. It just reflects what the prices of the companies in the index are doing. (Of course those companies are subject to market forces.) Key point: Creation / redemption is the real driver for keeping the price aligned. If it gets too far out of line, then it creates an arbitrage opportunity for an authorized participant. If the price of SPY gets \"\"too high\"\" compared to SPX (and therefore the constituent stocks), an authorized participant can simultaneously sell short SPY shares and buy the constituent companies' stocks. They can then use the redemption process to close their position at no risk. And vice versa if SPY gets \"\"too low.\"\" Now that we understand why they move together, why don't they move together perfectly. To some extent information about fees, slight differences in composition between SPY and SPX over time, etc. do play. The bigger reasons are probably that (a) there are not a lot of authorized participants, (b) there are a relatively large number of companies represented in SPY, so there's some actual cost and risk involved in trying to quickly buy/sell the full set to capture the theoretical arbitrage that I described, and (c) redemption / creation units only come in pretty big blocks, which complicates the issues under point b. You asked about dividends, so let me comment briefly on that too. The dividend on SPY is (more or less) passing on the dividends from the constituent companies. (I think - not completely sure - that the market maker deducts its fees from this cash, so it's not a direct pass through.) But each company pays on its own schedule and SPY does not make a payment every time, so it's holding a corresponding amount of cash between its dividend payments. This is factored into the price through the creation / redemption process. I don't know how big of a factor it is though.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "950bac4eb30e928cfcf88e9665f14bab",
"text": "There are some excellent responses to this question at the time of this post. I have had the greatest success writing 1-month options. The 2 main reasons are as follows: With little time to expiration as stated in the question the implied volatility of the option is dictating the premium. Looking for the highest premiums is a mistake because you are taking a conservative strategy and re-creating it into a high-risk strategy. My sweet spot is a 2-4% monthly return for my initial profit and then mastering management techniques to protect that return and even enhancing it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0a4079725f2d6fbf8f1f84c9048db43f",
"text": "\"This chart concerns an option contract, not a stock. The method of analysis is to assume that the price of an option contract is normally distributed around some mean which is presumably the current price of the underlying asset. As the date of expiration of the contract gets closer the variation around the mean in the possible end price for the contract will decrease. Undoubtedly the publisher has measured typical deviations from the mean as a function of time until expiration from historical data. Based on this data, the program that computes the probability has the following inputs: (1) the mean (current asset price) (2) the time until expiration (3) the expected standard deviation based on (2) With this information the probability distribution that you see is generated (the green hump). This is a \"\"normal\"\" or Gaussian distribution. For a normal distribution the probability of a particular event is equal to the area under the curve to the right of the value line (in the example above the value chosen is 122.49). This area can be computed with the formula: This formula is called the probability density for x, where x is the value (122.49 in the example above). Tau (T) is the reciprocal of the variance (which can be computed from the standard deviation). Mu (μ) is the mean. The main assumption such a calculation makes is that the price of the asset will not change between now and the time of expiration. Obviously that is not true in most cases because the prices of stocks and bonds constantly fluctuate. A secondary assumption is that the distribution of the option price around the mean will a normal (or Gaussian) distribution. This is obviously a crude assumption and common sense would suggest it is not the most accurate distribution. In fact, various studies have shown that the Burr Distribution is actually a more accurate model for the distribution of option contract prices.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a20065d917fb18d76572c8a226091329",
"text": "\"Seems like you are concerned with something called assignment risk. It's an inherent risk of selling options: you are giving somebody the right, but not the obligation, to sell to you 100 shares of GOOGL. Option buyers pay a premium to have that right - the extrinsic value. When they exercise the option, the option immediately disappears. Together with it, all the extrinsic value disappears. So, the lower the extrinsic value, the higher the assignment risk. Usually, option contracts that are very close to expiration (let's say, around 2 to 3 weeks to expiration or less) have significantly lower extrinsic value than longer option contracts. Also, generally speaking, the deeper ITM an option contract is, the lower extrinsic value it will have. So, to reduce assignment risk, I usually close out my option positions 1-2 weeks before expiration, especially the contracts that are deep in the money. edit: to make sure this is clear, based on a comment I've just seen on your question. To \"\"close out an options position\"\", you just have to create the \"\"opposite\"\" trade. So, if you sell a Put, you close that by buying back that exact same put. Just like stock: if you buy stock, you have a position; you close that position by selling the exact same stock, in the exact same amount. That's a very common thing to do with options. A post in Tradeking's forums, very old post, but with an interesting piece of data from the OCC, states that 35% of the options expire worthless, and 48% are bought or sold before expiration to close the position - only 17% of the contracts are actually exercised! (http://community.tradeking.com/members/optionsguy/blogs/11260-what-percentage-of-options-get-exercised) A few other things to keep in mind: certain stocks have \"\"mini options contracts\"\", that would correspond to a lot of 10 shares of stock. These contracts are usually not very liquid, though, so you might not get great prices when opening/closing positions you said in a comment, \"\"I cannot use this strategy to buy stocks like GOOGL\"\"; if the reason is because 100*GOOGL is too much to fit in your buying power, that's a pretty big risk - the assignment could result in a margin call! if margin call is not really your concern, but your concern is more like the risk of holding 100 shares of GOOGL, you can help manage that by buying some lower strike Puts (that have smaller absolute delta than your Put), or selling some calls against your short put. Both strategies, while very different, will effectively reduce your delta exposure. You'd get 100 deltas from the 100 shares of GOOGL, but you'd get some negative deltas by holding the lower strike Put, or by writing the higher strike Call. So as the stock moves around, your account value would move less than the exposure equivalent to 100 shares of stock.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b7b72120035518e6dfdd1a02bfa7bb9c",
"text": "$15 - $5 = $10 How did you possibly buy a put for less than the intrinsic value of the option, at $8.25 So we can infer that you would have had to get this put when the stock price was AT LEAST $6.75, but given the 3 months of theta left, it was likely above $7 The value of the put if the price of the underlying asset (the stock ABC) meandered between $5 - $7 would be somewhere between $10 - $8 at expiration. So you don't really stand to lose much in this scenario, and can make a decent gain in this scenario. I mean decent if you were trading stocks and were trying to beat the S&P or keep up with Warren Buffett, but a pretty poor gain since you are trading options! If the stock moves above $7 this is where the put starts to substantially lose value.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6102ca35a6adf578632c2b0f37dadc2f",
"text": "\"Below I will try to explain two most common Binomial Option Pricing Models (BOPM) used. First of all, BOPM splits time to expiry into N equal sub-periods and assumes that in each period the underlying security price may rise or fall by a known proportion, so the value of an option in any sub-period is a function of its possible values in the following sub period. Therefore the current value of an option is found by working backwards from expiry date through sub-periods to current time. There is not enough information in the question from your textbook so we may assume that what you are asked to do is to find a value of a call option using just a Single Period BOPM. Here are two ways of doing this: First of all let's summarize your information: Current Share Price (Vs) = $70 Strike or exercise price (X) = $60 Risk-free rate (r) = 5.5% or 0.055 Time to maturity (t) = 12 months Downward movement in share price for the period (d) = $65 / $70 = 0.928571429 Upward movement in share price for the period (u) = 1/d = 1/0.928571429 = 1.076923077 \"\"u\"\" can be translated to $ multiplying by Vs => 1.076923077 * $70 = $75.38 which is the maximum probable share price in 12 months time. If you need more clarification here - the minimum and maximum future share prices are calculated from stocks past volatility which is a measure of risk. But because your textbook question does not seem to be asking this - you probably don't have to bother too much about it yet. Intrinsic Value: Just in case someone reading this is unclear - the Value of an option on maturity is the difference between the exercise (strike) price and the value of a share at the time of the option maturity. This is also called an intrinsic value. Note that American Option can be exercised prior to it's maturity in this case the intrinsic value it simply the diference between strike price and the underlying share price at the time of an exercise. But the Value of an option at period 0 (also called option price) is a price you would normally pay in order to buy it. So, say, with a strike of $60 and Share Price of $70 the intrinsic value is $10, whereas if Share Price was $50 the intrinsic value would be $0. The option price or the value of a call option in both cases would be fixed. So we also need to find intrinsic option values when price falls to the lowest probable and rises to the maximum probable (Vcd and Vcu respectively) (Vcd) = $65-$60 = $5 (remember if Strike was $70 then Vcd would be $0 because nobody would exercise an option that is out of the money) (Vcu) = $75.38-$60 = $15.38 1. Setting up a hedge ratio: h = Vs*(u-d)/(Vcu-Vcd) h = 70*(1.076923077-0.928571429)/(15.38-5) = 1 That means we have to write (sell) 1 option for each share purchased in order to hedge the risks. You can make a simple calculation to check this, but I'm not going to go into too much detail here as the equestion is not about hedging. Because this position is risk-free in equilibrium it should pay a risk-free rate (5.5%). Then, the formula to price an option (Vc) using the hedging approach is: (Vs-hVc)(e^(rt))=(Vsu-hVcu) Where (Vc) is the value of the call option, (h) is the hedge ratio, (Vs) - Current Share Price, (Vsu) - highest probable share price, (r) - risk-free rate, (t) - time in years, (Vcu) - value of a call option on maturity at the highest probable share price. Therefore solving for (Vc): (70-1*Vc)(e^(0.055*(12/12))) = (75.38-1*15.38) => (70-Vc)*1.056540615 = 60 => 70-Vc = 60/1.056540615 => Vc = 70 - (60/1.056540615) Which is similar to the formula given in your textbook, so I must assume that using 1+r would be simply a very close approximation of the formula above. Then it is easy to find that Vc = 13.2108911402 ~ $13.21 2. Risk-neutral valuation: Another way to calculate (Vc) is using a risk-neutral approach. We first introduce a variable (p) which is a risk-neutral probability of an increase in share price. p = (e^(r*t)-d)/(u-d) so in your case: p = (1.056540615-0.928571429)/(1.076923077-0.928571429) = 0.862607107 Therefore using (p) the (Vc) would be equal: Vc = [pVcu+(1-p)Vcd]/(e^(rt)) => Vc = [(0.862607107*15.38)+(0.137392893*5)]/1.056540615 => Vc = 13.2071229185 ~ $13.21 As you can see it is very close to the hedging approach. I hope this answers your questions. Also bear in mind that there is much more to the option pricing than this. The most important topics to cover are: Multi-period BOPM Accounting for Dividends Black-Scholes-Merton Option Pricing Model\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "10fc3cef181d456bb37c2c3051b40413",
"text": "\"people are willing to pay higher premiums for options when stocks go down. Obviously the time value and intrinsic value and interests rates of the option doesn't change because of this so the miscalculation remainder is priced into the implied volatility part of the formula. Basically, anything that suggests the stock price will get volatile (sharp moves in either direction) will increase the implied volatility of the option. For instance, around earnings reports, the IV in both calls and puts in the nearest expiration dates are very high. When stocks go down sharply, the volatility is high because some people are buying puts for protection and others are buying calls because they think there will be a rebound move in the other direction. People (the \"\"sleep-at-night\"\" investors, not the derivatives traders ;) ) tend to be calm when stocks are going up, and fearful when they are going down. The psychology is important to understand and observe and profit from, not to quantitatively prove. The first paragraph should be your qualitative answer\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fef760738b2b90f87c049bb8f0a1675f",
"text": "Consider the black-scholes-merton result. Notice that the expected value of the bond is its present value, discounted from the expiration date. The same is not applied to the price of the stock. The further in the future you go, the less value the bond carries because it's being discounted into oblivion. Now, looking at d1, as time tends towards infinity, so does d1. N(d1) is a probability. The higher d1, the higher the probability and vice versa, so as time increases, the probability for S trends to 100% while K is discounted away. Note that the math doesn't yet fully model reality, as extremely long dated options such as the European puts Buffett wrote were traded at ~1/2 the value the model said he should've. He still had to take a GAAP loss: http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2008ltr.pdf",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "45bfc533d97f7ecf635200aeda3fe529",
"text": "\"Simple answer: Breakeven is when the security being traded reaches a price equal to the cost of the option plus the option's strike price, assuming you choose to exercise it. So for example, if you paid $1.00 for,say, a call option with a strike price of $19.00, breakeven would be when the security itself reaches $20.00. That being said, I can't imagine why you'd \"\"close out a position\"\" at the breakeven point. You wouldn't make or lose money doing that, so it wouldn't be rational. Now, as the option approaches expiration, you may make adjustments to the position to reflect shifts in momentum of the stock. So, if it looks as though the stock may not reach the option strike price, you could close out the position and take your lumps. But if the stock has momentum that will carry it past the strike price by expiration, you may choose to augment your position with additional contracts, although this would obviously mean the new contracts would be priced higher, which raises your dollar cost basis, and this may not make much sense. Another option in this scenario is that if the stock is going to surpass strike price, it might be a good opportunity to buy additional calls with either later expiration dates or with higher strike prices, depending on how much higher you speculate the stock will climb. I've managed to make some money doing this, buying options with strike prices just a dollar or two higher (or lower when playing puts), because the premiums were (in my opinion) underpriced to the potential peak of the stock by the expiration date. Sometimes the new options were actually slightly cheaper than my original positions, so my dollar cost basis overall dropped somewhat, improving my profit percentages.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d05eec50ca1f8a73a7bc81e46cb175e1",
"text": "Short answer: Liquidity. Well, you have to see it from an exchange's point of view. Every contract they put up is a liability to them. You have to allocate resources for the order book, the matching engine, the clearing, etc. But only if the contract is actually trading they start earning (the big) money. Now for every new expiry they engage a long term commitment and it might take years for an option chain to be widely accepted (and hence before they're profitable). Compare the volumes and open interests of big chains versus the weeklies and you'll find that weeklies can still be considered illiquid compared to their monthly cousins. Having said that, like many things, this is just a question of demand. If there's a strong urge to trade July weeklies one day, there will be an option chain. But, personally I think, as long as there are the summer doldrums there will be no rush to ask for Jul and Aug chains.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd44277568aafe069a5ce3e22647d487",
"text": "I would make a change to the answer from olchauvin: If you buy a call, that's because you expect that the value of call options will go up. So if you still think that options prices will go up, then a sell-off in the stock may be a good point to buy more calls for cheaper. It would be your call at that point (no pun intended). Here is some theory which may help. An options trader in a bank would say that the value of a call option can go up for two reasons: The VIX index is a measure of the levels of implied volatility, so you could intuitively say that when you trade options you are taking a view on two components: the underlying stock, and the level of the VIX index. Importantly, as you get closer to the expiry date this second effect diminishes: big jumps up in the VIX will produce smaller increases in the value of the call option. Taking this point to its limit, at maturity the value of the call option is only dependent on the price of the underlying stock. An options trader would say that the vega of a call option decreases as it gets closer to expiry. A consequence of this is that if pure options traders are naturally less inclined to buy and hold to expiry (because otherwise they would really just be taking a view on the stock price rather than the stock price & the implied volatility surface). Trading options without thinking too much about implied volatities is of course a valid strategy -- maybe you just use them because you will automatically have a mechanism which limits losses on your positions. But I am just trying to give you an impression of the bigger picture.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "294a723f083a1c211ead746ce4b415f6",
"text": "Options reflect expectations about the underlying asset, and options are commonly priced using the Black-Scholes model: N(d1) and N(d2) are probability functions, S is the spot (current) price of the asset, K is the strike price, r is the risk free rate, and T-t represents time to maturity. Without getting into the mathematics, it suffices to say that higher volatility or expectation of volatility increases the perceived riskiness of the asset, so call options are priced lower and put options are priced higher. Think about it intuitively. If the stock is more likely to go downwards, then there's an increased chance that the call option expires worthless, so call options must be priced lower to accommodate the relative change in expected value of the option. Puts are priced similarly, but they move inversely with respect to call option prices due to Put-Call parity. So if call option prices are falling, then put option prices are rising (Note, however, that call prices falling does not cause put prices to rise. The inverse relationship exists because of changes in the underlying factors and how pricing works.) So the option action signifies that the market believes the stock is headed lower (in the given time frame). That does not mean it will go lower, and option traders assume risk whenever they take a particular position. Bottom line: gotta do your own homework! Best of luck.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "495c342f3cfec0dc4d35802cfc0b6011",
"text": "An option gives you the option rather than the obligation to buy (or sell) the underlying so you don't have to exercise you can just let the option expire (so long it doesn't have an automatic expiry). After expiration the option is worthless if it is out of the money but other than that has no hangover. Option prices normally drop as the time value of the option decays. An option has two values associated with it; time value and exercise value. Far out of the money (when the price of the underlying is far from the strike price on the losing side) options only have time value whereas deep in the money options (as yours seems to be) has some time value as well as the intrinsic value of the right to buy (sell) at a low (high) price and then sell (buy) the underlying. The time value of the option comes from the possibility that the price of the underlying will move (further) in your favour and make you more money at expiry. As expiry closes it is less likely that there will be a favourable mood so this value declines which can cause prices to move sharply after a period of little to no revaluing. Up to now what I have said applies to both OTC and traded options but exchange traded options have another level of complexity in their trading; because there are fewer traders in the options market the size of trade at which you can move the market is much lower. On the equities markets you may need to trade millions of shares to have be substantial enough to significantly move a price, on the options markets it could be thousands or even hundreds. If these are European style options (which sounds likely) and a single trading entity was holding a large number of the exchange traded options and now thinks that the price will move significantly against them before expiry their sell trade will move the market lower in spite of the options being in the money. Their trade is based on their supposition that by the time they can exercise the option the price will be below the strike and they will lose money. They have cashed out at a price that suited them and limited what they will lose if they are right about the underlying. If I am not correct in my excise style assumption (European) I may need more details on the trade as it seems like you should just exercise now and take the profit if it is that far into the money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd2294bc0725eaa66e949c23084be42a",
"text": "I'm sorry, but your math is wrong. You are not equally likely to make as much money by waiting for expiration. Share prices are moving constantly in both directions. Very rarely does any stock go either straight up or straight down. Consider a stock with a share price of $12 today. Perhaps that stock is a bad buy, and in 1 month's time it will be down to $10. But the market hasn't quite wised up to this yet, and over the next week it rallies up to $15. If you bought a European option (let's say an at-the-money call, expiring in 1 month, at $12 on our start date), then you lost. Your option expired worthless. If you bought an American option, you could have exercised it when the share price was at $15 and made a nice profit. Keep in mind we are talking about exactly the same stock, with exactly the same history, over exactly the same time period. The only difference is the option contract. The American option could have made you money, if you exercised it at any time during the rally, but not the European option - you would have been forced to hold onto it for a month and finally let it expire worthless. (Of course that's not strictly true, since the European option itself can be sold while it is in the money - but eventually, somebody is going to end up holding the bag, nobody can exercise it until expiration.) The difference between an American and European option is the difference between getting N chances to get it right (N being the number of days 'til expiration) and getting just one chance. It should be easy to see why you're more likely to profit with the former, even if you can't accurately predict price movement.",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
2a11551f5794ae1b4efb231290de4b08
|
US tax for a resident NRI
|
[
{
"docid": "ec3d14f8d9e15d3aab6f98d3a9cf46fd",
"text": "If you are tax-resident in the US, then you must report income from sources within and without the United States. Your foreign income generally must be reported to the IRS. You will generally be eligible for a credit for foreign income taxes paid, via Form 1116. The question of the stock transfer is more complicated, but revolves around the beneficial owner. If the stocks are yours but held by your brother, it is possible that you are the beneficial owner and you will have to report any income. There is no tax for bringing the money into the US. As a US tax resident, you are already subject to income tax on the gain from the sale in India. However, if the investment is held by a separate entity in India, which is not a US domestic entity or tax resident, then there is a separate analysis. Paying a dividend to you of the sale proceeds (or part of the proceeds) would be taxable. Your sale of the entity containing the investments would be taxable. There are look-through provisions if the entity is insufficiently foreign (de facto US, such as a Subpart-F CFC). There are ways to structure that transaction that are not taxable, such as making it a bona fide loan (which is enforceable and you must pay back on reasonable terms). But if you are holding property directly, not through a foreign separate entity, then the sale triggers US tax; the transfer into the US is not meaningful for your taxes, except for reporting foreign accounts. Please review Publication 519 for general information on taxation of resident aliens.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e45082ebd31646e9466456f04258ad79",
"text": "\"Please declare everything you earn in India as well as the total amount of assets (it's called FBAR). The penalties for not declaring is jail time no matter how small the amount (and lots of ordinary people every 2-3 years are regularly sent to jail for not declaring such income). It's taken very seriously by the IRS - and any Indian bank who has an office in the US or does business here, can be asked by IRS to provide any bank account details for you. You will get deductions for taxes already paid to a foreign country due to double taxation, so there won't be any additional taxes because income taxes in US are on par or even lower than that in India. Using tricks (like transferring ownership to your brother) may not be worth it. Note: you pay taxes only when you realize gains anyway - both in India or here, so why do you want to take such hassles. If you transfer to your brother, it will be taxed only until you hold them. Make sure you have exact dates of gains between the date you came to US and the date you \"\"gifted\"\" to your brother. As long as you clearly document that the stocks transferred to your brother was a gift and you have no more claims on them, it should be ok, but best to consult a CPA in the US. If you have claims on them, example agreement that you will repurchase them, then you will still continue to pay taxes. If you sell your real estate investments in India, you have to pay tax on the gains in the US (and you need proof of the original buying cost and your sale). If you have paid taxes on the real estate gains in India, then you can get deduction due to double tax avoidance treaty. No issues in bringing over the capital from India to US.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "8de35a507e65ca679887497e347f9d74",
"text": "I keep visiting Dubai Not sure what kind of work it is, assuming it regular job. For the period mentioned above I was out of India for more than 182 days, If you were out of India for more than 182 days in a given financial year then you would NRI for tax purposes. till date I have not transferred any money from Dubai to my India account. Whether you have transferred the money or not is not relevant for tax purposes. Your status [NRI / Resident] is relevant. Do I need to declare the income I have earned in Dubai? No you are not required to as your status is NRI. You are required to file a return on the income [Salary/Interest/gains/etc] accruing in India. Do I need to change my residential status ? Not sure where you are wanting to change this. Will the income I have earned in Dubai is taxable ? As you are NRI, the income earned outside of India is not taxable in India. From a tax point of view, it does not matter whether you keep the funds in Dubai or transfer it back to India. Edit: The Income Tax rules are not very clear if your wife can claim for her father-in-law. Best consult a CA. For quite a few regulations, Wife's father-in-law are treated at par with father.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "525af4c7a0373197b4a72adee488f3df",
"text": "The US will let you keep as much money as you want to within its borders regardless of your citizenship. You'll owe capital gains tax in the US unless you're subject to a tax treaty (which you would probably make as an election in the year of the transaction). I don't know if India has any rules about how it governs its citizens' foreign assets, but the US requires citizens to file a form annually declaring foreign accounts over $10,000. You may be subject to additional Indian taxes if India taxes global income like the US does.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "819197acdc0e88afc44350dcccd999eb",
"text": "\"I believe you have to file a tax return, because state tax refund is considered income effectively connected with US trade or business, and the 1040NR instructions section \"\"Who Must File\"\" includes people who were engaged in trade or business in the US and had a gross income. You won't end up having to pay any taxes as the income is less than your personal exemption of $4050.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c69177e47bd21ad594a45558a393d9f",
"text": "Assuming that the NRE (NonResident External) account is in good standing, that is, you are still eligible to have an NRE account because your status as a NonResident of India has not changed in the interim, you can transfer money back from your NRE account to your US accounts without any problems. But be aware that you bear the risk of getting back a much smaller amount than you invested in the NRE account because of devaluation of the Indian Rupee (INR). NRE accounts are held in INR, and whatever amounts (in INR) that you choose to withdraw will be converted to US$ at the exchange rate then applicable. Depending on whether it is the Indian bank that is doing the conversion and sending money by wire to your US bank, or you are depositing a cheque in INR in your US bank, you may be charged miscellaneous service fees also. To answer a question that you have not asked as yet, there is no US tax on the transfer of the money. The interest paid on your deposits into the NRE account are not taxable income to you in India, but are taxable income to you in the US, and so I hope that you have been declaring this income each year on Schedule B of your income tax return, and also reporting that you have accounts held abroad, as required by US law. See for example, this question and its answer and also this question and its answer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c409a1afbc53fbc1ed1a0b689ab8c03a",
"text": "Assuming you are Resident Indian. As per Indian Income Tax As per section 208 every person whose estimated tax liability for the year exceeds Rs. 10,000, shall pay his tax in advance in the form of “advance tax”. Thus, any taxpayer whose estimated tax liability for the year exceeds Rs. 10,000 has to pay his tax in advance by the due dates prescribed in this regard. However, as per section 207, a resident senior citizen (i.e., an individual of the age of 60 years or above) not having any income from business or profession is not liable to pay advance tax. In other words, if a person satisfies the following conditions, he will not be liable to pay advance tax: Hence only self assessment tax need to be paid without any interest. Refer the full guideline on Income tax website",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f7613eabc169fad3fafc9d947392f98d",
"text": "The IRS' primary reference Pub 519 Tax Guide for Aliens -- current year online (current and previous years downloadable in PDF from the Forms&Pubs section of the website) says NO: Students and business apprentices from India. A special rule applies .... You can claim the standard deduction .... Use Worksheet 5-1 to figure your standard deduction. If you are married and your spouse files a return and itemizes deductions, you cannot take the standard deduction. Note the last sentence, which is clearly an exception to the 'India rule', which is already an exception to the general rule that nonresident filers never get the standard deduction. Of course this is the IRS' interpretation of the law (which is defined to include ratified treaties); if you think they are wrong, you could claim the deduction anyway and when they assess the additional tax (and demand payment) take it to US Tax Court -- but I suspect the legal fees will cost you more than the marginal tax on $6300, even under Tax Court's simplified procedures for small cases.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ac393eb7139b67ca2c0f1a3581ef89c",
"text": "Assuming you are NRI, any income you earn is not taxable in India whether you transfer to India or not. Is this amount taxable in India? If yes then how much I have to pay as tax. No it is not taxable. How to fixed Deposit this money from Saudi Arabia or from India through my husband or parents? You can open Fixed Deposits in your name or your husband/parents name. It is your choice. Some Banks allow you to operate an NRE account via Internet If I put this money in 2-3 FD's (like 5 lakh one FD and 2 or 3 lakh other FD's) then the interest earned is taxable? Interest is taxable. Can I withdraw any FD without maturity if needed in urgent? That depends on type of FD you have opened. Some allow withdrawal before maturity with a penalty other don't allow.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1821d489190ca4b39fdd9e8a953ad6d1",
"text": "\"What do you mean by \"\"Canadian income\"\"? Was it income paid to you as wages for the job you did in the US? Or rental/interest income in Canada? If the former - then it doesn't go to NEC, it goes to the main part of the return. If the latter - it doesn't appear on your NR return at all. Yes, it is to validate your residency status. It has no other effect on your taxes.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c2718faab7ee5008d2257c0669ca216",
"text": "\"I'm assuming that by saying \"\"I'm a US resident now\"\" you're referring to the residency determination for tax purposes. Should I file a return in the US even though there is no income here ? Yes. US taxes its residents for tax purposes (which is not the same as residents for immigration or other purposes) on worldwide income. If yes, do I get credits for the taxes I paid in India. What form would I need to submit for the same ? I am assuming this form has to be issued by IT Dept in India or the employer in India ? The IRS doesn't require you to submit your Indian tax return with your US tax return, however they may ask for it later if your US tax return comes under examination. Generally, you claim foreign tax credits using form 1116 attached to your tax return. Specifically for India there may also be some clause in the Indo-US tax treaty that might be relevant to you. Treaty claims are made using form 8833 attached to your tax return, and I suggest having a professional (EA/CPA licensed in your State) prepare such a return. Although no stock transactions were done last year, should I still declare the value of total stocks I own ? If so what is an approx. tax rate or the maximum tax rate. Yes, this is done using form 8938 attached to your tax return and also form 114 (FBAR) filed separately with FinCEN. Pay attention: the forms are very similar with regard to the information you provide on them, but they go to different agencies and have different filing requirements and penalties for non-compliance. As to tax rates - that depends on the types of stocks and how you decide to treat them. Generally, the tax rate for PFIC is very high, so that if any of your stocks are classified as PFIC - you'd better talk to a professional tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) about how to deal with them. Non-PFIC stocks are dealt with the same as if they were in the US, unless you match certain criteria described in the instructions to form 5471 (then a different set of rules apply, talk to a licensed tax adviser). I will be transferring most of my stock to my father this year, will this need to be declared ? Yes, using form 709. Gift tax may be due. Talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). I have an apartment in India this year, will this need to be declared or only when I sell the same later on ? If there's no income from it - then no (assuming you own it directly in your own name, for indirect ownership - yes, you do), but when you sell you will have to declare the sale and pay tax on the gains. Again, treaty may come into play, talk to a tax adviser. Also, be aware of Section 121 exclusion which may make it more beneficial for you to sell earlier.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b06cf61d9da1756b77f18ecfb634e214",
"text": "You do not need to report gifts from US residents (US citizens/green card holders/tax residents due to length of stay) since filing gift tax return is their responsibility. In case of foreigners you need to report gifts in excess of $100K. In any case, transfers between spouses are exempt from gift tax.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "012f605227ef0d892bc1b5ebfac70818",
"text": "From an Indian Tax point of view, you can bring back all the assets acquired during the period you were NRI back to India tax free. Subject to a 7 years period. i.e. all the assets / funds / etc should be brought back to India within 7 years. It would still be treated as There are certain conditions / paperwork. Please consult a CA.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "746c2df9ea5a586fc65a71a374c66c25",
"text": "I have some more inputs to investigate: India has dual tax avoidance treaty signed with european countries so that NRIs dont pay tax in both countries. Please check if India has some agreement with Swiss Also for freelance job that is delivered from India, u need to make sure where you have to pay taxes as you are still in India so the term NRI will not hold good here. Also, if Swiss company is paying tax there, and you are a freelancer from India(resident in india) how to tax filing /rate etc has to be investigated. Also, can you apply for tax back from swiss( a portion of tax paid can be refunded eg: in Germany) but I dont know if this is true for Freelancers and also for people out side SWISS. Bip",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cb2e53bae376cfbc345663b020909f61",
"text": "After that I moved to the Middle East on March 23rd, 2015 As an NRI, one should not hold any Savings account. Please have this converted to NRO Account. Additionally it is advised that you open an NRE account. Both these can be done remotely. If I transfer money from here to a non NRE/NRO account then is it taxable? Assuming its income earned when you are NRI, it is not taxable. However if there is audit enquiry you would need to have sufficient proof to back that this income is earned during your period as NRI and hence not taxable. As indicate above, holding a savings account when you are NRI is a breach of FEMA regulation. I have been getting mail from myITreturns.com to file income tax returns. Since I am considered as NRI, do I have to fill any non return form online? If there is a source of income in India, interest on savings account etc, it is taxable and you would need to file appropriate returns. Even if you have zero income, it is safe to file a NIL return. For the year 2014 do I have to file income tax returns? For the financial year 1st April 2014 to 31st March 2015, you are still a resident Indian for tax purposes. You should have filed the return by June 2015 if there was tax due, else by March 2016. If you have not done so, please do this ASAP and regularise it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a37ba433298a25962301a4c5df8a2d03",
"text": "You haven't indicated where the funds are held. They should ideally be held in NRO account. If you haven't, have this done ASAP. Once the funds are in NRO account, you can repatriate this outside of India subject to a limit of 1 million USD. A CA certificate is required. Please contact your Indian Bank and they should be able to guide you. There are no tax implications of this in US as much as I know, someone else may post the US tax aspect.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a72f166a535fb9410d51387be1ec78a1",
"text": "What are the steps to bring the money to the US? It is worth 1.25 Crore and I have already paid the 20% tax in India. Under the Liberalized Remittance Scheme an Individual can repatriate funds upto USD 250,000 without any paperwork. However most banks would be cautious and request for Form 15CA and Form 15CB if you are moving funds from NRO Account. Form 15 CA you would need to declare why you are moving the said funds. The Form 15 CB is to be filled by Chartered Account certifying that relevant taxes have been already paid to Income Tax. Most Banks would offer these services. Compare the Fx Rate and Fees before you make a decision as to which Bank to proceed with.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
6086ef7d21c8fd401c623336d281d62e
|
I got my bank account closed abruptly how do I get money out?
|
[
{
"docid": "9c1ec6fea975a2bcd25777443e1c8908",
"text": "This is very possibly a scam. The way the scam works is that the scammers send you a letter and demand you call the telephone number. But the telephone number belongs to the scammers, not the bank. When you call the number, they will 'authenticate' you by asking you a bunch of questions. They will then have enough information to call the bank and pretend to be you, and transfer out all of your money. What you need to do is to find the telephone number for your bank without making use of this letter. For example, look at a previous bank statement, or find the telephone number on the bank's website. Call that number and discuss this letter. If you have already called the number in the letter and if you have the slightest reason to believe it is not valid, stop reading. This is an emergency. Immediately call a legitimate number at the bank. Explain the situation and note that you believe your information has been compromised. Why are you still reading? Do it now.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "538d00b01cd78aa88c96dc839feefdad",
"text": "First, make sure you are contacting the bank directly - use an old invoice you have on hand with a phone number direct to the bank and call them. Do not use the provided number, or you may wind up being pulled into a scam (It is entirely possible that the bank is also confused at this point - so you should not rely on the number provided at all). Second, once you can confirm that your account is being closed, find out when it is being closed so you know when you need to act on it - it's possible you still have access to your account, and do not need to launch into a panic just yet. Third, get the bank to explain exactly why they are closing your account - make it clear that if they cannot explain, you will be forced to transfer to a new account and close business with them permanently - this is not a threat, this is a matter of fact because... Finally, if you cannot keep your account open, find a different bank and open up a new account. Frankly, if your current bank is closing your account and only managed to get a letter out to you a month late, you should probably find a new bank. If instead they simply cannot figure out if your bank account is closed or not, this is also a bad sign and you may want a new bank account anyway. But please, go through these steps in order, because you need to verify with your bank what is going on. Keep @Brick 's answer in mind as well, in case you need to get your money out of your account quickly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d9fb9a566fba1ecb9104bd4270b8e34a",
"text": "If you can get to a physical branch, get a cashier's check (or call them and have them send you one by mail). When they draft the cashier's check they remove the money from your account immediately and the check is drawn against the bank itself. You could hold onto that check for a little while even after your account closes and you make other arrangements for banking. If you cannot get a cashier's check, then you should try to expeditiously open a new account and do an ACH from old to new. This might take more days to set up than you have left though.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "57b3624471dc64a3d30fedfa0b56435f",
"text": "\"Coming from someone who has worked a in the account servicing department of an actual bank in the US, other answers are right, this is probably a scam, the phone number on the letter is probably ringing to a fraudulent call center (these are very well managed and sound professional), and you must independently locate and dial the true contact number to US Bank. NOW. Tell them what happened. Reporting is critical. Securing your money is critical. Every piece of information you provided \"\"the bank\"\" when you called needs to be changed or worked around. Account numbers, passwords, usernames, card numbers get changed. Tax ID numbers get de-prioritized as an authentication mechanism even if the government won't change them. The true bank probably won't transfer you to the branch. If the front-line call center says they will, ask the person on the phone what the branch can do that they cannot. Information is your friend. They will probably transfer you to a special department that handles these reports. Apparently Union Bank's call center transfers you to the branch then has the branch make this transfer. Maybe their front-line call center team is empowered to handle it like I was. Either way, plug your phone in; if the call takes less than 5 minutes they didn't actually do everything. 5 to 8 minutes per department is more likely, plus hold time. There's a lot of forms they're filling out. What if that office is closed because of time differences? Go online and ask for an ATM limit increase. Start doing cash advances at local banks if your card allows it. Just get that money out of that account before it's in a fraudsters account. Keep receipts, even if the machine declines the transaction. Either way, get cash on hand while you wait for a new debit card and checks for the new account you're going to open. What if this was fraud, you draw your US Bank account down to zero $800 at a time, and you don't close it or change passwords? Is it over? No. Then your account WILL get closed, and you will owe EVERYTHING that the fraudsters rack up (these charges can put your account terrifyingly far in the negative) from this point forward. This is called \"\"participation in a scam\"\" in your depository agreement, because you fell victim to it, didn't report, and the info used was voluntarily given. You will also lose any of your money that they spend. What if US Bank really is closing your account? Then they owe you every penny you had in it. (Minus any fees allowed in the depository agreement). This closure can happen several days after the date on the warning, so being able to withdraw doesn't mean you're safe. Banks usually ship an official check shipped to the last known address they had for you. Why would a bank within the United States close my account when it's not below the minimum balance? Probably because your non-resident alien registration from when you were in school has expired and federal law prohibits them from doing business with you now. These need renewed at least every three years. Renewing federally is not enough; the bank must be aware of the updated expiration date. How do I find out why my account is being closed? You ask the real US Bank. They might find that it's not being closed. Good news! Follow the scam reporting procedure, open a new account (with US Bank if you want, or elsewhere) and close the old one. If it IS being closed by the bank, they'll tell you why, and they'll tell you what your next options are. Ask what can be done. Other commenters are right that bitcoin activity may have flagged it. That activity might actually be against your depository agreement. Or it set off a detection system. Or many other reasons. The bank who services your account is the only place that knows for sure. If I offer them $500 per year will they likely keep the account opened? Otherwise I got to go to singapore open another account Legitimate financial institutions in the United States don't work this way. If there is a legal problem with your tax status in the US, money to the bank won't solve it. Let's call the folks you've talked to \"\"FraudBank\"\" and the real USBank \"\"RealBank,\"\" because until RealBank confirms, we have no reason to believe that the letter is real. FraudBank will ask for money. Don't give it. Don't give them any further information. Gather up as much information from them as possible instead. Where to send it, for example. Then report that to RealBank. RealBank won't have a way to charge $500/year to you only. If they offer a type of account to everyone that costs $500, ask for the \"\"Truth in Savings Act disclosures.\"\" Banks are legally required to provide these upon request. Then read them. Don't put or keep your money anywhere you don't understand.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd604ea54d8a648a31fca92060615986",
"text": "First, if your account has been closed you should not be able to use your debit card in any format. As you mentioned that you are able to use that so your back account is active. So this indicates it is a scam In case account is closed, bank confirms your address and will send you a cheque for the amount in your account. Don't worry. You money will never be lost",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1d572b9345892ac7846a98e286c53a59",
"text": "In addition to @mhoran_psprep answer, and inspired by @wayne's comment. If the bank won't let you block automatic transfers between accounts, drop the bank like a hot potato They've utterly failed basic account security principles, and shouldn't be trusted with anyone's money. It's not the bank's money, and you're the only one that can authorize any kind of transfer out. I limit possible losses through debit and credit cards very simply. I keep only a small amount on each (~$500), and manually transfer more on an as needed basis. Because there is no automatic transfers to these cards, I can't lose everything in the checking account, even temporarily.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4e4d147b2b4432f5dcf87c40276ab22f",
"text": "\"Several options are available. She may ask the US bank to issue a debit card (VISA most probably) to her account, and mail this card to Russia. I think this can be done without much problems, though sending anything by mail may be unreliable. After this she just withdraws the money from local ATM. Some withdrawal fee may apply, which may be rather big if the sum of money is big. In big banks (Alfa-bank, Citibank Russia, etc.) are ATMs that allow you to withdraw dollars, and it is better to use one of them to avoid unfavorable exchange rate. She may ask the US bank to transfer the money to her Russian account. I assume the currency on the US bank account is US Dollars. She needs an US dollar account in any Russian bank (this is no problem at all). She should find out from that bank the transfer parameters (реквизиты) for transfering US dollars to her account. This should include, among other info, a \"\"Bank correspondent\"\", and a SWIFT code (or may be two SWIFT codes). After this, she should contact her US bank and find out how can she request the money to be transferred to her Russian bank, providing these transfer parameters. I can think of two problems that may be here. First, the bank may refuse to transfer money without her herself coming to the bank to confirm her identity. (How do they know that a person writing or calling them is she indeed?) However, I guess there should be some workaround for this. Second, with current US sanctions against Russia, the bank may just refuse the transfer or will have do some additional investigations. However, I have heard that bank transfers from US to private persons to Russia are not blocked. Probably it is good to find this out in advance. In addition, the US bank will most probably charge some standard fee for foreign transfer. After this, she should wait for a couple of days, maybe up to week for the money to appear on Russian account. I have done this once some four years ago, and had no problems, though at that time I was in the US, so I just came to the bank myself. The bank employee to whom I talked obviously was unsure whether the transfer parameters were enough (obviously this was a very unusual situation for her), but she took the information from me, and I guess just passed it on to someone more knowledgable. The fee was something about $40. Another option that I might think of is her US bank issuing and mailing her a check for the whole sum, and she trying to cash it here in Russia. This is possible, but very few banks do cash checks here (Citibank Russia is among those that do). The bank will also charge a fee, and it will be comparable to transfer fee. Plus mailing anything is not quite reliable here. She would also have to consider whether she need to pay Russian taxes on this sum. If the sum is big and passes through a bank, I guess Russian tax police may find this out through and question her. If it is withdrawn from a VISA card, I think it will not be noticed, but even in this case she might be required to file a tax herself.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "979a7afcff571abf2bab1590b05a252b",
"text": "\"If there was still money in the account when it was closed, the bank would have turned over the cash to the state where they operated. Search Google for \"\"unclaimed property <state name>\"\" for the unclaimed property department of the state. The state's website will show if there is money for you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "687883f52451d0e23983d4a65459900d",
"text": "If I were you, I would go to the bank right now, pay the $100 and close the account. I would stop the bleeding first then consider the fallout later. Do you own the account jointly with your partner(s) as a partner or does the partnership (a separate formal entity) own the bank account with you a named representative? Those are two very different situations. If you're a joint owner, you're liable for the fees; along with your other partners in accordance with your partnership agreement. You never closed yourself off the account and that's your problem. If the dissolved partnership owns the account, you're not personally liable for the fees. You were never a personal owner of the account, now that the account is negative you don't magically become personally liable. The differences here are very nuanced and the details matter. If this were a large amount of money I'd suggest you go see a lawyer. Since this is about $100 I'd just pay it, make sure the account is closed, and move on.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "11c9b3d0363b550de540aa34f698e3b1",
"text": "You haven't mentioned the country. As a general premise, you own them money and the fact that the account was closed has no bearing on the fact that you own them money. My suggestion would be pay them off.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "23d1fd7eb4061a4e562aef4f5efda6af",
"text": "Such funds are handed over to the state. In NE, like in many states, there is a government website where you can search by your name, find them, and claim them (with proof of your identity, etc.): https://treasurer.nebraska.gov/up/ For sure, the bank cannot just take the money. It is sitting somewhere, the bank just closed the account, meaning they are technically not managing your money anymore.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "34397e8b79483998ce2f1fc4a02962f7",
"text": "Additionally my understanding is that a Faster Payment is as good as cash once received. Yes it is but there is a caveat. Read on unauthorized payments on Faster Payments website. Either the sender is fraudulently claiming this was unauthorised, or their bank doesn't have adequate security standards - why is it me who loses out here? Agreed. You should take this up [dispute the action] with your bank asking why your account was closed as there is no fraud from your side. Make sure you do all the follow-up with writing and provide evidence of the trade being genuine.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d17c12d9c0392b1881adaa68bbdca8ea",
"text": "Banks make mistakes. Reconciling your account with your bank statement is the way to catch the errors.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "179d6735ab4c860b4a12c3a59de3198b",
"text": "There are two (main) ways of transferring large sums of money between banks in such a situation. 1) Have your bank mail a cashier's check. They may or may not charge you for this (some banks charge up to $6, the bank I work at doesn't charge at all). You have to wait for the check to go through the mail, but it usually takes just a few days. 2) Wire the money. This could cost $50 or more in combined fees (usually around $30 to send and $20 to receive), but you get same day credit for the funds. The limits to online transfers are in place to protect you, so that if someone gets into your account the amount of damage they can do is limited. If you need those limits lifted temporarily, check with your bank about doing so - they may be willing to adjust them for you for a brief period (a day or two).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "73ce7a1209fe31f5112a211e3c68c64f",
"text": "\"It sounds like you are isolated and in a small town. Without the true ability to bank, perhaps you should move. As an alternative you could do some kind of online banking. Most banks offer the ability to deposit via mobile phone and you could obtain cash by using remote ATMs or writing checks for an amount over your purchase at the grocery store. How are you paid? If via direct deposit, that makes mobile banking even easier. Did your read your premise out loud? Using Game Stop as a bank is just silly. Are you banned from banks because of not paying child support or some other legal obligation? If so just \"\"face the music\"\". I know people that are over 40 and owed a relatively small amount of child support and the result of they lost out on order of magnitudes greater income. It was just a short-sighted move that cost them far more than if they just obeyed the court order. It would be smarter to use a check cashing store, like AmScott, to do your banking. They will cash checks for a fee, issue money orders, or even allow you to pay some bills directly through them. Never, ever use them to cash a hot check or for short term financing but using them or Walmart, or the Grocery store is a much better option than Game Stop.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d264105e40d167955f554e771e82d0d",
"text": "\"Change the password on your bank account immediately. This is certainly a scam, and while they have your login info they can cause you even bigger problems. As soon as possible, contact your bank and let them know what happened. If you look at the links in the \"\"Related\"\" list you'll see that this is a fairly common scam. It relies on the fact that some forms of fraudulent deposit take a while for the bank to detect. Sometime in the next month, the bank is going to find out that the deposit of $2500 is bogus, say from a bad check, forged money order, or some other fraudulent source. When that happens, the bank is going to undo the deposit, and demand that you make good any of the deposit that has been spent (including the $50 that has already gone to PayPal). The bank may also suspect you of being in cahoots with the depositor, so you may find yourself talking to the local police, accused of fraud. You've put yourself in a bad spot by giving your password out. Unless your can present other evidence, the bank will have a strong assumption that any activity conducted via the login is performed by you. This is why you should get in touch with your bank right away, to build up some evidence of good will on your part. More remote possibilities are that it is part of a 'long con', where somebody is trying to find out how credulous/greedy you are. This seems unlikely. Unless you are a plum target, few con artists would want to risk as much as $2500. Theoretically it could be some sort of money laundering set up, but amounts involved seem too small for that to be likely.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d0a0cf5385af2ce94620b5ad4c36a38c",
"text": "Looks like you have three options: Outside of this you might need to look for a different type of account. Hope that helps.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ccc5d2a7688d21b0059a0f0a604dc7b1",
"text": "So My question is. Is my credit score going to be hit? Yes it will affect your credit. Not as much as missing payments on the debt, which remains even if the credit line is closed, and not as much as missing payments on other bills... If so what can I do about it? Not very much. Nothing worth the time it would take. Like you mentioned, reopening the account or opening another would likely require a credit check and the inquiry will add another negative factor. In this situation, consider the impact on your credit as fact and the best way to correct it is to move forward and pay all your bills on time. This is the number one key to improving credit score. So, right now, the key task is finding a new job. This will enable you to make all payments on time. If you pay on time and do not overspend, your credit score will be fine. Can I contact the creditors to appeal the decision and get them to not affect my score at the very least? I know they won't restore the account without another credit check). Is there anything that can be done directly with the credit score companies? Depending on how they characterize the closing of the account, it may be mostly a neutral event that has a negative impact than a negative event. By negative events, I'm referring to bankruptcy, charge offs, and collections. So the best way to recover is to keep credit utilization below 30% and pay all your bills and debt payments on time. (You seem to be asking how to replace this line of credit to help you through your unemployment.) As for the missing credit line and your current finances, you have to find a way forward. Opening new credit account while you're not employed is going to be very difficult, if not impossible. You might find yourself in a situation where you need to take whatever part time gig you can find in order to make ends meet until your job search is complete. Grocery store, fast food, wait staff, delivery driver, etc. And once you get past this period of unemployment, you'll need to catch up on all bills, then you'll want to build your emergency fund. You don't mention one, but eating, paying rent/mortgage, keeping current on bills, and paying debt payments are the reasons behind the emergency fund, and the reason you need it in a liquid account. Source: I'm a veteran of decades of bad choices when it comes to money, of being unemployed for periods of time, of overusing credit cards, and generally being irresponsible with my income and savings. I've done all those things and am now paying the price. In order to rebuild my credit, and provide for my retirement, I'm having to work very hard to save. My focus being financial health, not credit score, I've brought my bottom line from approximately 25k in the red up to about 5k in the red. The first step was getting my payments under control. I have also been watching my credit score. Two years of on time mortgage payments, gradual growth of score. Paid off student loans, uptick in score. Opened new credit card with 0% intro rate to consolidate a couple of store line of credit accounts. Transferred those balances. Big uptick. Next month when utilization on that card hits 90%, downtick that took back a year's worth of gains. However, financially, I'm not losing 50-100 a month to interest. TLDR; At certain times, you have to ignore the credit score and focus on the important things. This is one of those times for you. Find a job. Get back on your feet. Then look into living debt free, or working to achieve financial independence.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "041245ddb1f9ce5576e6d63afde087e8",
"text": "\"The danger to your savings depends on how much sovereign debt your bank is holding. If the government defaults then the bank - if it is holding a lot of sovereign debt - could be short funds and not able to meet its obligations. I believe default is the best option for the Euro long term but it will be painful in the short term. Yes, historically governments have shut down banks to prevent people from withdrawing their money in times of crisis. See Argentina circa 2001 or US during Great Depression. The government prevented people from withdrawing their money and people could do nothing while their money rapidly lost value. (See the emergency banking act where Title I, Section 4 authorizes the US president:\"\"To make it illegal for a bank to do business during a national emergency (per section 2) without the approval of the President.\"\" FDR declared a banking holiday four days before the act was approved by Congress. This documentary on the crisis in Argentina follows a woman as she tries to withdraw her savings from her bank but the government has prevented her from withdrawing her money.) If the printing press is chosen to avoid default then this will allow banks and governments to meet their obligations. This, however, comes at the cost of a seriously debased euro (i.e. higher prices). The euro could then soon become a hot potato as everyone tries to get rid of them before the ECB prints more. The US dollar could meet the same fate. What can you do to avert these risks? Yes, you could exchange into another currency. Unfortunately the printing presses of most of the major central banks today are in overdrive. This may preserve your savings temporarily. I would purchase some gold or silver coins and keep them in your possession. This isolates you from the banking system and gold and silver have value anywhere you go. The coins are also portable in case things really start to get interesting. Attempt to purchase the coins with cash so there is no record of the purchase. This may not be possible.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "35a05cfc4c1ac63cbf2f0d766a3e4561",
"text": "\"How can someone use the account number to withdraw money without my consent? They can use your account number to game your banks phone support and try to phish their way into your account. Banks have gotten very good at combating this, but theoretically with just the address he lives in, your name, and a bad bank phone rep, he could get into your business. The account number would just be one more piece of information to lead with. I have 1 savings and 3 checking accounts with the same bank. Would they be able to gain access to the other accounts? Dependent on how incompetent the bad bank rep I referenced above is, sure. But the odds are incredibly low, and if anything were to happen, the bank would be falling over itself to fix it and make reparations so that you don't sue for a whole crap ton more. Is there a more secure and still free option that I have overlooked? Opening up yet another checking account solely for accounts receivable and transfer to accounts payable would keep your financial records more transparent. Also, banks are doing \"\"money transfer by email\"\" now, so I don't know how great that is for business transactions, but in that instance you're just giving out an email linked to a money receiving account instead of an actual account number. Paypal is also a pretty good EFT middleman, but their business practices have become shady in the past 5 years.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
c63f36bce0258ac6cd52bb4d0264696e
|
What foreign exchange rate is used for foreign credit card and bank transactions?
|
[
{
"docid": "53b920a8744acc0df88502e7a62a2264",
"text": "A lot of questions, but all it boils down to is: . Banks usually perform T+1 net settlements, also called Global Netting, as opposed to real-time gross settlements. That means they promise the counterparty the money at some point in the future (within the next few business days, see delivery versus payment) and collect all transactions of that kind. For this example say, they will have a net outflow of 10M USD. The next day they will purchase 10M USD on the FX market and hand it over to the global netter. Note that this might be more than one transaction, especially because the sums are usually larger. Another Indian bank might have a 10M USD inflow, they too will use the FX market, selling 10M USD for INR, probably picking a different time to the first bank. So the rates will most likely differ (apart from the obvious bid/ask difference). The dollar rate they charge you is an average of their rate achieved when buying the USD, plus some commission for their forex brokerage, plus probably some fee for the service (accessing the global netting system isn't free). The fees should be clearly (and separately) stated on your bank statement, and so should be the FX rate. Back to the second example: Obviously since it's a different bank handing over INRs or USDs (or if it was your own bank, they would have internally netted the incoming USDs with the outgoing USDs) the rate will be different, but it's still a once a day transaction. From the INRs you get they will subtract the average FX achieved rate, the FX commissions and again the service fee for the global netting. The fees alone mean that the USD/INR sell rate is different from the buy rate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9bd8b50e0104c813d5f4ea7078fcb107",
"text": "On Credit Cards [I am assuming you have a Visa or Master card], the RBI does not decide the rate. The rate is decided by Visa or Master. The standard Sheet rate for the day is used. Additionally SBI would mark it up by few paise [FX mark-up spread]. This is shown as mark-up fee. The rate of USD Vs INR changes frequently. On large value [say 1 million] trades even a paise off makes a huge difference and hence the rate is constantly changing [going up or down]. The rates offered to individuals are constant through out the day. They change from day to day and can go up for down. Recently in the past 6 months if you read the papers, Rupee has been going down and is at historic low. On a give day there are 2 rates; - Bank Buy Rate, ie the rate at which Bank will BUY USD from you. Say 61. So it will buy 100 USD and give you Rupees 6100. - Bank Sell rate, ie the rate at which Bank will SELL USD to you. Say 62. So if you want 100 USD, you need to give Bank 6200. The difference between this is the profit to bank.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "47981e134fcaadbe72fce166491cb0fa",
"text": "In addition to the SELL rate on the statement transaction day, currency conversion fees of 0 - 3% is applied, depending on the card issuing bank.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "b36f4593a562c7419d44757c8d067e94",
"text": "I noticed the buy/sell board table. Where did you notice this. Generally for a pair of currencies, there is Unit associated along with direction. The Unit is generally constant. These are only revised when there is large devaluation of a particular currency. Buying Php for MYR 8.52, Selling MYR 8.98. So in this case the Unit of PHP is 100, so Bank is Buying 100 PHP from you [you are selling PHP] and will give you MYR 8.52. If you now want to buy 100 PHP [so the Bank is selling you], you have to pay MYR 8.98. So you loose MYR 0.46 Why are they selling it way beyond the exchange rate? Why is this? As explained above, they are not. Its still within the range. The quote on internet are average price. This means before going back to Philippines, I can buy a lot of peso that I can buy and exchange it for higher price right? Generally an individual cannot make money by buying in one currency and selling in other. There are specialist who try and find arbitrage between multiple pair of currencies and make money out of it. Its a continuous process, if they start making profit, the market will react and put pressure on a pair and the prices would move to remove the arbitrage.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee44afaaeb77f2fed647ae241e8bd562",
"text": "I suggest opening a Credit Card that doesn't charge Foreign currency conversion fees. Here is the list of cards without such a fee, Bankrate's Foreign transaction fee credit card chart",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8655b32a3c6f801bcb480e02ecae10e1",
"text": "\"Check whether you're being charged a \"\"Cash advance\"\" fee with your withdrawals, because it's being withdrawn from your credit card account. If that's happening to you, then having a positive balance on your credit card account will dramatically reduce the fees. Quoting from my answer to a similar question on Travel Stack Exchange: It turns out that even though \"\"Cash advance fee - ATM\"\" has \"\"ATM\"\" in it, it doesn't mean that it's being charged by the ATM you're withdrawing from. It's still being charged by the bank of your home country. And depending on your bank, that fee can be minimized by having a positive balance in your credit card account. This isn't just for cards specially marketed at globehoppers and globeshoppers (mentioned in an answer to a similar question), but even for ordinary credit cards: Help minimise and avoid fees An administrative charge of 2% of the value of the transaction will apply to each cash advance made on your card account, where your account has a negative (debit) balance after the transaction has been posted to it. A minimum charge of $2.50 and a maximum charge of $150 will apply in these circumstances. Where your account has a positive (credit) balance after the transaction has been posted to it, a charge of $2.50 will apply to the transaction. Any such charge will appear on your credit card statement directly below the relevant cash advance. A $2.50 charge if your account is positive, versus $20 if the account is negative? That's a bit of a difference!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f905cfa8cad48d9933b67a3b1b01235e",
"text": "The location that you are purchasing from is not really relevant. If you use either a Visa or MasterCard to make a payment in a foreign currency of any kind then your payment will automatically use Visa/MasterCard's FX platform. Whilst fees can vary between issuers, the fee is generally fixed at 2.5%. There are occasionally credit card issuers who have special deals to remove these fees, but they tend to come and go and availability will depend on your country of residence. The only real way to avoid the fee is to get access to a debit or credit card denominated in the currency you wish to use for your purchase. This is often achievable for USD or EUR, but much harder for smaller currencies. You would have to try contacting a bank in that country to see if they would open an account for you or attempting to purchase a pre-paid credit card online.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a3ace553b8d5770299f9fc3f60b1b86",
"text": "I've done this for many years, and my method has always been to get a bank draft from my Canadian bank and mail it to my UK bank. The bank draft costs $7.50 flat fee and the mail a couple of dollars more. That's obviously quite a lot to pay on $100, so I do this only every six months or so and make the regular payments out of my UK account. It ends up being only a couple of percent in transaction costs, and the exchange rate is the bank rate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3440392865922705522359d6a305d0c9",
"text": "I concur with the answers above - the difference is about the risk. But in this particular case I find the interest level implausible. 11% interest on deposits in USD seems very speculative and unsustainable. You can't guarantee such return on investment unless you engage in drug trade or some other illegal activity. Or it is a Ponzi scheme. So I would suspect that the bank is having liquidity problems. Which bank is it, by the way? We had a similar case in Bulgaria with one bank offering abnormal interest on deposits in EUR and USD. It went bust - the small depositors were rescued by the local version of FDIC but the large ones were destroyed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd0807d14ae67ad37d5284c750633bce",
"text": "Typically, withdrawing cash from an ATM once abroad gives you the best exchange rate, but check if your bank imposes ATM withdrawal fees. This works well for all major currencies, such as GBP, Euro, Yen, AUD. I've also withdrawn Croatian kunas, Brazilian reais and Moroccan dirhams without any trouble. In Southeast Asia, it may be a different story. Thai ATMs, for example, reportedly impose a surcharge of about $5.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d51b9616110f5402fe4bb70de5b97b68",
"text": "\"In my experience working at a currency exchange money service business in the US: Flat fees are the \"\"because we can\"\" fee on average. These can be waived on certain dollar values at some banks or MSBs, and sometimes can even be haggled. If you Google EURUSD, as an example, you also get something like $1.19 at 4pm, 9/18/2017. If you look at the actual conversion that you got, you may find your bank hit you with $1.30 or something close to convert from USD to Euro (in other words, you payed 10% more USD per Euro). And, if you sell your Euro directly back, you might find you only make $1.07. This spread is the real \"\"fee\"\" and covers a number of things including risk or liquidity. You'll see that currencies with more volatility or less liquidity have a much wider spread. Some businesses even go as far as to artificially widen the spread for speculators (see IQD, VND, INR, etc.). Typically if you see a 3% surcharge on international ATM or POS transactions, that's the carrier such as Visa or Mastercard taking their cut for processing. Interestingly enough, you also typically get the carrier-set exchange rate overseas when using your card. In other words, your bank has a cash EURUSD of $1.30 but the conversion you get at the ATM is Visa's rate, hence the Visa fee (but it's typically a nicer spread, or it's sometimes the international spot rate depending on the circumstances, due to the overhead of electronic transactions). You also have to consider the ATM charging you a separate fee for it's own operation. In essence, the fees exist to pad every player involved except you. Some cards do you a solid by advertising $0 foreign exchange fees. Unfortunately these cards only insulate you from the processing/flat fees and you may still fall prey to the fee \"\"hidden\"\" in the spread. In the grander scheme of things, currency exchange is a retail operation. They try to make money on every step that requires them to expend a resource. If you pay 10% on a money transaction, this differs actually very little from the mark-up you pay on your groceries, which varies from 3-5% on dry food, to 20% on alcohol such as wine.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "260f08aa3ed67443f642e7942a91ec08",
"text": "It will cost the same no matter what currency you use, unless you have access to a deal with a currency exchange that gives you an especially favourable conversion rate for a particular currency. If the current exchange rates are US$1.70 to the £, CA$1.80 to the £ and HK$12.50 to the £, then £1, US$1.70, CA$1.80 and HK$12.50 are just four different ways of writing the same amount of money. So whether you pay in US$, CA$ or HK$ it's the same amount of money that you're paying.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab25a613fdb672925f18ec5c484f974a",
"text": "Can't I achieve the exact same effect and outcome by exchanging currency now and put that amount of USD in a bank account to gain some interest, then make the payment from one year from now? Sure, assuming that the company has the money now. More commonly they don't have that cash now, but will earn it over the time period (presumably in Euros) and will make the large payment at some point in time. Using a forward protects them from fluctuations in the exchange rate between now and then; otherwise they'd have to stow away USD over the year (which still exposes them to exchange rate fluctuations).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "074fefb0d464c1ed76289e41089e5ff8",
"text": "\"What you have is usually called a pre-paid credit card. You pay some money (Indian Rupees) to the credit card company, and then you can use the card to pay for purchases etc in foreign (non-Indian) currencies upto the remaining balance on the card. If a proposed charge exceeds the remaining balance, the transaction will be declined when you try to use the card. There might be multiple ways that the card is set up, e.g. it might be restricted to charge purchases denominated in US dollars alone, or you might be able to use it anywhere in the world (except India). The balance on the card might be denominated in INR, or in US$, say. In the latter case, the exchange rate at which your INR payment was converted into the $US balance is fixed and agreed to at the time of the original payment: you paid INR 70K (say) and the balance was set to US$ 1000 even though the exchange rate on the open market would have given you a few more US dollars. In the former case with the balance denominated in INR, a charge of US$ 100, say, would be converted to INR at a fixed agreed-upon rate, or at the current exchange rate that the Visa or MasterCard network is using, plus (typically) a 3% fee currency exchange fee, and your balance in INR will decrease accordingly. With all that as prologue, if you made a purchase from Walmart USA and later returned it for a credit, it should increase your credit card balance appropriately. You may be whacked with currency conversion fees along the way depending on how your card is set up, but with a US$-denominated card, a credit of US$100 should increase your card balance by US$100. So, that $US 100 can be spent on something else instead. In short, the card is your \"\"bank\"\" account. You cannot spend more than the remaining balance on the card just like you cannot withdraw more money from your bank account than you have in the account, and you can recharge your card by making more INR payments into it so as to increase the available balance. But it is like a current account in that you are unlikely to earn interest on the balance the way you do with a savings account. So what if you are back in India and have no further use of this card? Can you get your balance back as cash or deposit into your regular bank account? Call the Customer Help line, or read the card agreement you signed.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8bcdf4cca2c9f6777c2b69ade14f4138",
"text": "Current and past FX rates are available on Visa's website. Note that it may vary by country, so use your local Visa website.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "12c783ab58e622f4b75a45d00cc7d18a",
"text": "There is a way I discovered of finding the current exchange rate before committing to buy, go to send payments, put in your own second email, pay 1gbp as the amount and it will give you the exchange rate and fees in your own currency, in my case euro, before you have to click on send payment",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4bb4d41c48db1ec43b5a542e87f30065",
"text": "I think the one single answer is that the answer depends on the two countries involved and their banks' practices. To find that answer, you need to ask other expats from your country living in France and ask them for their experience. Note that most expats do not know what fees they are paying. For example, in the Philippines, the lowest fee charged still involves waiting 30 days to get your money. Specifically, I opened a US dollar savings account with the minimum of US $500 required (other rules are involved for opening a bank account), deposited a personal check drawn on my US bank account (no fee charged), and waited 30 calendar days to withdraw USD bills. The Philippines bank did not have a branch in the US, but had financial arrangements with US banks. After getting USD dollars in my hand, I walked to a nearby exchange business store (which usually offered a better daily rate than a bank, but a rate between the banks' buy and sell rates) and exchange the dollars for pesos. Note that years ago, banks did not give USD bills, when dollars were scarce in the Philippines. However, this process does not work in Thailand, due to bank rules against private individuals opening a USD account, with exceptions. And there are still fees involved. March 2017",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f00758a8e973c9613c82d04f248c9dd3",
"text": "\"The other option apart from the above which I feel is quite good is \"\"Travel Card\"\" [also called Forex Card] issued in USD. These cards are like prepaid debit cards. They are available from almost quite a few Indian Banks like HDFC / ICICI / UTI. The limit for students is around 100 K USD per year. http://www.hdfcbank.com/personal/cards/prepaid_cards/forexplus_card/pre_forex_elg.htm The card can be reloaded by any amount [i think the minimum is USD 100] by visiting the Branch or certain Forex agents. There loading fee is INR 75. The Fx is typical Card Rate prevailing on the day. In US this card can be used as a credit card for almost everything [I have used this without any hassel]. Avoid using the card for blocking anything [at Hotel for room booking, or initial block at car rentals]. Although its mentioned that there is a withdrawl fees, i was never charged anything for withdrawls. The card comes with an internet based login to monitor account balance and transactions. Any unused funds can be withdrawn in India. The payment will be make in INR.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
3e14868377bb102cf3eec3067ccc208d
|
Do market shares exhaust?
|
[
{
"docid": "ef30a432d7454e3ff4e13d625cde1ce5",
"text": "\"As @ApplePie pointed out in their answer, at any given time there is a finite amount of stock available in a company. One subtlety you may be missing is that there is always a price associated with an offer to buy shares. That is, you don't put in an order simply to buy 1 share of ABC, you put in an order to buy 1 share of ABC for $10. If no one is willing to sell a share of ABC for $10, then your order will go unfilled. This happens millions of times a day as traders try to figure the cheapest price they can get for a stock. Practically speaking, there is always a price at which people are willing to sell their shares. You can put in a market order for 1 share of ABC, which says essentially \"\"I want one share of ABC, and I will pay whatever the market deems to be the price\"\". Your broker will find you 1 share, but you may be very unhappy about the price you have to pay! While it's very rare for a market to have nobody willing to sell at any price, it occasionally happens that no one is willing to buy at any price. This causes a market crash, as in the 2007-2008 financial crisis, when suddenly everyone became very suspicious of how much debt the major banks actually held, and for a few days, very few traders were willing to buy bank stocks at any price.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4978e4af9610ba7bde226f78eaa46d5a",
"text": "Let's clarify some things. Companies allow for the public to purchase their shares through Initial Public Offering (IPO) (first-time) and Seasoned Public Offering (SPO) (all other times). They choose however many shares they want to issue depending on the amount of capital they want to raise. What this means is that the current owners give up some ownership % in exchange for cash (usually). In the course of IPOs and SPOs, it can happen that the public will not buy all shares if there is very little interest, but I would assume that the more probable scenario if very little interest is present is that the shares' value would take a big drop on their issuance date from the proposed IPO/SPO price. After those shares are bought by the public, they are traded on Exchanges which are a secondary and (mostly) do not affect the underlying company. The shares are exchanged from John Doe to Jane Doe as John Doe believes the market value for those shares will take a direction that Jane Doe believes in the opposite. Generally speaking, markets will find an equilibrium price where you can reasonably easily buy-sell securities as the price is not too far from what most participants in the market believe it should be. In cases where all participants agree on the direction (most often in case of a crash) it can be hard to find a party to make a trade with. Say a company just announced negative news with long-lasting effects on the business there will be a surge in sell orders with very few buyers. If you are willing to buy, you will likely very easily find a trading partner but if you are trying to sell instead then you will have to compete for the lowest price against all other sellers. All that to say that in such cases, while shares are technically sellable / purchasable, the end result can be that no shares are purchasable.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4b61f1e9a03676ffb539b67ca4c76ef4",
"text": "RonJohn is right, all shares are owned by someone. Depending on the company, they can be closely held so that nobody wants to sell at a given time. This can cause the price people are offering to rise until someone sells. That trade will cause an adjustment in the ticker price of that stock. Supply and demand at work. Berkshire Hathaway is an example of this. The number of shares is low, the demand for them is high, the price per share is high.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ff2aa48a33ad116566c1f6a710a41290",
"text": "Yes, all the shares of a publicly traded company can be purchased. This effectively takes the company private so that it's no longer traded on a stock market. Here are some examples: EDIT: to answer your edited question... the corporation can issue more stock. However that would dilute the value of existing shares. Thus, existing shareholders must vote to allow more shares to be issued. So... in your situation yes, you'd need to wait for someone else to sell.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "11c607b0ff6dc8f0ff3d816435c528ad",
"text": "Stock trades are always between real buyers and real sellers. In thinly-traded small stocks, for example, you may not always be able to find a buyer when you want to sell. For most public companies, there is enough volume that individual investors can just about always fill their market orders.",
"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": "a788ba9e6ce569641b5d442a54deb512",
"text": "Everyone has a price. If nobody is selling shares, then increase the price you will buy them for. And then wait. Somebody will have some hospital bills to pay for eventually. I buy illiquid investments all the time, and thats typically what happens. Great companies do not have liquidity problems.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "f502cc83389aeb904354d24d6772f1f4",
"text": "\"Isn't this effectively saying that the market responds principally to itself, and not to either economic fundamentals, or the profitability of the underlying companies. If so, the market as a \"\"price discovery mechanism\"\" is broken, and investors would be wise to do their own research.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a3c1598e7c8cc2ad85bf254e80449f30",
"text": "\"There are stocks that have held 100% of the exact same trend (bull or bear) on a date or date range for years. While history of course doesn't guarantee that the trend will hold for the current year, that fact itself is distinct from the question of whether history is an *indicator* worth building a thesis off of. The problem is if and when someone thinks \"\"indicator\"\" is equivalent to \"\"definitive answer\"\". Answer 2: A dozen big algo traders have disproven this notion. Answer 3: Price is not only price action itself. It's calendar, evens, binaries, cyclical psychology, etc.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f750e98ac42cb2c1e3eca83071e59030",
"text": "\"Past results are not a predictor of future results. There is no explicit upper bound on a market, and even if individual companies' values were remaining unchanged one would expect the market to drift upward in the long term. Plus, there's been some shift from managing companies for dividends to managing stocks for growth, which will tend to increase the upward push. Trying to time the market -- to guess when it's going to move in any particular direction -- is usually closer to gambling than investing. The simplest answer remains a combination of buy-and-hold and dollar-cost averaging. Buy at a constant number of dollars per month (or whatever frequency you prefer), and you will automatically buy more when the stock/fund is lower, less when it is higher. That takes advantage of downturns as buying opportunities without missing out on possible gains at the other end. Personally, I add a bit of contrarian buying to that -- I increased my buying another notch or two while the market was depressed, since I had money I wouldn't need any time soon (buy and hold) and I was reasonably confident that enough of the market would come back strongly enough that I wasn't at significant risk of losing the investment. That's one of the things which causes me to be categorized as an \"\"aggressive investor\"\" even though I'm operating with a very vanilla mix of mutual funds and not attempting to micromanage my money. My goal is to have the money work for me, not vice versa.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd80bd4bbb567bb4dd7ffaf39b6d6e0b",
"text": "Usually when a stock is up-trending or down-trending the price does not go up or down in a straight line. In an uptrend the price may go up over a couple of days then it could go down the next day or two, but the general direction would be up over the medium term. The opposite for a downtrend. So if the stock has been generally going up over the last few weeks, it may take a breather for a week or two before prices continue up again. This breather is called a retracement in the uptrend. The Fibonacci levels are possible amounts by which the price might retract before it continues on its way up again. By the way 50% is not actually a Fibonacci Retracement level but it is a common retracement level which is usually used in combination with the Fibonacci Retracement levels.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9194f0c8b7fe2e3e5ef76b79f041941f",
"text": "Stock price is based on supply and demand. Unless the stock you are looking to buy usually has very low volume trading 100 shares isn't likely to have any effect on price. There are many companies that have millions or tens of millions of shares trade daily. For stocks like that 100 shares is barely a trivial percentage of the daily volume. For thinly traded stocks you can look at the bid and ask size but even that isn't likely to get you an exact answer. Unless you are trading large volumes your trade will have no effect on the price of shares.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c7d88593f9a6f3ff7634377f2856e23",
"text": "On most exchanges, if you place a limit order to sell at 94.64, you will be executed before the market can trade at a higher price. However most stocks in the US trade across several exchanges and your broker won't place your limit order on all exchanges (otherwise you could be executed several times). The likeliest reason for wht happened to you is that your order was not on the market where those transactions were executed. Reviewing the ticks, there were only 8 transactions above your limit, all at 1:28:24, for a total 1,864 shares and all on the NYSE ARCA exchange. If your order was on a different exchange (NYSE for example) you would not have been executed. If your broker uses a smart routing system they would not have had time to route your order to ARCA in time for execution because the market traded lower straight after. Volume at each price on that day:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8902641dac8b7763b3e5507219519d2c",
"text": "\"You are overlooking the fact that it is not only supply & demand from investors that determines the share price: The company itself can buy and sell its own shares. If company X is profitable over the long haul but pays 0 dividends then either Option (2) is pretty ridiculous, so (1) will hold except in an extreme \"\"man bites dog\"\" kind of fluke. This is connected with the well-known \"\"dividend paradox\"\", which I discussed already in another answer.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d136f7a305f0ebe8718fdc3b590115ec",
"text": "As Chris pointed out in his comment, smaller stock exchanges may use open outcry. There are several exchanges that use open outcry/floor trading in the US, however, although they aren't necessarily stock exchanges. Having visited the three Chicago exchanges I mentioned, I can personally vouch for their continued use of a trading floor, although its use is declining in all three.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d0fb6a1a06313f56e37e7e8b8c1b1f3",
"text": "http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/economix/2014/04/02/the-many-classes-of-google-stock/ Are you counting both class A and other share classes?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1bac2cad9517ca397e51368dd834c77",
"text": "it's kind of like a circular loop: i think he would suggest identifying strategies/portfolio managers who have demonstrated outperformance in a persistent manner. Thing is, that's also really hard to do. I think empirically, MPT suffers when the market does. By diversifying, you'll only be down less. He's suggesting shooting for absolute returns -- no matter what the market does, he wants to see positive gains. (a lot) easier said than done",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f988fc7610be7ccd2e8685e75ebb6fe5",
"text": "Assuming S&P value as % of GDP doesn't change, to get S&P return you add (Nominal GDP % growth + Dividend Yield) -> S&P return. Historically the S&P has grown faster as corporations of won market share and therefore grown to a larger portion of GDP. While this can continue (or possibly reverse), and can happen globally as well, you are correct in pointing out that it cannot continue ad infinitum.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1589a66f5ac4ed2660e146ba82cd8dbc",
"text": "\"In theory, say we had two soft drink companies, and no other existed. On Jan 1, they report they each had 50% market share for the past year. Over the next year, one company's gain is the other's loss. But over the year, for whatever reason, the market has grown 10% (all the stories of bad water helped this), and while the market share ends at 49/51, the 49 guy has improved his margins, and that stock rises by more than the other. In general, companies in the same industry will be positively correlated, and strongly so. I offer my \"\"spreadsheets are your friend\"\" advice. I took data over the last 10 years for Coke and Pepsi. Easy to pull from various sites, I tend to use Yahoo. In Excel the function CORREL with let you compare two columns of numbers for correlation. I got a .85 result, pretty high. To show how a different industry would have a lower correlation, I picked Intel. Strangely, enough, Intel and Pepsi had a .94 correlation. A coincidence, I suppose, but my point is that you can easily get data and perform your own analysis to better understand what's going on.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dabc7412a6bb3aa6b04232e77185d57a",
"text": "\"The June 2014 issue of Barclays Wealth's Compass magazine had a very nice succinct article on this topic: \"\"Value investing – does a rules-based approach work?\"\". It examines the performance of value and growth styles of investment in the MSCI World and S&P500 arenas for a few decades back, and reveals a surprisingly complicated picture, depending on sector, region and time-period. Their summary is basically: A closer look however shows that the overall success of value strategies derives mainly from the 1970s and 1980s. ... in the US, value has underperformed growth for over 25 years since peaking in July 1988. Globally, value experienced a 30% setback in the late 1990s so that there are now periods with a length of nearly 13 years over which growth has outperformed. So the answer to \"\"does it beat the market?\"\" is \"\"it depends...\"\". Update in response to comment below: the question of risk adjusted returns is interesting. To quote another couple of fragments from the piece: Since December 1974, [MSCI world] value has outperformed growth by 2.6% annually, with lower risk. This outperformance on a risk-adjusted basis is the so-called value premium that Eugene Fama and Kenneth French first identified in 1992... and That outperformance has, however, come with more risk. Historical volatility of the pure style indices has been 21-22% compared to 16% for the market. ... From a maximum drawdown perspective, the 69% drop of pure value during the financial crisis exceeded the 51% drop of the overall market.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ff877f1b75ec383bd26eeb7c552b25cd",
"text": "Yes, this can and does certainly happen. When two companies each own stock in each other, it's called a cross holding. I learned about cross holdings in reference to Japanese companies (see Wikipedia - Keiretsu) but the phenomenon is certainly not exclusive to that jurisdiction. Here are a few additional references:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "57133597d661974ecdbde235ef6f4c4a",
"text": "Markets are rational in the long term. Actors act rationally given the knowledge they have. They don't have perfect knowledge - meaning they're prone to make mistakes. However, in the LONG run, every would be a equilibrium. Facebook stock is clearly over valued and the market is adjusting to the real price. Nothing spectacular going on there.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
2891a43e5c3082e455bf74a424f63f43
|
How do I calculate ownership percentage for shared home ownership?
|
[
{
"docid": "a3296028085d2affa9301df284593e8e",
"text": "\"Sister is putting down nothing, and paying sub-market rent. It looks to me like if she is assigned anything, it's a gift. You on the other hand, have put down the full downpayment, and instead of breaking even via fair rent, are feeding the property to the tune of $645/mo. In the old days, the days of Robert Allen's \"\"no money down\"\" it was common to see shared equity deals where the investor would put up the down payment, get 1/2 the equity build up, and never pay another dime. This deal reminds me of that, only you are getting the short end of the stick. \"\"you never think something will cause discourse\"\" - I hope you meant this sarcastically. The deal you describe? No good can come of it.\"",
"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": "59c1caa0b4f4ba5a04b1ff5e3b69cd6d",
"text": "It may clarify your thinking if you look at this as two transactions: I am an Australian so I cannot comment on US tax laws but this is how the Australian Tax Office would view the transaction. By thinking this way you can allocate the risks correctly, Partnership Tenancy Two things should be clear - you will need a good accountant and a good lawyer - each.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "683d1446a4606ae1e9fdf8dc074abe9b",
"text": "\"The bottom line is that you can decide whatever you want to do. It is good of you to get everything in writing. What happens if she decides to move to a different city? What happens if she also wants to be bought out? It should also include contingencies for your husband and yourself. God forbid anything negative happens, but what happens if you two get divorced? Does your husband want to be an agreement with your sister if you pass away? There does not seem to be any math to do in this case. While she is paying the lion's share of the payment, she is also receiving the benefit of having a place to live. It is unlikely that she can rent an equivalent place for anything close to 1400/month. I would estimate it would be at least 1800/month to rent an equivalent property. So she put no money down, and she is paying below market \"\"rent\"\" to live somewhere. Many people would be happy to have $400/month off and handle their own repairs (let alone you still kicking in half). Now all that said, if you want to give her some equity based upon generosity or the desire to give her some dignity, then you are free to do so. Perhaps 10%?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5b290e20dbb771f105b217af25c83024",
"text": "You and your husband are fronting all the money upfront. I'm guessing this will cost you around 67,000 once closing costs and fees are included. So obviously you would be hundred percent owners at the beginning. You'll then pay 31% of the mortgage and have your sister pay the remaining 69%. This puts your total investment at the end at 67k + 74.4k + 31% of interest accrued, and your sisters total investment at 165.6k+69% of interest accrued. If you hold the full length of the mortgage, your sister will have invested much more than you( assuming 30 year fixed rate, and 3.75%, she'd pay 116.6k in interest as opposed to your 49.6k) She will have spent 282.2k and y'all will have spent 191k. However if you sell early, your percentage could be much higher. These calculations don't take into account the opportunity cost of fronting all the cash. It could be earning you more in the stock market or in a different investment property. Liability also could be an issue in the case of her not being able to pay. The bank can still come after you for the whole amount. Lastly and most importantly, this also doesn't include the fact that she will be living there and y'all will not. What kind of rent would she be paying to live in a similar home? If it is more than 1400, you will basically be subsidizing her living, as well as tying up funds, and increasing your risk exposure. If it is more than 1400, she shouldn't be any percent owner.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a0e3321a511af495a460c7995a5d59a1",
"text": "Once your sister and you make your first payments, you've paid $20,645, and your sister has paid $1400. But your sister also owes rent. Zeroth order estimate for rent is that it's equal to mortgage payment, so that's $2045 (I assume that $2045 is actually your total payment, not just your escrow payment. Unless I'm misunderstanding what the term means, $2045 is an absurdly high amount for a monthly escrow payment.) So your sister now has made a net capital contribution of ... negative $645. So you're giving your sister a gift of $7740 each year, and are the sole equity owner of the house. There's a $14000/year gift tax exclusion, and I think that both you and your husband can claim it separately, so every year you could declare your sister to have $20260 added to her capital contribution, or more if you're willing to pay gift tax. But as it stands, if there are any losses from the property, they will be borne exclusively by you; therefore, any profits should be enjoyed exclusively by you. Any other arrangement is you giving a gift to your sister. If the price of the house were to shoot up to $1,000,000 after a year, and you were to split the profits with your sister 50:50, and not pay a gift tax, you WOULD be violating tax law.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c5c182f9a317adac4162135e9842a282",
"text": "i would recommend that you establish a landlord/tenant relationship instead of joint ownership (ie 100% ownership stake for one of you vs 0% for the other). it is much cleaner and simpler. basically, one of you can propose a monthly rent amount and the other one can chose to be either renter or landlord. alternatively, you can both write down a secret rental price offer assuming you are the landlord, then pick the landlord who wrote down the smaller rental price. if neither of you can afford the down payment, then you can consider the renter's contribution an unsecured loan (at an agreed interest rate and payment schedule). if you must have both names on the financing, then i would recommend you sell the property (or refinance under a single name) as quickly as possible when the relationship ends (if not before), pay the renter back any remaining balance on the loan and leave the landlord with the resulting equity (or debt). in any case, if you expect the unsecured loan to outlive your relationship, then you are either buying a house you can't afford, or partnering on it with someone you shouldn't.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "587070af410b39e29a6ef113da901b37",
"text": "You should have drafted a contract of purchase that stipulated out equity stake in the home based of his down payment and yours, along with future monthly payments. But morally, if the house sells, yielding 100,000 profit (after fees/taxes/etc), you should get ( To Calculate Your Cut: (20,000 + Your Total Mortgage Payments Applied to Principle) / (1,900 + His Total Mortgage Payments Applied to Principle Only) * Profit on Sale of House After All Fees = Your Cut His would be: (1,900 + His Total Mortgage Payments Applied to Principle Only) / (20,000 + Your Total Mortgage Payments Applied to Principle) * Profit on Sale of House After All Fees = His Cut You'd then take mortgage payment totals for each; and calculate the payments made towards interest; and claim the correct amount each of you paid on payments for the mortgage interest deduction when you file your taxes. Although, depending on how the loan is written, the banks may issue 1099s which dont reflect actual payments made... Talk to an accountant.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "533849b422ef3b33e57bd133c162eba5",
"text": "\"With regard to worries about ownership: I'll point you towards this - The Cohabitants Rights Bill currently in First Reading at the House of Lords. Without a date for even the second reading yet. In short the Bill is attempting to redress is the lack of rights when a non-married relationship ends when compared to married relationships; that is that one of the \"\"cohabitants\"\" can end up with basically nothing that they don't have their name on. So currently you're in the clear and (Part 2) Section 6.2.a says the Bill cannot be used retroactively against you if your relationship is over before it becomes law (I expect with Brexit etc, this Bill isn't a high priority - it's been a year since the first reading). Section 6.2.a: This Part does not apply to former cohabitants where the former cohabitants have ceased living together as a couple before the commencement date; However, if you're still together if/when this Bill becomes Law then basically all of (Part 1) Section 2 may be relevant as it notes the conditions you will fall into this bill: Section 2.1.a: live together as a couple and Section 2.2.d: have lived together as a couple for a continuous period of three years or more. and the \"\"have lived together\"\" at that point counts from the start of your cohabitation, not the start of the Bill being law: Section 2.4.a: For the purposes of subsection (2)(d), in determining the length of the continuous period during which two people have lived together as a couple - any period of the relationship that fell before the commencement date (of the Bill) is to be taken into account If you have kids at some point, you'd also fall under 2.2.a through 2.2.c too. After that, the financial parity decided upon by the court depends on a whole bunch of conditions as outlined in the Bill, but Section 8.1.b is pretty clear: Section 8.1.b: (b)the court is satisfied either— (i)that the respondent has retained a benefit; or (ii)40that the applicant has an economic disadvantage, as a result of qualifying contributions the applicant has made I'm not qualified to say whether your partner helping to pay off your mortgage in lieu of paying rent herself would count as just paying rent or giving you an economic benefit. Sections 12, 13, and 14 discuss opt-outs, also worth a read. The a major disclaimer here in that Bills at this early stage have the potential to be modified, scrapped and/or replaced making this info incorrect. As an additional read, here's an FT article from Feb 2016 discussing this lack of rights of a cohabitant which should alleviate any current concerns.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "19f18ebdd0d55ba406566aa94f714891",
"text": "You can either borrow money... credit card, line of credit, re-finance your home, home equity line of credit, loan, mortgage, etc. Or you have other invest in your company as equity. They will contribute $X to get Y% of your company and get Z% of the profits. Note amount of profits does not necessarily have to equate to percentage owned. This makes sense if they are a passive investor, where they just come up with the money and you do all the work. Also voting rights in a company does not have to equate to percentage owned either. You can also have a combination of equity and debt. If you have investors, you would need to figure out whether the investor will personally guarantee the debt of your company - recourse vs non-recourse. If they have more risk, they will want more of a return. One last way to do it is crowdfunding, similar to what people do on Kickstarter. Supporters/customers come up with the money, then you deliver the product. Consulting practices do something similar with the concept of retainers. Best of luck.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a409e9ac055ad2bcb8612e19efcef9a2",
"text": "It sounds like you are in great shape, congratulations! Things I would think about in your position: Consider putting 20% down instead of 30% and find a great house that has a key missing modernization, like a kitchen. Then replace the kitchen, which if done right can instantly add that 10% (or more) right back in equity... or stick to your plan... You have earned the luxury of taking your time and doing what's right for you. Think real carefully about location. Here are some ideas based on my experience.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a0af25e03040e9e403abe4284ce6bb4",
"text": "\"To expand on what @fishinear and some others are saying: The only way to look at it is that the parents have invested, because the parents get a % of the property in the end, rather than the original loan amount plus interest. It is investment; it is not a loan of any kind. One way to understand this is to imagine that after 20 years, the property triples in value (or halves in value). The parents participate as if they had invested in 75% ownership of the property and the OP as if 25% ownership of the property. Note that with a loan, there is a (potentially changing) outstanding loan balance, that could be paid to end the loan (to pay off the loan), and there is an agreed upon an interest rate that is computed on the outstanding balance — none of those apply to this situation; further with a loan there is no % of the property: though the property may be used to secure the loan, that isn't ownership. Basically, since the situation bears none of the qualities of a loan, and yet does bear the qualities of investment, the parents have bought a % ownership of the property. The parents have invested in 75% of the real estate, and the OP is renting that 75% from them for: The total rent the OP is paying the parents for their 75% of the property is then (at least) $1012.50/mo, A rental rate of $1012.50/mo for 75% of the property equates to a rental price of $1350/mo for the whole property. This arrangement is only fair to both parties when the fair-market rental value of the whole property is $1350/mo; it is unfair to the OP when the fair-market rental value of property is less, and unfair to the parents when the fair-market rental value of property is more. Of course, the fair-market rental value of the property is variable over time, so the overall fairness would need to understand rental values over time. I feel like this isn't actually a loan if I can never build more equity in the condo. Am I missing something? No, it isn't a loan. You and your parents are co-investing in real estate. Further, you are renting their portion of the investment from them. For comparison, with a loan you have 100% ownership in the property from the start, so you, the owner, would see all the upside/downside as the property valuation changes over time whether the loan is paid off or not. The borrower owes the loan balance (and interest) not some % of the property. A loan may be secured by the property (using a lien) but that is quite different from ownership. Typically, a loan has a payment schedule setup to reduce the loan balance (steadily) over time so that you eventually pay it off. With a loan you gain equity % — the amount you own outright, free & clear — in two ways, (1) by gradually paying off the loan over time so the unencumbered portion of the property grows, and (2) if the valuation of the property increases over time that gain in equity % is yours (not the lenders). However note that the legal ownership is all 100% yours from the start. Are my parents ripping me off with this deal that doesn't allow me to build my equity in my home? You can evaluate whether you are being ripped off by comparing the $1350/mo rate to the potential rental rate for the property over time (which will be a range or curve, and there are real estate websites (like zillow.com or redfin.com, others) to help estimate what fair-market rent might be). Are there similar deals like this...? A straight-forward loan would have the borrower with 100% legal ownership from the start, just that the property secures the loan. Whereas with co-investment there is a division of ownership % that is fixed from the start. It is unusual to have both investment and loan at the same time where they are setup for gradual change between them. (Investment and loan can certainly be done together but would usually be done as completely separate contracts, one loan, one investment with no adjustment between the two over time.) To do both investment and loan would be unusual but certainly be possible, I would imagine; however that is not the case here as being described. I am not familiar with contracts that do both so as to take over the equity/ownership/investment over time while also reducing loan balance. Perhaps some forms of rent-to-own work that way, something to look into — still, usually rent-to-own means that until the renter owns it 100%, the landlord owns 100%, rather than a gradual % transfer over time (gradual transfer would imply co-ownership for a long time, something that most landlords would be reluctant to do). Transfer of any particular % of real estate ownership typically requires filing documents with the county and may incur fees. I am not aware of counties that allow gradual % transfer with one single filing. Still, the courts may honor a contract that does such gradual transfer outside of county filings. If so, what should I do? Explain the situation to your parents, and, in particular, however far out of balance the rental rate may be. Decide for yourself if you want to rent vs. buy, and where (that property or some other). If your parents are fair people, they should be open to negotiation. If not, you might need a lawyer. I suspect that a lawyer would be able to find several issues with which to challenge the contract. The other terms are important as well, namely gross vs. net proceeds (as others point out) because selling a property costs a % to real estate agents and possibly some taxes as well. And as the others have pointed out, if the property ultimately looses value, that could be factored in as well. It is immaterial to judging the fairness of this particular situation whether getting a bank loan would be preferable to renting 75% from the parents. Further, loan interest rates don't factor into the fairness of this rental situation (but of course interest rates do factor into identifying the better of various methods of investment and methods of securing a place to live, e.g. rent vs. buy). Contributed by @Scott: If your parents view this as an investment arrangement as described, then you need to clarify with them if the payments being made to them are considered a \"\"buy out\"\" of their share. This would allow you to gain the equity you seek from the arrangement. @Scott: Terms would have to be (or have been) declared to that effect; this would involve specifying some schedule and/or rates. It would have to be negotiated; this it is not something that could go assumed or unstated. -- Erik\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4de70d581061d6bf240c21767d96b9f8",
"text": "You say that one property is 65% of the value of the two properties and the other is 35%. But how much of that do the two of you actually own? If you have co-signed mortgages on both properties, then your equity is going to be lower. If you sold both properties, then your take away would be just half of that equity. And while the 35% property may be less valuable, if you bought it first, it may actually have more equity. It's the equity that matters here, not the value of the property. With a mortgage, the bank is more of an owner than you are until you've paid down most of the loan. You may find that the bank won't agree to a single-owner refinance. A co-signed mortgage is a lot easier for them to collect, as they can hold either of you responsible for the entire loan. If you sell the 65% property, then you can pay off any mortgage on that property and use the equity payout from that to buy out your relative on the 35% property. If you currently have no mortgage, you'd even have cash back. This is your fewest strings option. Let's say that you have no mortgage now. So this mortgage would be the only mortgage on the property. It's not so much, as 15:65 is 3:13 or 18.75% of the value of the property. That's more of a home equity loan than a mortgage. You should be able to get a good rate. It might reduce your short term profit, but it should be survivable if you have other income. If you don't have other income, then seriously consider selling the 65% property and diversifying the payout into something else. E.g. stocks and bonds. Perhaps your relative would be willing to float you the loan. That would save you bank fees and closing costs. Write up a contract and agree to take assignment of the title at payoff. You'll need to pay a lawyer to write up the contract (paying a modest amount now to cover the various future possibilities), but that should still be cheaper. There's a certain amount of trust required on both sides, but this gives you some separation. And of course it takes your relative out of the day-to-day management entirely. Perhaps the steady flow of cash would provide what they need. If your relative is willing to remain that involved, that can work. Note that they may not want to do this, so don't get too attached to the idea. Be prepared for a no. This would be a great option for you, as you pretty much get everything you have now. They get back the time meeting with you to make decisions, but they also give up control over those decisions. Some people would not like that tradeoff. The one time I was involved with a professional managing a property for me, the fee was around 7% of the rent. If that fits your area, you might reasonably charge 5%. That gives a discount for family and not being a professional. There's a relatively easy way to find out what fits your area. Look around and see what companies offer multiple listings. Call until you find a couple that will do management for you. Get quotes for managing your properties. Now you'll know the amounts. The big failing though is that this may not describe the issue that your relative has. If the real problem is that the two of you have different approaches to property management, then making you the only decision maker may be the wrong direction. This is certainly financially feasible, but it still may not be the right solution for your relationship. If you get a no on this, I'd recommend moving on to other solutions immediately. This may simply be too favorable to you.",
"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": "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": "0d2d02163258915703d7cc13ec404b8d",
"text": "In effect, you are paying for 70% of the house but he gets half the gain. On the flip side, you're living there, so that probably makes up this difference. It will be toughest if the house jumps in value, to the point you might be forced to sell. You might want to think about that a bit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "00d99bd22e5e93a23cfeb738acd9c16b",
"text": "\"This is fine, just have a plan before you go into it. Look up a co-ownership agreement contract off LegalZoom, they are like $15, or get a lawyer if you want. Decide if you want to be \"\"Joint tenants\"\" or \"\"Tenants in common\"\". You probably want to be joint tenants so that if one of you dies the property goes to the other person. Go through the agreement, make any changes you want, and then both sign it. These documents outline what happens if someone dies, or if you break up, or if you are allowed to sell your ownership, and anything else. Keep a record of who has paid what % of equity towards the house. Also look into tax laws, if the mortgage or house is only truly in 1 person's name they may get a tax break that the other person will not get. The co-ownership agreement is essentially the same agreement that happens when you're married, the only difference is that it happens automatically and implicitly when you're married. It's interesting that some people are saying this is a horrible idea when it's practically the same as the agreement you'd have if you were married. Whether you're single or married, if you own a house with another person and you break up, it's going to be a bit complicated. Get a contract in place beforehand so that things go as smoothly as possible. If you are both rational adults you shouldn't have any problems.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c2c46a382eef8995be98cb6552d1f628",
"text": "\"I just wanted to give you a different perspective, as I own a house (purchased with a mortgage), with my girlfriend. I think it can be done safely and fairly, but you do need to involve legal help to do it right. There really is nothing to be terrified about, the extra cost to set this up was almost irrelevant in the bigger picture of legal costs around purchasing and the documents describing the ownership scheme are quite straightforward. Maybe it's a UK thing, but it seems rather commonplace here. We've chosen to hold this as \"\"tenants in common\"\" and use a trust deed for this when we purchased. We had a solicitor write the trust deed and it clearly states what percentage of the house is owned by either party and exactly what the steps would be taken, should we decide to end the trust (e.g. in case of a split-up). This includes things like the right to buy out the other person before selling on the market etc. We also had to make wills separately to indicate what should happen with our percentage of the property in case one of us died as with this type of ownership it doesn't automatically go to the other person. Finally we're both on the mortgage, which I guess is the main difference versus your situation. But again, you could get legal advice as to how this should best be handled.\"",
"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": "828d65f2a6078dcbc1e404f18aebdec2",
"text": "It may be possible to get more cash than you currently have. For example, If you have $200,000, you could buy a distressed property for $150,000, spend $50,000 on renovations, get it appraised for $300,000 and then cash out refi $240,000 (keeping 20% equity to avoid MIPs) to invest. This would be analogous to flipping a house for yourself. Normally flippers buy a house for cheap, then sell it to someone else for way more than their total outlay in purchase + improvements. The only difference here is there's no 3rd party - you stay in the house and essentially buy it from yourself with the mortgage.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "85ca7a856958a0f69886a6a70a9632a4",
"text": "I think you wrong about this. There are two problems I see with your example. * When you created something which costs $150 you have increased the amount of money in the world from $200 to $450 because money is the storage of value. * After the first transaction you have said that you have $250, which presumably means the money in the bank. However, at a later point when you go to the bank demanding $500 you only consider physical notes to be money. The bank at this point could give you a check book and if you wanted to spend it would simple credit the other person $500 and remove that amount from your account. In addition, the bank could always repossess the items you have sold to the other person and give them to you in lieu of physical money.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
bdf80d9330b8299955a8d7d27e816778
|
Want to buy a car but have not enough money
|
[
{
"docid": "1b7c1624d7d04d8c11b7637127205547",
"text": "\"When your dream car is not just 200 times your disposable income but in fact 200 times your whole monthly salary, then there is no way for you to afford it right now. Any attempt to finance through a loan would put you into a debt trap you won't ever dig yourself out. And if there are any car dealerships in your country which claim otherwise, run away fast. Jon Oliver from Last Week tonight made a video about business practices of car dealerships in the United States which sell cars on loans to people who can't afford them a while ago. As usual: When a deal seems too good to be true, it generally isn't true at all. After a few months, the victims customers usually end up with no car but lots of outstanding debt they pay off for years. So how do you tell if you can afford a car or not? A new car usually lives for about 10-20 years. So when you want to calculate the monthly cost of owning a new car, divide the price by 120. But that's just the price for buying the vehicle, not for actually driving it. Cars cost additional money each month for gas, repairs, insurance, taxes etc. (these costs depend a lot on your usage pattern and location, so I can not provide you with any numbers for that). If you have less disposable income per month (as in \"\"money you currently have left at the end of each month\"\") than monthly cost of purchase plus expected monthly running costs, you can not afford the car. Possible alternatives:\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "ac4094c5932096f13faf9926cfb1373a",
"text": "\"I think the answer to how much you \"\"should\"\" spend depends on a few more questions: Once you answer these questions I think you'll have a better idea of what you should spend. If you have no financial goals then what kind of car you buy doesn't really matter. But if your goals are to build and accumulate wealth both in the short and long term then you should know that, by the numbers, a car is terrible financial investment. A new car loses thousands of dollars in value the moment you drive it off the lot. Buy the cheapest, reliable commuter you can ($5k or less) and use the extra money to pay off your debts. Then once your debts are paid off start investing that money. If you continue this frugal mindset with your other purchases (what house to buy, what food to eat, what indulgences to indulge in, etc...) and invest a bit, I think you'll find it pretty easy to create a giant amount of wealth.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "67e35bdb72a7bf29c81b0b88865805c6",
"text": "\"Neat points but with regards to your first point there is no car financing to \"\"pay off\"\" unless you take on debt. And few Americans have or can easily accumulate the cash in hand to buy a $15K-30K vehicle. Sure, you can definitely live without debt, but buying a home, a car or making other sizable purchases is not possible under such circumstances unless you make a greater than average salary and are remarkably frugal, including an affordable, tenable living situation.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f6d49c1b2838bd282dd66634ac8411af",
"text": "Each of us makes our own way in life, making choices based upon or own needs and desires. Some of us choose to live simple lives, others choose more complex lives where we earn and spend more. There are several points which one should examine and consider. Consider that the market for new cars is not the entire population, but only the fraction of the population that can afford to spend $20,000+ for a new car (at $400+/month payments). You quickly realize that most people making below median income cannot afford to purchase a new car. They buy used cars, from the pool of cars left after depreciation has reduced the price of the car by half (or more). One rule of thumb might be to spend < 10% of your income on transportation. Which might allow for a $400-500/month car payment for half of families. And when you keep a car for 10 years, that can mean two cars, one payment-free. Consider that a new Honda Accord or Toyota Camry is $20-30,000 which is 2/3 to 3/4 the price of a new luxury car. When I purchased my (used) Civic several years ago, the price was nearly 1/2 the price of a new luxury car. I recently purchased a (used) luxury car (7 year old, 70,000 miles) less than 1/3 the new price. The leather interior looks new, more amenities, better performance than my Civic, the car runs well, and with proper maintenance, I expect to drive it for 2-3 years and pass it along to one of my children.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "310791d9ac43bf6dfa29b6a6bbfa79aa",
"text": "Ignoring that liability car insurance is usually a state mandated requirement and that all banks require full coverage, there are quite a few reasons to buy it. No matter how much money you have, you can't really guarantee that you can recover financially from an accident. Yes, you can buy a new car. But what happens if you are sued because the other driver died or is now in a long term coma? The legal costs alone would financially bury most people. It's even worse if you are rich. Let's say someone rear ended you. If you had no insurance (again ignoring the legality here), you can bet their attorney would take a look at your considerable financial assets and do whatever it took to get as much of that as possible. The legal fees alone of defending yourself at trial would likely far outstrip everything else. And that's just one little situation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e2c99ff02914e5fdf4bcd544d9e7b608",
"text": "\"It's all about what you value personally. I'm mid-30s and drive a $40K \"\"luxury\"\" sports car. I also happen to wear a $6K wristwatch every day. I purchased both of these items because I thought they were beautiful when I saw them. On the flip side, because I spent 6 years living below the poverty line, I instinctively spend almost nothing on a daily basis. My food budget is less than $50 a week, and I never go out to eat. I wear my clothes and shoes and coats until they have holes, and I drove my previous car (a Toyota) into the ground. My cell phone is 5 years old. The walls of my apartment are bare. I don't have cable TV, I don't subscribe to newspapers or magazines, and I don't own a pet. In all of these cases I don't feel like I'm \"\"sacrificing\"\" anything; food and clothes and cell phones and pets just don't matter to me. If you truly feel that you're missing something in your life by not having a luxury car -- that owning one would be more satisfying than owning the corresponding tens of thousands of dollars -- then go for it. Just be sure to consider all the other things that money could buy before you do. Lastly, buy in cash. Don't make monthly payments unless you enjoy giving money away to the bank!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b62649799769028e783df7241b86e9b",
"text": "\"Given the state of the economy, and the potential of a rough near future for us recent grads (i.e. on/off work), I would recommend holding off on large purchases while your life is in flux. This includes both a NEW car and purchasing a house. My short answer is: you need a reliable vehicle, so purchase a used car, from a major dealer (yes this will add a fairly high premium, but easier financing), that is 4-5 years old, or more. Barring the major dealer purchase, be sure to get a mechanic to check out a vehicle, many will offer this service for a reasonable payment. As people point out, cars these days will run for another 100k miles. You will NOT have to pay anywhere near $27,000 for this vehicle. You may need to leverage your 10k for a loan if you choose to finance, but it should not be a problem, especially as you seem to imply an established credit history. In addition to this, start saving your money for the house you would like to eventually get. We have no idea where you live, but, picking rough numbers, assuming a 2 year buy period, 20% down, and a $250,000 home, the down payment alone will require you to save ~$2,000/month starting now. Barring either of these options, max out your money to tax sheltered accounts (your Roth IRA, work 401k, or a regular IRA) asap. Obviously, do not deplete your emergency fund, if anything, increase it. 10k can be burned through in a heartbeat. Long Answer: I purchased a brand new car, right out of school, at a reasonable interest rate. Like you, I can afford this vehicle, however, if someone were to come to me today (3.5 years later) and offer me the opportunity to take it back and purchase a 4-5 year used vehicle, at a 4-5 year used car price, albeit at a much higher interest rate (since I financed), it would be about a 0.02 second decision. I like my car, but, I'd like the differential cash savings between it and a reliable used car more. $27,000 is also fairly expensive for a new vehicle, there are many, very nice vehicles, for 21-23k. I still would not consider these priced appropriate to spend your money on them, but they exist. However, you do very much need a reliable vehicle, and I think you should get one. On the home front, your $400 all inclusive rent is insanely cheap. Many people spend more than that on property tax and PMI each year, so anyone who throws the \"\"You're throwing money away!\"\" line at you is blowing smoke to justify their own home purchase. Take the money you would have spent on a mortgage, and squirrel it away. Do your own due diligence and research the home market in your area and decide for yourself if you think home prices have bottomed and will stay there, have further to go, or are going to begin to rise. That is a decision only you can make for yourself. I'd add a section about getting expenses under control, but you said you could save 50% of your takehome pay. This is an order of magnitude above the average. Good job. Try doing 50% for 4 months, then calculate your actual amount. Then try to beat it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0dbacdfc45f0f936cc1fe6137cec4fab",
"text": "The only way this suggestion works is if you can realize a higher rate of return on the investment than the payoff of the loan. There's no guarantee of that, so it can be a risky strategy from the standpoint that you'll end up paying more for the car when all is said and done.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f6fd8de83b35661dd1ec3881b92ad1f",
"text": "Yes, but should you be even trying to get a mortgage if you can't aford at least a 5% deposit? Prove you do want the house by doing without a new car for a few years...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1380194c0b6436ed04951838f3289501",
"text": "If you have enough money to buy a car in full, that probably means you have good credit. If you have good credit, car dealerships will often offer 0% loans for either a small period of time, like 12 months, or the entire loan. Taking a 0% loan is obviously more optimal than paying the entire lump sum up front. You can take the money and invest in other things that earn you more than 0%. However, most dealerships offer a rebate OR a 0% loan. Some commenters below claim that the rebate is usually larger than the saved interest, so definitely do the math if you have that option.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0216a3f4087ad61f309381cdde5f28f6",
"text": "What percentage of your savings is the full car payment? If it's a significant chunk, then I'd finance some of the cost of the car in order to maintain liquidity.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "85ef54507d2fada1a6364d888462df4f",
"text": "I wouldn't give it a second thought. I'd get rid of the extra car and do everything I could in the following months to repay the emergency fund. Even without the interest payments, I'd consider getting rid of an unused car due to the very nature of a car being a depreciating asset that has insurance expenses and annual registration fees on top of that depreciation. The one exception to the above would be a classic car that was purchased for an investment that is always garaged and doesn't need to be registered for road use. I take it for granted that most people who can afford such investments don't need my advice about when to sell.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "11692d59ac54be45ba7425bb06463446",
"text": "The only reason to lend the money in this scenario is cashflow. But considering you buy a $15000 car, your lifestyle is not super luxurious, so $15000 spare cash is enough.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6cd61dc0b24ddb05e5df77719c29cbd3",
"text": "Regardless of your circumstances, the amount of money you should put into a car is about $6000-8000 or the amount of cash you actually have, whichever is less. You can get a very reliable gently-used car in that price range, and a car that's plenty good to drive for basically whatever your budget is, down to about $1500-2000 or so. Spending more is never a financially sound decision; it's purely a luxury expenditure. Buying a car with a loan is always a financially bad decision.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0023829af08e1f223028c03a4ed6db45",
"text": "You are really showing some wisdom here, and congratulations on finishing college. Its a lot about likelihoods. If you buy a new car, there is something like a 99.5% chance you will get a car that will not need repairs. If you buy a car for $1200 there is probably a 20% chance that the car will only need minimal repairs. So the answer is there is no real guarantee that spending any amount of money you will end up with a car with no repairs. You also can't assume that with buying a car it will immediately need repairs. Its possible, that you could spend 1200 on a car and it will need an oil change. In three months it might need brakes and in 6 months tires. If that is the case, you could save up the money for repairs. Have you looked for a car? It will take some work, but you might be able to find something in good condition for your budget. If you shop for a loan, go with a good credit union or local bank. Mostly you are looking for a low rate. However, I would advise against it. You worked so hard on getting out of school without debt, why start now? Be weird and buy a car for cash. Heck someone may be able to loan you a car for a short time while you save some money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2bb4e06785887fbf93def08101666f95",
"text": "\"For the future: NEVER buy a car based on the payment. When dealers start negotiating, they always try to have you focus on the monthly payment. This allows them to change the numbers for your trade, the price they are selling the car for, etc so that they maximize the amount of money they can get. To combat this you need to educate yourself on how much total money you are willing to spend for the vehicle, then, if you need financing, figure out what that actually works out to on a monthly basis. NEVER take out a 6 year loan. Especially on a used car. If you can't afford a used car with at most a 3 year note (paying cash is much better) then you can't really afford that car. The longer the note term, the more money you are throwing away in interest. You could have simply bought a much cheaper car, drove it for a couple years, then paid CASH for a new(er) one with the money you saved. Now, as to the amount you are \"\"upside down\"\" and that you are looking at new cars. $1400 isn't really that bad. (note: Yes you were taken to the cleaners.) Someone mentioned that banks will sometimes loan up to 20% above MSRP. This is true depending on your credit, but it's a very bad idea because you are purposely putting yourself in the exact same position (worse actually). However, you shouldn't need to worry about that. It is trivial to negotiate such that you pay less than sticker for a new car while trading yours in, even with that deficit. Markup on vehicles is pretty insane. When I sold, it was usually around 20% for foreign and up to 30% for domestic: that leaves a lot of wiggle room. When buying a used car, most dealers ask for at least $3k more than what they bought them for... Sometimes much more than that depending on blue book (loan) value or what they managed to talk the previous owner out of. Either way, a purchase can swallow that $1400 without making it worse. Buy accordingly.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b0e8222be1f5fd5473816d2c14c25204
|
Ensuring payment from client
|
[
{
"docid": "234c54943d0d639b3171953cad2c383d",
"text": "Use some form of escrow agent: Some freelancer sites provide payment escrow services (e.g. E-Lance). In this system the client puts money in escrow for the project in advance and then when they accept the project it forwards the payment to the provider. Progress Payments Arrange a progress payment approach with the client where they pay at certain milestones rather than a single payment at the end of the project. Ideally you would have them pre-pay for each milestone before you start work on it. However, you could ask for payment after each milestone, which might be easier to sell to your client. It does leave some risk, but minimizes that risk somewhat.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d7c498825c09e23317c7c93211e5533e",
"text": "\"You should absolutely have a contract between you and your client stipulating the quid-pro-quos of the arrangement. They get the product, you get the money. First off, this contract should specify what you must do, and what they must do, for the contract to be \"\"satisfied\"\". This isn't necessarily just product for money; your client may be under deadlines to approve the product in various stages of work in process. Depending on the product, the client may be required to provide starting materials (like existing logos/slogans for advertising/marketing graphics), information on or access to computer systems (for software or infrastructure consulting, or accounting auditing), etc. Second, if you provide a tangible product like graphics or software, the contract should clearly state that \"\"intellectual property transfers on satisfaction of contract\"\"; they don't own what you have made until they have accepted it and paid you accordingly. If they try to stiff you by taking what you made them and using it before you've been paid, you can take them to the cleaner's for copyright violations. Third, you should structure a payment schedule; don't do too much for free. You can get the money in thirds, for instance; a third up front, a third at some defined halfway point and a third on final delivery and acceptance. Lastly, you should stipulate that the client is responsible for all expenses incurred by you as a result of their failure to pay as stipulated, up to and including attorney's fees. Definitely have a lawyer draft these agreements; contract law is a many-layered area of law with hundreds of years of case law and slightly different nuances in every state. A competent lawyer will know things that can and can't be stipulated in a contract, and if you try to do it alone you'll wish you hadn't when the contract's tossed out by a judge because of some technicality. If they refuse to pay, get the lawyer on the phone and file suit. A well-written contract drafted by a competent lawyer, which you have lived up to on your end, will give your client no loopholes to slip through. As far as recovering damages, it shouldn't matter whether he's in the U.S. or not; if he does business in the U.S. then he very probably has money in banks that have to listen to U.S. courts (or at least court orders).\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "f3c332fbce2b61f308b02c595062977e",
"text": "Ok so this is the best information I could get! It is a guarantee from a financial institution that payment will be made for items or services once certain requirements are met. Let me know if this helps! I'll try to get more info in the meantime.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "02dc5cfe87845930e123d0aeac9c47da",
"text": "Source: Business owner for 13 years. Unfortunately you may be hard-pressed to get that money back. You can try sending him to collections, but at that point it often starts to cost you more than what he owes you, in my experience. In the worst instance I lost $2100 on a single invoice that I never received a dime for. Nearly 20 hours of my time wasted for nothing! A bit of unsolicited advice: I've found that when working on a service-basis, obtaining billing and payment info up front and taking a deposit makes sense. I take 1 hour's worth of deposit and bill the rest after. Not only does it verify the payment method works, but it also gives you a way to confirm the customer's ability to pay in the future. If the customer balks at this, just walk away. It's not worth the risk. As a business, your goal is to make money in exchange for goods or services. If your customers don't understand that and aren't willing to front a bit of money to secure your services, you'll likely going to lose time and money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "56f82db3f78d5f5a19e418772f91d4da",
"text": "Many banks offer online payment. He can add a payee and just type your name and address in. The bank will mail the check out if they cannot deliver payment electronically. Edit: Recently I came across this (Citibank Global Transfer), you and your friend should see if your bank offers a similar service. Citibank requires both of you to have an account with them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "98e0c7c1611cb33a283a45e94ba2c289",
"text": "\"The thing to look at is PayPal's \"\"PayPal.me\"\" service, which is a pretty neat little item. When you sign up for a PayPal.me account (totally free), you create a unique username. So for example, my PayPal.me account name is DanCAnderson. I can give someone the following web link to send me $500: http://paypal.me/DanCAnderson/500 If you click the link above, you'll see what the user sees (my company name is Salt River Networks, Inc.). I gave a live link so you can see the working example of it (no need for anyone to send money! chuckle). I can change the amount by simply changing the value at the end of the URL. When they go to that link, they see a landing page with your name on it and the amount to send to you, then they go through the normal process of paying via PayPal. It's a pretty neat service, and I've used to it bill a few clients for work I've done by emailing that link to them rather than going through the whole PayPal procedure.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac8abccf51bd6ddeaff31ce498e4be7b",
"text": "\"You are right in insisting upon a proper B2B contract in any business relationship. You wish to reduce your risk and be compensated fairly. In addition to the cost and complexity of international wire transfers, the US companies may also be considering the fact that as an international contractor in a relatively hard-to-reach jurisdiction, payments to you place the company at higher risk than payments to a domestic contractor. By insisting upon PayPal or similar transmitters, they are reducing their internal complexity and reducing their financial exposure to unfulfilled/disputed contract terms. Therefore, wire payments are \"\"hard\"\" in an internal business sense, as well as in a remittance transfer reporting sense. The internal business procedure will likely be the hardest to overcome--changing risk management is harder than filling out forms.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc17bf0c8d9eecdcd412998741cfc8f4",
"text": "Short answer: No. Some of those 'automatic' payments you've agreed to (presumably by signing a PAD form) are initiated in batch by the company whom you're buying from (phone company, cable company etc). So no, the bank has no indication from one day to the next what is coming through. And the request goes from say, your cable company to THEIR merchant bank to YOUR bank. Typically you have a monthly bill date which is fixed, and they should have terms established when it is due. If a payment comes back NSF they can retry once - but only for the same amount and I believe it is 14 days from the initial payment attempt. It makes it predictable, and you'd figure banks would clue in and start to predict for you when things may come out - but strictly speaking your bank doesn't know when or how much.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "89bf83f18f6fc3252483ecf01139e83b",
"text": "You could of course request payment in EUR or USD, maybe keep a PayPal account and just leave the funds in PayPal unless you need to withdraw the money in local currency? Either currency would be fine because the problem you are trying to overcome is the instability in the ruble. EUR and USD both accomplish that. If you can get local clients to pay in EUR or USD (again, PayPal seems like an easy way to accomplish that) you avoid the ruble, but at the risk that your services become more expensive to local clients because they have to convert a weaker currency to a stronger one. You should also solicit some international clients! You are obviously perfectly fluent in English and that's a significant advantage. And they'll be happy to pay in dollars and euros.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "552d9668245c71a85bc404876a03f57e",
"text": "Given the combination of the admitted delays and then the failure of the money to arrive with only their word they have sent it, I would be worried that the solicitor is having financial problems and has not really sent your money because they don't have it. This shouldn't be possible unless they were already acting unethically by not properly segregating client money, but that possibility does always exist. I would consult the Solicitor's Regulation Authority for advice as quickly as possible. They may not be the right people to initially deal with the problem, but they should be able to advise on the appropriate next steps and it might help them match up your problem with any other reports they have received.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "206fcc394cd42047e135996b36db0866",
"text": "\"The service processors are providing is absorbing the risk. The flow goes, roughly (and I say roughly because it's a complicated process): 1. You swipe/insert your card at Bob's House of Eatery and get charged $10 for a bucket of ramen or something. 2. The device you swipe your card in, (\"\"a terminal\"\") encodes the card number, amount, and some other transaction details and contacts a \"\"Payment Gateway\"\". 3. The gateway decodes the blob of data, and is responsible for determining the issuing financial institution (\"\"Chase\"\", \"\"US Bank\"\", etc.). 4. The gateway contacts the above and asks, \"\"Can card # 555.. charge $10?\"\" 5. The gateway also sends this answer to the processor. 5. The processor _immediately_ proxies that yes/no back to the merchant's terminal. 6. The processor, having a transaction ID, and a yes/no, sends the response to the merchant's systems so your receipt can be printed or order processed, and so on. 7. Meanwhile, the processor has a transaction ID and is busy figuring out things like interchange fees. The amount depends on a whole host of things, and almost everyone involved in the process wants their cut -- the bank, the gateway, the processor, and it all depends on the type of card, customer, rewards, and so on. 8. At the end of the day, week, whatever, the processor collects money from the issuing financial institution and is responsible for giving the right amount -- less fees -- to the merchant. The processor here also absorbs the risk and costs for things like chargebacks, as almost everyone in that chain (gateway, issuing bank) want their pound of flesh for a chargeback, and often the processor doesn't pass that full cost on to the merchant and instead does some risk analysis to determine if they think this merchant is going to be okay to do business with. That's what you're paying for.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc6cd8481d4716ff1f1c8e3b63a62584",
"text": "If you are regularly taking payments of $10,000 I'm very surprised you aren't already set up to accept credit card payments. If you are going to be doing this much in the future it would be a good thing to investigate. Some other options might be:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e04a6a482c4d33b7cb0fdf8682ac7c1c",
"text": "Send a well-documented payment to the original creditor. Do it in such a way that you would have the ability to prove that you sent a payment if they reject it. Should they reject it, demonstrate that to the credit reporting bureaus.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a928a5c3aa932c66a58061c6b90a22e5",
"text": "On a summary level, there are three conceptual ways of clearing money electronically. Immediate clearing, where banks (often, but not necessarily) with support of the supervisory entities, send immediate drawing rights against their own cash reserves, and dedicate this right to the account of the receiving customer. This is rather expensive, as it limits the banks ability to use their cash reserves for their own banking operations (crediting etc). This is often the only way to wire significant (in comparison to the bank size) amounts of money. Internal clearing, where the money actually never leaves the bank - it's just moved between accounts of two different customers of the same bank. It's usually free, as the bank is still free to use your money to do it's banking, and it's usually immediate since nothing actually needs to happen besides a change in the banks entries. Batch clearing, where banks submit outstanding requests against each other, and calculate the net settlement. Basically, when you from bank A wire money to me in bank B, there is a high chance that a similar amount of money is wired between two other users it the opposite direction. After a bit of accounting the net imbalance is computed (and often drawn via immediate clearing) but the bulk of the money actually never leaves any of the banks, it just is reassigned between each banks customers as per agreed books. There are also additional ways where companies decide to open accounts in each of the banks and provide some sort of immediate clearing backed by the operators cash reserves rather than the banks.. and so on.. How does it happen in Indonesia? I have no idea, but I think a good overview of how it happens around the world is a publication by a partner entity of ours; http://pymntsreportstore.com/products/global-wire-transfer-choices If you are really curious, I'd research under what legal form does Paypal Indonesia operate (it should be somewhere in the archives) and figure out what other wiring options are available.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d7ef398e41b7d6d15756c78d9ae1a431",
"text": "Generally there's no ultimate protection against charge backs. Some methods are easier to charge back and some harder, and there's always the resort of going to courts. The hardest to contest is, of course, a cash payment or wire transfer. You need to remember that imposing unnecessary/unreasonable difficulties on your customers will drive business away. I can buy diamonds in the nearest mall with my credit card - why would I buy from you if you want cash, BTC, or any other shady way to pay? I'm pretty sure that whatever that is you're selling, anyone can buy elsewhere as well.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa91763d3069df0a5cadff629dfd558f",
"text": "\"The second part of your question is the easiest to answer, how much manual work is involved in settlement processes? Payment systems which handle low value (i.e. high volume) transactions work on the basis of net settlement. Each of the individual payments are netted across all of the participant banks, so that only one \"\"real\"\" payment is made by each bank. Some days banks will receive money, others they will pay money. This is arbitrary and depends on whether their outbound payments exceed their inbound payments for that day. The payment system will notify each Bank how much it owes/will receive for the day. The money is then transferred between all of the banks simultaneously by the payment system to remove the risk that some pay and others don't. If you're going to make or receive a very large payment, you're going to want to make certain that its correct. This means that if there's a discrepancy, you need operations people available to find out why its wrong. When dealing with this many payments, answering that question can be hard. Did we miss a payment? Is there a duplicate? Etc. The vast majority of payments will process without any human involvement, but to make the process work, you always need human brains there to fix problems that occur. This brings me to your first question. On every day that settlement happens, a bank will receive (or pay) a very large sum of money. As a settlement bank you must settle that money - the guarantee that every bank will pay is one of the main reasons these systems exist. For settlement to happen, every bank has to agree to participate, and be ready to verify the data on their side and deliver the funds from their account. So there is no particular reason that this doesn't happen on weekends and holidays other than history. But for any payment system to change, it would require the support of (at least) a majority of participants to pay staff to manage the settlement process on weekends. This would increase costs for banks, but the benefits would only really be for you and me (if at all). That means it's unlikely to happen unless a government forces the issue.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "97a20b758d5b697cdf2e9de993eaf4b9",
"text": "\"There are Cyber Security and Reporting Standards which Financial Service Provider (Banks and Financial services where customers deposit and/or transact fiat currency) You can find a comprehensive list on Wikipedia under Cyber security standards Depending on the geographic location there might be local Govt requirements such as reporting issues, data security etc. Concerning point 1. We have to differ between a fraudulent customer and an attacker on the banks infrastructure. Fraudulent customers / customers that have been compromised by third parties are identified with but not limited to credit scores and merchant databases or data from firms specialized in \"\"Fraud Prevention\"\". Attackers (Criminals that intend to steal, manipulate or spy on data) are identified/prevented/recorded by but not limited to IDS solutions and attacker databases. For firms that get compensation by insurances the most important thing is the compilant with law and have records of everything, they rather focus on recording data to backtrack attackers than preventing attacks. Concerning point 2. For you as customer the local law and deposit insurance are the most important things. Banks are insured and usually compensate customers on money theft. The authentication and PIN / TAN methods are most crucial but standard - these authentication methods consist of one password and one offline part such as a TAN from a paperletter or a RSA generator or card reader. WRAPUP: Financial institutions have to comply with local law and meet international standards. Banks use highly advanced Intrusion detection and fraud prevention which logically must be based on databases. For the average joe customer there is seldom high risk to lose deposits even if the attackers gains full access to the bank account but this depends a lot on the country you reside in. Concerning targeted attacks:\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
28c50bb6ba850a7f49a70b8d81a502fd
|
Are there any statistics that support the need for Title Insurance?
|
[
{
"docid": "b67f2b35494713624f0203abd7192d20",
"text": "There seems to be no such information available. What is available is that number of claims are high and the Title Insurance companies have gone bankrupt as per the wikipedia article In 2003, according to ALTA, the industry paid out about $662 million in claims, about 4.3% percent of the $15.7 billion taken in as premiums. By comparison, the boiler insurance industry, which like title insurance requires an emphasis on inspections and risk analysis, pays 25% of its premiums in claims. However, no reference to the relationship between when claims are made and when policies are issued is found. As of 2008, the top three remaining title insurers all lost money, while LandAmerica went bankrupt and sold its title business to Fidelity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_insurance#Industry_profitability The amount of premium received and claim made can be got from some of the companies balance sheet. For Fidelity its at http://www.investor.fnf.com/releasedetail.cfm?CompID=FNT&ReleaseID=363350 The article in here mentions the claims ratio as 5%. Refer http://www.federaltitle.com/blog/title-insuance-qaa",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "87fa009194ec46688dcd92918388f273",
"text": "The point of title insurance is that when you buy a house, it is possible that you may eventually find out that the seller didn't actually own the property - either because they were trying to deceive you, or some transfer of ownership in the past wasn't carried out properly. If that happens you can find yourself with no house, and still owing the mortgager the purchase price. Hardly anybody can afford to take that kind of hit, which is why you need some form of protection against it. The traditional way of doing this was to get a lawyer to do a title search, in which they check that everything in order. However this costs tens of dollars at least to do the work for every sale, and hardly ever finds anything. Title Insurance is a company volunteering to take the hit for you if there turns out to be a problem, in return for a payment of less than the title search would cost. In essence they are saying that it's cheaper to take the risk than do the work. What are the statistics? This report seems to indicate that payout is around 5% of premium, but title insurance is a one-off premium and the payout can theoretically happen many years down the line. However it is almost certain that the insurance companies have done the math and believe that selling this insurance will be profitable for them, so they believe that payouts are going to be substantially less than 100%. Is title insurance worth it for you? If the payout is 5% of premiums, the in a purely statistical sense it is not worth it. You would on average gain more by not taking it. However that is true of almost all insurance. The policy is there to protect you in the unlikely but not impossible event where you would otherwise lose a huge amount of money. Unless you can afford to lose the value of your house, you need some form of protection. We've already seen that the only other form of protection is a title search, and they cost more. The other issue is that if you are taking a mortgage, your mortgager will absolutely insist that you have either a title search or title insurance. There is no other way - and title insurance is the cheaper of the two. In this case it is best to look on the title insurance as simply a cost of doing business. It's irrelevant whether it's worth it or not - you can't do the transaction without it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "36b4aa8281b6d0bed022cc321bfb03ee",
"text": "\"I'm really surprised at the answers here. Claims/year per region isn't a statistic that is meaningful here... you need to think about the risk factors and the purpose of the insurance. First, what does title insurance do? It protects you against defects in the deed -- defects that may crop up and mean that your mortgage is no longer valid. This is different from most forms of insurance -- the events that render your title invalid are events that may have happened years, decades or even centuries ago. A big part of the insurance policy and its cost is conducting research to assess the validity of a deed. The whole point of the insurance is to reduce claims by improving data associated with the \"\"chain of custody\"\" of the property. So how do you evaluate the risk of finding out about something that happened a long time ago, that nobody appears to know about? IMO, you have to think about risk factors that increase the probability that things were screwed up in the past: You need to have an informed discussion with your attorney and figure out if it makes sense for you. Don't dismiss it out of hand.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "06ff1a68b432456d3375a7be0a7c84fa",
"text": "When I bought the house I had my lawyer educate me about everything on the forms that seemed at all unclear, since this was my first time thru the process. On of the pieces of advice that he gave was that title insurance had almost no value in this state unless you had reason to believe the title might be defective but wanted to buy the property anyway. In fact I did get it anyway, as an impulse purchase -- but I'm fully aware that it was a bad bet. Especially since I had the savings to be able to self-insure, which is always the better answer if you can afford to risk the worst case scenario. Also: Ask the seller whether they bought title insurance. Often, it is transferrable at least once.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c531e72f8977fc24c624a99cc206fe5c",
"text": "On most of the consumer electronics it would not make much sense to get Insurance. Mostly these are not priced right [are typically priced higher]. IE there is no study to arrive at equivalent claim rates as in motor vehicle. Further on most of the items there is adequate manufacturing warranty to take care of initial defects. And on most it would make sense to buy a newer model as in todays world consumer electronics are not only getting cheaper by the day, but are also have more function & features.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e17ffc2a0f6e9a51037f2a78ea0f3f8a",
"text": "Title agencies perform several things: Research the title for defects. You may not know what you're looking at, unless you're a real-estate professional, but some titles have strings attached to them (like, conditions for resale, usage, changes, etc). Research title issues (like misrepresentation of ownership, misrepresentation of the actual property titled, misrepresentation of conditions). Again, not being a professional in the domain, you might not understand the text you're looking at. Research liens. Those are usually have to be recorded (i.e.: the title company won't necessarily find a lien if it wasn't recorded with the county). Cover your a$$. And the bank's. They provide title insurance that guarantees your money back if they missed something they were supposed to find. The title insurance is usually required for a mortgaged transaction. While I understand why you would think you can do it, most people cannot. Even if they think they can - they cannot. In many areas this research cannot be done online, for example in California - you have to go to the county recorder office to look things up (for legal reasons, in CA counties are not allowed to provide access to certain information without verification of who's accessing). It may be worth your while to pay someone to do it, even if you can do it yourself, because your time is more valuable. Also, keep in mind that while you may trust your abilities - your bank won't. So you may be able to do your own due diligence - but the bank needs to do its own. Specifically to Detroit - the city is bankrupt. Every $100K counts for them. I'm surprised they only charge $6 per search, but that is probably limited by the State law.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e042485852dc24651d7e8ebc3a6289e4",
"text": "\"Yes, a HELOC is great for that. I just had my roof done last month (~$15K, \"\"ugh\"\") and pretty much every major contractor in my area had a 0% same-as-cash for at least 12 months. So that helps - any balance that I don't bank by 11/15/2015 will be on the HELOC.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1837651d08056accb28bde3581e2eb92",
"text": "\"The two questions inherent in any decision to purchase an insurance plan is, \"\"how likely am I to need it?\"\", and \"\"what's the worst case scenario if I don't have it?\"\". The actuary that works for the insurance company is asking these same questions from the other end (with the second question thus being \"\"what would we be expected to have to pay out for a claim\"\"), using a lot of data about you and people like you to arrive at an answer. It really boils down to little more than a bet between you and the insurance company, and like any casino, the insurer has a house edge. The question is whether you think you'll beat that edge; if you're more likely than the insurer thinks you are to have to file a claim, then additional insurance is a good bet. So, the reasons you might decide against getting umbrella insurance include: Your everyday liability is low - Most people don't live in an environment where the \"\"normal\"\" insurance they carry won't pay for their occasional mistakes or acts of God. The scariest one for most is a car accident, but when you think of all the mistakes that have to be made by both sides in order for you to burn through the average policy's liability limits and still be ruined for life, you start feeling better. For instance, in Texas, minimum insurance coverage levels are 50/100/50; assuming neither party is hurt but the car is a total loss, your insurer will pay the fair market value of the car up to $50,000. That's a really nice car, to have a curbside value of 50 grand; remember that most cars take an initial hit of up to 25% of their sticker value and a first year depreciation of up to 50%. That 50 grand would cover an $80k Porsche 911 or top-end Lexus ES, and the owner of that car, in the U.S. at least, cannot sue to recover replacement value; his damages are only the fair market value of the car (plus medical, lost wages, etc, which are covered under your two personal injury liability buckets). If that's a problem, it's the other guy's job to buy his own supplemental insurance, such as gap insurance which covers the remaining payoff balance of a loan or lease above total loss value. Beyond that level, up into the supercars like the Bentleys, Ferraris, A-Ms, Rollses, Bugattis etc, the drivers of these cars know full well that they will never get the blue book value of the car from you or your insurer, and take steps to protect their investment. The guys who sell these cars also know this, and so they don't sell these cars outright; they require buyers to sign \"\"ownership contracts\"\", and one of the stipulations of such a contract is that the buyer must maintain a gold-plated insurance policy on the car. That's usually not the only stipulation; The total yearly cost to own a Bugatti Veyron, according to some estimates, is around $300,000, of which insurance is only 10%; the other 90% is obligatory routine maintenance including a $50,000 tire replacement every 10,000 miles, obligatory yearly detailing at $10k, fuel costs (that's a 16.4-liter engine under that hood; the car requires high-octane and only gets 3 mpg city, 8 highway), and secure parking and storage (the moguls in Lower Manhattan who own one of these could expect to pay almost as much just for the parking space as for the car, with a monthly service contract payment to boot). You don't have a lot to lose - You can't get blood from a turnip. Bankruptcy laws typically prevent creditors from taking things you need to live or do your job, including your home, your car, wardrobe, etc. For someone just starting out, that may be all you have. It could still be bad for you, but comparing that to, say, a small business owner with a net worth in the millions who's found liable for a slip and fall in his store, there's a lot more to be lost in the latter case, and in a hurry. For the same reason, litigious people and their legal representation look for deep pockets who can pay big sums quickly instead of $100 a month for the rest of their life, and so very few lawyers will target you as an individual unless you're the only one to blame (rare) or their client insists on making it personal. Most of your liability is already covered, one way or the other - When something happens to someone else in your home, your homeowner's policy includes a personal liability rider. The first two \"\"buckets\"\" of state-mandated auto liability insurance are for personal injury liability; the third is for property (car/house/signpost/mailbox). Health insurance covers your own emergency care, no matter who sent you to the ER, and life and AD&D insurance covers your own death or permanent disability no matter who caused it (depending on who's offering it; sometimes the AD&D rider is for your employer's benefit and only applies on the job). 99 times out of 100, people just want to be made whole when it's another Average Joe on the other side who caused them harm, and that's what \"\"normal\"\" insurance is designed to cover. It's fashionable to go after big business for big money when they do wrong (and big business knows this and spends a lot of money insuring against it), but when it's another little guy on the short end of the stick, rabidly pursuing them for everything they're worth is frowned on by society, and the lawyer virtually always walks away with the lion's share, so this strategy is self-defeating for those who choose it; no money and no friends. Now, if you are the deep pockets that people look for when they get out of the hospital, then a PLP or other supplemental liability insurance is definitely in order. You now think (as you should) that you're more likely to be sued for more than your normal insurance will cover, and even if the insurance company thinks the same as you and will only offer a rather expensive policy, it becomes a rather easy decision of \"\"lose a little every month\"\" or \"\"lose it all at once\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "393cfe7f63759aa40272e57c8141fe59",
"text": "\"The long and short of it is, the mortgage company has a significant interest in the resale value of the home in the event of a default. Imagine a scenario where you say to yourselves that you're not going to repair the deck just yet (\"\"meh, we'll do that next summer\"\") and something happens that causes a default on the mortgage. The resale value of the home may be harmed by the deck, even though you're willing to live with it. That being the case, the mortgage company has every right to insist that you carry out the repairs in order to maintain the property in salable condition, so the essence of it is, you don't have much choice but to do the repairs. Keep in mind too that the insurance company paid for the roof and the deck to be repaired. If they were to learn that you now have no intention of using the money to repair the property, you could end up in legal hot water with them. After all, you did accept the check for repairs that you're now not carrying out.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d811e4c8d28e6562ab2cec2b871a94d",
"text": "Note: This is what one of the people responsible for this process told me quite a few years ago, it might be different today. I work in insurance, but I don't follow this particular process too closely. New cars necessitate a judgment call, which usually involves a look at claims rates for similar (existing) cars, manufacturer-specific labour and parts costs, expected regional distribution (for example, a new BMW will probably sell better in Bavaria than in other areas, which has higher labour rates than most of the rest of the country, and will be categorised accordingly), and other factors, depending on the situation. These preliminary judgments are largely discarded when the new statistics are compiled, though, which is once a year. New insurance groups are published in early September and usually applied to insurance contracts on January 1st.",
"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": "13ee4ee6cbf862faced136bfe3156ba8",
"text": "\"Hi I'm the writer thanks for the read and the comment. With the statement you quoted, I'm trying to dispute the claim that \"\"people these days can't afford a house because they would have to pay their entire salary just to afford the mortgage,\"\" which I think is quite common in some circles. The data makes no statement as to whether home ownership is more affordable or not, but simply shows that those buying property are using around the same percentage of their income to pay for it, which the data clearly shows to be true. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N As it turns out, home ownership levels have remained within ~5% of their 1980 levels based on percentage of the total population. I think there is an major classification flaw when comparing only sales because a great deal of people inherit property with no sale ever being made.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "de5aca707980d49571f86a463301d315",
"text": "The bank doesn't have to do anything. It is your responsibility to provide the proof of insurance. It is the agent's job, which you through your HOA dues paid for, to provide that proof to you. You shouldn't be registering with icerts. They say so in the first sentence on the registration page: Unit Owners, Do Not Register Here! If you own an existing property, and have received a letter from your lender requiring an annual renewal/updated certificate for an association that has recently expired, please forward that letter to [email protected] to receive instructions to place your order. If your request is a new loan of any kind, please contact your lender and request that they either contact us to place this order, or register below. So you can try that route (sending an email to [email protected]), and see if it works. It does cost money, in the range of $20-$100 (I used a different similar service at the time and they charged $75 for this). If it doesn't, you can try and work with the insurance agent. There are some ways to persuade them: California has very strong traditions of consumer protections. In this case, I suggest checking out this site. Let the insurance agent know that as the HOA member - they're working for you, and that in the next HOA meeting you will raise a request to change the insurance agency. Also, remind the agent that the CA Insurance Commission will knock on their doors to ask why they don't provide you with the proof you need. If the HOA management company doesn't help you, you can remind them that they too can be fired. This can be done, and isn't even all that hard. There's a lot of competition in the HOA management market, and it wouldn't be too hard to find a new management company. The HOA management company should have provided you the proof of coverage when they renewed the policy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f7713a2682895376021524cd3c65e3cf",
"text": "When we got our mortgage in the state of Washington, in the United States, we had to get title insurance before our lender would loan the money. This ensures that the person selling us the house actually owns the title, clean and clear. If there are any surprises, the insurance covers us (or the lender, really).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc5200a551eb8da86019269ffc0be7db",
"text": "Here's a good rule of thumb. In any situation where you are required to purchase insurance (Auto Liability, Property Mortgage Insurance, etc.) you can safely assume that you aren't the primary beneficiary. You are being required to buy that insurance to protect someone else's investment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b7903f7bac6c4a5fce750be794314e88",
"text": "According to Money Girl, home insurance premiums are higher if you have a poor credit score. You might self-insure though if you are wealthy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e3f53666b7c9d00610348c62925ba16",
"text": "You are not asking for insurance purposes. So I'll go with this - I have two asset numbers I track. All investments, retirement accounts, etc, the kind that are valued at day's end by the market, etc. From that number I subtract the mortgage. This produces the number that I can say is my net worth with a paid in full house. The second number simply adds back the house's value, give or take. Unless I owned art that was valued in the six figures, it seems pointless to me to add it up, except for insurance. If my wife and I died tomorrow, the kid can certainly auction our stuff off, but knowing that number holds no interest for us. When most people talk 'net worth', I don't see them adding these things up. Cars, maybe, but not even that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e9971b7228c37ed52f6fedd32ba21e28",
"text": "If all you look at is the people that can afford houses, then you're just primarily looking at banking policies -- who they will make a loan to, and on what loan terms; which are fairly consistent over time. FRED's home ownership statistic is calculated as the number of households that are owned; it makes no distinction between a household with a college grad still living with their parents because they can't afford living on their own. Apartment leases aren't getting cheap either.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ce36cabdf10f05954d2cfe31dc253790",
"text": "Why do people take out life insurance on their children? They do so largely because it's being sold to them. The insurance companies generally push them on the basis that if you have to pay for a funeral and burial, the cost would devastate a family's finances. In some rare instances that might actually be true, but not generally. Should I take out a policy on my child? Generally no. When they sell you a policy they have to dance around a catch-22 - if you have enough money to afford the 'cheap' life insurance, then you have enough money to pay for a funeral and burial that's probably not going to happen. If you don't have enough money to pay those expenses in the rare case that a child does die, then you really can't afford the insurance, even if it's only 'pennies a day for peace of mind.' And why would schools send these home to parents, year-after-year? The schools are paid a commission. It is not much more than a fundraiser for them, just like school pictures. Am I missing something? Yes, in fact, you could be making money hand over fist if you were willing to prey on parental insecurities. Just set up a stand outside the hospital and get parents who are just about to deliver to sign up for your amazing insurance plan in case the tragic occurs.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
d2a83f600d6376e069066778242cc300
|
Is debt almost always the cause of crashes and recessions?
|
[
{
"docid": "c07159e245303172793305c3a1d8a2be",
"text": "While debt increases the likelihood and magnitude of a crash, speculation, excess supply and other market factors can result in crashes without requiring excessive debt. A popular counter example of crashes due to speculation is 16th century Dutch Tulip Mania. The dot com bubble is a more recent example of a speculative crash. There were debt related issues for some companies and the run ups in stock prices were increased by leveraged traders, but the actual crash was the result of failures of start up companies to produce profits. While all tech stocks fell together, sound companies with products and profits survive today. As for recessions, they are simply periods of time with decreased economic activity. Recessions can be caused by financial crashes, decreased demand following a war, or supply shocks like the oil crisis in the 1970's. In summary, debt is simply a magnifier. It can increase profits just as easily as can increase losses. The real problems with crashes and recessions are often related to unfounded faith in increasing value and unexpected changes in demand.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "645ffcd5f477c364552f62afc998402d",
"text": "\"The statement can be true, but isn't a general rule. Crashes and recessions are two different things. A crash is when the market rapidly revalues something when prices are out of equilibrium, whether it be stocks, a commodity or even a service. When the internet was new, nobody knew how to design webpages, so web page designers were in huge demand and commanded insane price premiums. I literally had college classmates billing real companies $200+/hr for marginal web skills. Eventually, the market \"\"clued up\"\" and that industry collapsed overnight. Another example of a crash from the supply point of view was the discovery of silver in the western US during the 19th century -- these discoveries increased the supply of the commodity to the point that silver coin eroded in value and devastated small family farms, who mostly dealt in silver currency. Recessions are often linked to crashes, but you don't need a crash to have a recession. Basically, during a recession, trade and industrial activity drop. The economy operates in cycles, and the euphoria and over-optimistic projections of a growing or booming economy lead to periods of reduced growth where the economy essentially reorganizes itself. Capital is a (if not the) key element of the economic cycle -- it's a catalyst that makes things happen. Debt is one form of capital -- it's not good, not bad. Generally cheap capital (ie. low interest rates) bring economic growth. Why? If I can borrow at 4%, I can then perform some sort of economic activity (bake bread, make computers, assemble cars, etc) that will earn myself 6, 8 or 10% on the dollar. When interest rates go up, economic activity slows, because the higher cost of credit increases the risk of losing money on an investment. The downside of cheap capital is that risk taking gets too easy and you can run into situations like the $2M ranch houses in California. The downside of expensive/tight capital is that it gets harder for businesses to operate and economic activity slows down. The effects of either extreme cascade and snowball.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7fa4236619f0c3895073c76edb5eb278",
"text": "The root cause can be said to always be a crisis in confidence. It may be due to a very real event. However, confidence is what pushes the markets up and worries are what bring them down.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e35a68f6566711783b486d9bc1f8496e",
"text": "A lack of trust in the regulator can also stop everyone trading. If you don’t believe the bank notes you are getting paid with are real, why do any work?",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "41ffb7be0749b4171352551b6bcd46bc",
"text": "\"There was a time when government policy was actually pretty damn smart. There were a range of \"\"automatic stabilizers\"\" that kicked in when there was a recession and they had a fast and large impact. It wasn't until Reagan that we started to chip away at those as well as go into a perpetual debt stimulus posture. These two actions helped to prime the system for an inevitable \"\"large\"\" shock. Even now, after one of the longest expansions in history we're STILL running a substantial deficit. And as such the appetite to expand it when the next recession hits will be diminished (as it was during the great recession when we really needed 3 trillion in stimulus spending and got less than 1).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d4595c4e33035d108c772b10d26fa5b",
"text": "It depends on why the stocks crashed. If this happened because interest rates shot up, bonds will suffer also. On the other hand, stocks could be crashing because economic growth (and hence earnings) are disappointing. This pulls down interest rates and lifts bonds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b8f6e63d5633a6b93d55ac418d50aa71",
"text": "Typically the debt is held by individuals, corporations and investment funds, not by other countries. In cases where substantial amounts are held by other countries, those countries are typically not in debt themselves (e.g. China has huge holdings of US Treasuries). If the debts were all cancelled, then the holders of the debt (as listed above) would lose out badly and the knock-on effects on the economy would be substantial. Also, governments that default tend to find it harder to borrow money again in the future.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "312d9c813916aa05b71e3fdeac51bd57",
"text": "\"Yes. Bonds perform very well in a recession. In fact the safer the bond, the better it would do in a recession. Think of markets having four seasons: High growth and low inflation - \"\"growing economy\"\" High growth and high inflation - \"\"overheating economy\"\" Low growth and high inflation - \"\"stagflation\"\" Low growth and low inflation - \"\"recession\"\" Bonds are the best investment in a recession. qplum's flagship strategy had a very high allocation to bonds in the financial crisis. That's why in backtest it shows much better returns.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a53203e93e54c64b01441646a3c92d95",
"text": "\"None of the previous answers (which are all good) mention margin accounts (loans from your broker). You may also have heard them described as \"\"leverage\"\". It may seem odd to mention this rather narrow form of debt here, but it's important because overuse of leverage has played a large part in pretty much every financial crisis you can think of (including the most recent one). As the Investopedia definitions indicate, leverage magnifies gains, but also magnifies losses. I consider margin/leverage to be \"\"bad\"\" debt.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e82dc8fadcfa9887733a3d37adfb011",
"text": "Incredible article, tons of data. Thank you! It does answer the above posters question if you're willing to read through. It provides data with and without 'revolving debt'. Side note; interesting to see how age and income trend. Debt increasing during the family-middle aged years, and during the peak income earning years. I'd say you want these credit card debt lower overall and on average; but with the distribution it may be sustainable.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f66a841d1b8220b8ac3b9817ba46358",
"text": "Isn't it clear to everyone that something that isn't measured by economists yet is going horribly wrong in the US since they started with the debt bing? I know so many people with no savings whatsoever and just hanging on.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e50170e3079427d32863a48ed4f6907",
"text": "I was being sarcastic. Student loan crash is a major circle jerk in some Financial subs If anything, it's more likely to manifest itself as OP described. Economic growth is going to be lower is a substantial portion of the populus is servicing debt than consuming goods.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dfaeffe85aafea3a5e7818563474d004",
"text": "Since 2008, when it all came crashing down, I read a variety of solid data sources that said this asset bubble and mortgage/HELOCs were going to reset (blow up) in slow motion for years, maybe decades. Nothing changed from that time. This has been happening for hundreds of years from what I understand now.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc36975d7683f568850949230c160c80",
"text": "By the phrasing of your question it seems that you are under the mistaken impression that countries are borrowing money from other countries, in which case it would make sense to question how everyone can be a borrower with no one on the other side of the equation. The short answer is that the debt is owed mostly to individuals and institutions that buy debt instruments. For example, you know those US savings bonds that parents are buying to save for their children's education? Well a bond is just a way to loan money to the Government in exchange for the original money plus some interest back later. It is as simple as that. I think because the debt and the deficit are usually discussed in the context of more complex macroeconomic concerns people often mistakenly assume that national debts are denominated in some shadow banking system that is hidden from the common person behind some red-tape covered bureaucracy. This is not the case here. Why did they get themselves into this much debt? The same reason the average person does, they are spending more than they bring in and are enabled by access to easy credit. Like many people they are also paying off one credit card using another one.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d366215b375cef0820dc85e6d867f191",
"text": "I agree that the cause of the crash can make a huge difference in the effect on the bond market. Here's a few other possibilities: All that to say that there's no definitive answer as to how the bond market will respond to an equity crash. Bonds are much more highly correlated to equities lately, but that could be due to much lower interest rates pushing more of the risk of bonds to the credit worthiness of the issuer, increasing correlation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "49298734e5683df12355c7dbccf30bb4",
"text": "\"The default scenario that we're talking about in the Summer of 2011 is a discretionary situation where the government refuses to borrow money over a certain level and thus becomes insolvent. That's an important distinction, because the US has the best credit in the world and still carries enormous borrowing power -- so much so that the massive increases in borrowing over the last decade of war and malaise have not affected the nation's ability to borrow additional money. From a personal finance point of view, my guess is that after the \"\"drop dead date\"\" disclosed by the Treasury, you'd have a period of chaos and increasing liquidity issues after government runs out of gimmicks like \"\"borrowing\"\" from various internal accounts and \"\"selling\"\" assets to government authorities. I don't think the markets believe that the Democrats and Republicans are really willing to destroy the country. If they are, the market doesn't like surprises.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bbbf2a6b23742336462b8913f03a364a",
"text": "\"Your argument is biased vastly in favor of the banks: Doesn't the simultaneous growth of the residential and commercial real estate pricing bubbles undermines the case made by yourself that Fannie and Freddie were at the root of the problem? Why does your explanation also leave out predatory lending? Or that during 2006, 22% of homes purchased (1.65 million units) were for investment purposes, with an additional 14% (1.07 million units) purchased as vacation homes. During 2005, these figures were 28% and 12%, respectively. In other words, a record level of nearly 40% of homes purchased were not intended as primary residences. Or that housing prices nearly doubled between 2000 and 2006, a vastly different trend from the historical appreciation at roughly the rate of inflation. Or that the proportion of subprime ARM loans made to people with credit scores high enough to qualify for conventional mortgages with better terms increased from 41% in 2000 to 61% by 2006. From wikipedia: So why did lending standards decline? In a Peabody Award winning program, NPR correspondents argued that a \"\"Giant Pool of Money\"\" (represented by $70 trillion in worldwide fixed income investments) sought higher yields than those offered by U.S. Treasury bonds early in the decade. Further, this pool of money had roughly doubled in size from 2000 to 2007, yet the supply of relatively safe, income generating investments had not grown as fast. Investment banks on Wall Street answered this demand with financial innovation such as the mortgage-backed security (MBS) and collateralized debt obligation (CDO), which were assigned safe ratings by the credit rating agencies. In effect, Wall Street connected this pool of money to the mortgage market in the U.S., with enormous fees accruing to those throughout the mortgage supply chain, from the mortgage broker selling the loans, to small banks that funded the brokers, to the giant investment banks behind them. By approximately 2003, the supply of mortgages originated at traditional lending standards had been exhausted. However, continued strong demand for MBS and CDO began to drive down lending standards, as long as mortgages could still be sold along the supply chain. Eventually, this speculative bubble proved unsustainable.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e06513ea6682d175b2be99e6ede27c69",
"text": "The short answer is if you own a representative index of global bonds (say AGG) and global stocks (say ACWI) the bonds will generally only suffer minimally in even the medium large market crashes you describe. However, there are some caveats. Not all bonds will tend to react the same way. Bonds that are considered higher-yield (say BBB rated and below) tend to drop significantly in stock market crashes though not as much as stock markets themselves. Emerging market bonds can drop even more as weaker foreign currencies can drop in global crashes as well. Also, if a local market crash is caused by rampant inflation as in the US during the 70s-80s, bonds can crash at the same time as markets. There hasn't been a global crash caused by inflation after countries left the gold standard, but that doesn't mean it can't happen. Still, I don't mean to scare you away from adding bond exposure to a stock portfolio as bonds tend to have low correlations with stocks and significant returns. Just be aware that these correlations can change over time (sometimes quickly) and depend on which stocks/bonds you invest in.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d2b6fbe48101ebb881deb9bc368cca2",
"text": "Inflation is bad for people with lots of cash assets. It's good for debtors, particularly debtors with unsecured debt.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
3fedc92faba0d0eafd6f49b387f11d99
|
How should I go about creating an estate plan?
|
[
{
"docid": "4cb78ac6a605733c56f114b6fa4c3ec8",
"text": "\"Yes, an estate plan can be very important. Estate planning - typically attempts to eliminate uncertainties over the administration of a probate and maximize the value of the estate by reducing taxes and other expenses. Guardians are often designated for minor children and beneficiaries in incapacity. In general, your \"\"estate\"\" includes all of your assets, less all debt, plus death benefits from all life insurance policies not held in an irrevocable trust. The biggest reason to have an estate plan is to make sure that your personal values about both medical and personal finance financial matters are honored in the event that death or incapacity prevents you from acting for yourself. In addition, tax minimization is a further and very important goal of estate planning for persons with taxable estates. To create an estate plan for yourself or update an existing plan, you will most likely need the services of an estate planning attorney. When you consult with an estate planning attorney, the attorney considers how you want assets distributed to heirs, what taxes might your estate be liable for and whether there are tax-minimization strategies that would be appropriate and appealing; what your preferences and values are with respect to the management of medical and financial affairs in the event of incapacity; and any complicating family issues. To deal with these issues, your attorney will need full and accurate information about you, including: When an estate plan is created, be sure you understand what the attorney is saying. Estate planning ideas can be confusing. It is also appropriate and expected for you to ask about the attorney's fee for any legal service. Some articles and resources: Get ahead of your estate planning Estate Planning by CBA\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "57287b1883e7c6b41e47eb1e7699abab",
"text": "What happens to a minor if the parents are missing, or incapacitated, or deceased should be planned now, and not end up a matter for the courts to decide. You might need to sit down with a family lawyer as well as a fee based financial planner, to make sure you have addressed all the relevant details. These details would include where they would live, money, and what the money should be used for.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e15a5b72f9e1e52242505a6f3cc09a2c",
"text": "I'll start by saying that if this is being explored to scratch a specific itch you have then great, if this was a cold call it's probably safe to ignore it. Certain whole life products (they vary in quality by carrier) can make sense for very high earners who are looking for additional tax preferred places to store money. So after you IRA, 401(k), etc options are maxed out but you still have income you'd like to hide from taxes whole life can be a potential vehicle because gains and death benefit are generally exempt from income taxes. Be on the look out for loads charged to your money as it comes in to the policy. Life insurance in general is meant to keep your dependents going without having to sell off assets in the event of your death. People may plan for things like school tuition, mortgage/property tax for your spouse. If you own a business with a couple of partners it's somewhat common for the partners to buy policies on each other to buyout a spouse to avoid potential operating conflicts. Sometimes there can be estate planning issues, if you're looking to transfer assets when you ultimately pass it can make sense to form a trust and load cash in to a whole life policy because death benefits can be shielded from income tax and the estate tax calculation; the current estate tax exemption is about $5.5 million today (judging from your numbers you might actually be close to that including the net value of the homes). Obviously, though, the tax rules are subject to change and you need to be deliberate in your formation of the trust in order to effectively navigate estate tax issues. You seem to have a very solid financial position from this perspective it looks like your spouse would be in good shape. If you are specifically attempting to manage potential estate tax liability you should probably involve an financial planner with experience forming and managing trusts; and you should be very involved with the process because it will absolutely make your finances more complicated.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "15403ed7ab7fbb0b95f83fa531977291",
"text": "I've done this, but on the other side. I purchased a commercial property from someone I had a previous relationship with. A traditional bank wouldn't loan me the money, but the owner was willing to finance it. All of the payments went through a professional escrow company. In our case it was a company called Westar, but I'm sure there are plenty out here. They basically serve as the middle-man, for a fee (something like $5 a payment, plus something to set it up). They have the terms of the loan, and keep track of balances, can handle extra principle payments and what that does to the term of the loan, etc. You want to have a typical mortgage note that is recorded with the local clerk's office. If you look around, you should be able to find a real estate lawyer who can set all this up for you. It will cost you a bit up front, but it is worth it to do this right. As far as taxes, my understanding is that the property itself is taxed the same as any other property transfer. You would owe taxes on the difference between the value of the property when you inherited it and when you sold it. The interest you get from the loan would be taxed as regular income. The escrow company should send you tax forms every year listing the amount of interest that you received. There are also deductions you can take for expenses in the process.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6fe166820882e28b4e16839301760103",
"text": "You can buy DIY will kits from office supply shopes like Staples or specialized publishers like Nolo or Quicken. The most important factor for you to consider will be the witness rules in your state to ensure the validity of your will later. Nolo has a lot of good information in this regard. Hopefully this is helpful :)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1112b5f5bd959c156ff76598295e31ec",
"text": "Debt will ruin any plans. I guess that the interest on the credit cards is about $450 a month or about $5,500 per year and the school loans is about $6,000 a year. Get a an Excel spread sheet going and start tracking your expensed. Learn to make a amortization spread sheet for all debts, and any future debts that you are thinking about. If you want a family soon plan on one income for a period of time. If you buy a house plan on paying it off while you are working. Then the house payment becomes spendable money during retirement. A cheaper house can be upgraded in the right neighborhood with an excellent appreciation in value. Money put into excellent collectibles and kept for 20 years or more is private and off the radar income no taxes when sold. STUDY STUDY LEARN LEARN",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9083d2926ec17fd096fa7a82cf7bebac",
"text": "Keep a list of your accounts, banks, life insurance policies, location of your will, etc, and make sure two people you trust know where you keep that list. Review and update the list at least once a year. This way if something happens to you, your next of kin will have an easier time locating your financial details and final wishes. And having a list also means you won't forget about any of your accounts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9105dcc20943be4843f28a0b20417d63",
"text": "You really should consider sitting down with an independent financial advisor to run the numbers for the various options and discuss what risks you're comfortable with and what your requirements/goals are. This isn't a simple decision, unfortunately. Advice I've seen suggested that some portion of the money should stay in the market, earning market rate of return. Exactly how much, and invested in what, is complicated. An annuity is essentially an insurance policy. The company assumes the risks and promises you specific payments in exchange for keeping the money. They wouldn't do so if they didn't think that on average they'll pay out less than the combination of your purchase price plus earnings, so you really are paying a fee for this service. Whether it's worth that cost -- and for how much of your money -- depends on how much you have saved and how risk-tolerant you are. I'm going to steal a moment here to point out that many charities offer annuities. These may or may not pay out less than commercial annuities, but the profits go to a better cause either way. If you plan to leave part of your estate as donation to a charity anyway, this basically lets them have the money earlier while you continue to receive income from it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c02e759961fc1045b5c3846be9ea8436",
"text": "The process would look something like: 1. Register your investment company with the SEC 2. Get the ETF approved by the SEC 3. Get a custodian bank (likely requires min assets of a few million) 4. Get listed on an exchange like NYSEARCA by meeting requirements and have an IPO 1 and 2 probably require a lot of time and fees and would be wise to have a lawyer advising, 3 is obviously difficult due to asset requirements and 4 would probably involve an investment bank plus more fees",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d822c5af2aa236f2611b473d8506e45",
"text": "You will want to focus on how much is needed for retirement, and what types of investments within the current 401K offerings will get you there. Also will need to discuss non-401K investments such as an IRA, college savings, savings for a house, and an emergency fund. The 401K should be a part of your overall financial picture, how much you invest in the 401K depends on the options you have (Roth 401K available), how much matching (some a little or a lot), and your family plans. You have a few choices: Your company through the 401K provider may provide this service. They may have limited knowledge in what non-401K funds you should invest in, but should be able to discuss types of investment. Fee only planner. They will be able to discus types of investments, and give you some suggestions. Because they don't work on a commission they will not make the investment for you. You need to be able to make the actual selection of investments, so make sure you get criteria to focus on as part of the package. Commission based planner. Will make money off your investment choices. May steer you towards investments that their company offers or ones that offer them the best commissions in that investment type. If the 401K doesn't use funds that the planner can research you will need to provide a copy of the prospectus provided by the 401K. My suggestion is the fee only planner. They balance the limited focus of the 401K company without limiting themselves to the funds their company sells. Before sitting down with the planner get in writing how they fee structure works. A flat fee or hourly fee planner will be expecting you to do all the investment work. This is what you want. Let the fee only planner help you define your plan. But also reanalyze the plan every few years as your needs change.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "da495692088232caf4109462278745e8",
"text": "\"This is not intended as legal advice, and only covers general knowledge I have on the subject of wills as a result of handling my own finances. Each state of the USA has its own laws on wills and trusts. You can find these online. For example, in Kentucky I found state laws here: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/krs/titles.htm and Title XXXIV is about wills and trusts. I would recommend reading this, and then talking to a lawyer if it is not crystal clear. Generally, if a lawyer does not draft your will, then either (1) you have no will, or (2) you use a form or computer program to make a will, that must then be properly witnessed before it is valid. If you don't have it witnessed properly, then you have no will. In some states you can have a holographic will, which means a will in your own handwriting. That's when you have that 3am heart attack, and you get out a pad of paper and write \"\"I rescind all former wills hereby bequeathing everything to my mistress Samantha, and as to the rest of you go rot in hell. \"\" One issue with these is that they have to get to court somehow, and someone has to verify the handwriting, and there are often state laws about excluding a current spouse, so you can guess for yourself whether that one might disappear in the fireplace when another family member finds it next to the body or if a court would give it validity. And there can be logic or grammar problems with do it yourself wills, made in your own handwriting, without experience or good references on how to write things out. Lawyers who have done a bunch of these know what is clear and makes sense. (1) In Tennessee, where I live, an intestate's property, someone who died with no will, is divided according to the law. The law looks to find a spouse or relatives to divide the property, before considering giving it to the state. That might be fine for some people. It happened once in my family, and was resolved in court with minimal red tape. But it really depends on the person. Someone in the middle of an unfinalized divorce, for instance, probably needs a will help to sort out who gets what. (2) A form will is valid in Tennessee if it is witnessed properly. That means two witnesses, who sign in yours' and each others' presence. In theory they can be called to testify that the signature is valid. In practice, I don't know if this happens as I am not a lawyer. I have found it difficult to find witnesses who will sign a form will, and it is disconcerting to have to ask friends or coworkers for this sort of favor as most people learn never to sign anything without reading it. But a lawyer often has secretaries that do it... There is a procedure and a treaty for international wills, which I know about from living overseas. To streamline things, you can get the witnesses to each sign an affidavit after they signed the will. The affidavit is sworn written testimony of what happened, that they saw the person sign their will and sign in each others' presence, when, where, no duress, etc. If done correctly, this can be sufficient to prove the will without calling on witnesses. There is another option (3) you arrange your affairs so that most of your funds are disbursed by banks or brokers holding your accounts. Option (3) is really cheap, most stock brokers and banks will create a Transfer-On-Death notice on your account for free. The problem with this is that you also need to write out a letter that explains to your heirs how to get this money, and you need to make sure that they will get the letter if you are dead. Also, you can't deal with physical goods or appoint a guardian for children this way. The advantage of a lawyer is that you know the document is correct and according to local law and custom, and also the lawyer might provide additional services like storing the will in his safe. You can get personalized help that you can not get with a form or computer program.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "92812525244dd89b668832ef75619a77",
"text": "I second all of this. It’s worth noting that not all estates require wealth advice. Unless it’s in the millions of dollars and you have no prior experience, I wouldn’t waste time with wealth advisors. ML is a broker dealer, not a fiduciary.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a8abcd8bc5d619cea08ed565859364f6",
"text": "\"Former financial analyst here, happy to help you. First off, you are right to not be entirely trusting of advisors and attorneys. They are usually trustworthy, but not always. And when you are new to this, the untrustworthy ones have a habit of reaching you first - you're their target market. I'll give you a little breakdown of how to plan, and a starting investment. First, figure out your future expenses. A LOT of that money may go to medical bills or associated care - don't forget the costs of modifications and customizations to items so you can have a better quality of life. Cars can be retrofit to assist you with a wheelchair, you can build a chair lift into a staircase, things like that which will be important for mobility - all depending on the lingering medical conditions. Mobility and independence will be critically important for you. Your past expenses are the best predictor of future expenses, so filter out the one-time legal and medical costs and use those to predict. Second, for investing there is a simple route to get into the stock market, and hopefully you will hear it a lot: Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs). You'll hear \"\"The S&P 500 increased by 80 points today...\"\" on the news; the S&P is a combination of 500 different stocks and is used to gauge the market overall. You can buy an exchange traded fund as a stock, and it's an investment in all those components. There's an ETF for almost anything, but the most popular ones are for those big indexes. I would suggest putting a few hundred thousand into an S&P 500 indexed ETF (do it at maybe $10,000 per month, so you spread the money out and ensure you don't buy at a market peak), and then let it sit there for many years. You can buy stocks through online brokerages like Scottrade or ETrade, and they make it fairly easy - they even have local offices that you can visit for help. Stocks are the easiest way to invest. Once you've done this, you can also open a IRA (a type of retirement account with special tax benefits) and contribute several thousand dollars to it per year. I'll be happy to give more advice if/when you need it, but there are a number of good books for beginning investors that can explain it better than I. I would suggest that you avoid real estate, especially if you expect to move overseas, as it is significantly more complicated and has maintenance costs and taxes.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d64fccb218aa1e292f71b6e3c843f606",
"text": "\"Debts do not inherit to the children. You are absolutely not liable for your parent's debt, in any way whatsoever. ** Collection agents will lie about this; tricking you is their job, and your job is to tell them Heck no, do I look like an idiot? When a person dies, all their personal assets (and debts) go to a fictitious entity called the Estate. This is a holder for the person's assets until they can be dispositioned finally. The estate is managed by a living person, sometimes a company (law firm), called an Executor. Similar to a corporation which is shutting down business, the Executor's job is to act on behalf of the Estate, and in the Estate's best interest (not his own). For instance he can't decide, in his capacity as executor, to give all the estate's money to himself. He has to loyally and selflessly follow state law and any living-trust or wills that may be in place. This role is not for everyone. You can't just decide \"\"la la la, I'm going to live in their house now\"\", that is squatting. The house is an asset and someone inherited that, as dictated by will, trust or state law. That has to be worked out legally. Once they inherit the house, you have to negotiate with them about living there. If you want to live there now, negotiate to rent the house from the estate. This is an efficient way to funnel money into the estate for what I discuss later.** The Estate has assets, and it has debts. Some debts extinguish on the death of the natural person, e.g. student loans, depending on the contract and state law. Did you know corporations are considered a \"\"person\"\"? (that's what Citizens United was all about.) So are estates - both are fictitious persons. The executor can act like a person in that sense. If you have unsecured debt, how can a creditor motivate you to pay? They can annoy and harass you. They can burn your credit rating. Or they can sue you and try to take your assets - but suing is also expensive for them. This is not widely understood, but anyone at any time can go to their creditors and say \"\"Hey creditor, I'm not gonna pay you $10,000. Tough buffaloes. You can sue me, good luck with that. Or, I'll make you a deal. I'll offer you $2000 to settle this debt. What say you? And you'll get one of two answers. Either \"\"OK\"\" or \"\"Nice try, let's try $7000.\"\" If the latter, you start into the cycle of haggling, \"\"3000.\"\" \"\"6000.\"\" \"\"4000.\"\" \"\"5000. \"\"Split the difference, $4500.\"\" \"\"OK.\"\" This is always a one-time, lump sum, one-shot payoff, never partial payments. Creditors will try to convince you to make partial payments. Don't do it. Anyone can do that at any time. Why don't living people do this every day? How about an Estate? Estates are fictitious persons, they don't have a \"\"morality\"\", they have a fiduciary duty. Do they plan on borrowing any more money? Nope. Their credit rating is already 0. They owe no loyalty to USBank. Actually, the executor's fiduciary duty is to get the most possible money for the assets, and settle the debts for the least. So I argue it's unethical to fail to haggle down this debt. If an executor is \"\"not a haggler\"\" or has a moral issue with shortchanging creditors, he is shortchanging the heirs, and he can be sued for that personally - because he has a fiduciary duty to the heirs, not Chase Bank. Like I say, the job is not for everyone. The estate should also make sure to check the paperwork for any other way to escape the debt: does it extinguish on death? Is the debt time-barred? Can they really prove it's valid? Etc. It's not personal, it's business. The estate should not make monthly payments (no credit rating to protect) and should not pay one dime to a creditor except for a one-shot final settlement. Is it secured debt? Let them take the asset. (unless an heir really wants it). When a person dies with a lot of unsecured debt, it's often the case that they don't have a lot of cash lying around. The estate must sell off assets to raise the cash to settle with the creditors. Now here's where things get ugly with the house. ** The estate should try to raise money any other way, but it may have to sell the house to pay the creditors. For the people who would otherwise inherit the house, it may be in their best interest to pay off that debt. Check with lawyers in your area, but it may also be possible for the estate to take a mortgage on the house, use the mortgage cash to pay off the estate's debts (still haggle!), and then bequeath the house-and-mortgage to the heirs. The mortgage lender would have to be on-board with all of this. Then, the heirs would owe the mortgage. Good chance it would be a small mortgage on a big equity, e.g. a $20,000 mortgage on a $100,000 house. Banks love those.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e1e527e43b03ce3729675479ed7ba0b",
"text": "Hire a lawyer familiar with transactional law and they will have a examples in house. Any debt that large will have nuances that Google or Reddit can't help you with. A term sheet is a term sheet but you will want it to be substantial and air tight.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5474673d5aa76b4f48ff13ccc540e477",
"text": "\"Is option trading permitted in the account? Most 401(k) do not permit this. 1 - it means none traded today. 2 - there are 50 outstanding contracts. Each one has a guy who is long and a guy who is short. 3 - not really, it might depend on the stock. 4 - no. With commissions so low, and the inherent leverage of options, one contract reflecting 100 shares of the underlying stock, the minimum is what you can sleep soundly with. 5 - because GLD does not reflect precisely 1/10 oz of gold's price. If you look at the prospectus, it reads \"\"The investment objective of the Trust is for the Shares to reflect the performance of the price of gold bullion, less the Trust’s expenses.\"\" Since there are no dividends to take expenses from, the GLD price will erode by .4% each year compared to the price of 1/10oz gold.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
e31d55ed04a67c7307a02dc93d9639c5
|
Credit balance on new credit card
|
[
{
"docid": "794789e2f0d5bff964cb0e03e8c4bdd6",
"text": "Things are generally fine. A credit balance is not a horrible thing. The argument against maintaining a credit balance is that you are essentially loaning the credit card issuer money at 0% interest. You probably have alternative investments that would pay better interest, so it's usually better to park your money there. All that said, it's unlikely that the interest on whatever balance you have is enough to be more than pennies. The way that a credit card works, you run up a balance in one period. Then there is a grace period. If you don't pay off the balance during the grace period, they start charging you interest. You also may have a minimum payment to make. If you don't make that payment, they'll charge you a late fee. The typical period to rack up charges is from the first to the last day of a month. The typical grace period is through the 20th or 25th of the next month. Your card may be different. So check the documentation (user agreement) for your card if you want the real data. It sounds like you paid off some purchases while you were still in the period where you rack up charges. While those purchases were posted to the account, they may not be counted in the balance calculation. If your credit balance exactly matches the payment you made, that's probably what happened. It's also possible that you overpaid the balance. If your credit balance is just a small amount, that's probably what happened. If you really want to be sure, you should call the credit card issuer and ask them. At best we can tell you how it normally works. Since this is your first month, you could just wait for your first bill and respond to that. So long as you pay off the entire balance shown there by the deadline, everything should be fine. Don't wait until the last day to pay. It's usually best to pay a week or so early so as to leave time for the mail to deliver the check and for them to process it. You can wait longer for an online payment, but a few business days early to give you a chance to handle potential problems is still good.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "650ff90eec2c01666fff58abf0adbe90",
"text": "A Credit Balance means that you overpayed. That's nothing to worry about; it will just be used up by your next charges. Note that this can have two reasons - either you really paid too much; or you paid off a charge that is still 'pending' - meaning it has not yet posted and is not considered in the amount you owe: Most charges in restaurants for example are pending for a day or more, because the original charge is your bill without tip (they don't know the tip when the run the card!), and the merchant spends his weekends or evenings to type in the final amount (including tip) and post the pending charge. If this is the case, it will settle ('get posted') in a day or two, and then it will match up.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "06778210831f372d53d90de5ea017bc6",
"text": "\"If you find a credit card with 0% interest, let us know! I guess I'll just be the one to tell you that this belongs in /r/personalfinance No, a new credit card balance won't affect your existing mortgage. However opening that mortgage so recently definitely dinged your credit substantially and it almost definitely hasn't recovered yet so your credit score isn't as good as you think it is from the home purchase. If you can magically finance $4k for 0% APR then obviously you should do that since you're house poor but be absolutely sure you're right about the terms of financing. I normally make purchases like that on a rewards credit card (airline miles) then pay it off immediately but that's just me. Using the word \"\"adulting\"\" answers that question immediately.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b24927fef77052655e106ffadd076973",
"text": "The balance is the amount due.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ea6705d66b1d82c46a23d71d6c73fe2f",
"text": "If you don't carry a balance, there is no disadvantage. Merchants pay less for their in-house credit, so there are often incentives for you to use the store card. The perils of opening a credit card hurting your credit score are way overblown in general, if you have good to excellent credit. If you have excellent credit, there is no material effect on your ability to borrow. You'll get knocked down a few points when you open the card, but as long as you're not on a credit application frenzy there isn't an issue.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3852438eadf70d4f64b7605211bd9ba7",
"text": "\"Stop spending on the CC with the revolving balance. After the discussion below I feel I should clarify that what I am advocating is that you make your \"\"prepayment\"\" (though I disagree with calling it that) to the existing CC. Then, rather than spending on that card, spend somewhere else so you won't accrue any interest related to your spending. At the end of the month, send any excess to the account that has a balance. This question is no different than I have $X of cash, should I let it sit in a savings account or should I send it to my CC balance? Yes, 100%, you should send this $750 to your CC balance. Then, stop spending on that CC and move your daily spending to cash or some other place that won't accrue interest at all. The first step to paying off debt is to stop adding to the balance that accrues interest. It's not worth the energy to determine the change in the velocity of paydown by paying more frequently when you could simply spend on a separate card that doesn't accrue any interest because you pay the entire balance every month. The reason something like this may be advisable on a HELOC but not a CC is the interest rate. A HELOC might run you 4% or 5% while your CC is probably closer to 17%. In one situation your monthly interest is 0.4% and in the other your monthly interest is 1.4%. The velocity of interest accrual at CC rates is just too high to justify ever putting regular spending on top of an existing revolving balance. Additionally, I doubt there is anyone who is advocating for anyone to charge their HELOC for daily spending. You would move daily spending to somewhere that isn't accruing interest no matter what. You would use a HELOC to pay down your CC debt in a lump or make a large purchase in a lump. Your morning coffee should never be spent in a way that will accrue interest immediately, ever. Stop spending on the CC(s) that are carrying a balance. (period) Generally credit cards have a grace period before interest is charged. As long as a balance isn't carried from one statement period to the next you maintain your grace period. If you spend $100 in the first month you have your card, say the period is January 1 to January 31, you'll get a statement saying you owe $100 for January and payment is due by Feb 28. If you pay your $100 statement balance before February 28 you won't pay any interest, even if you charged an additional $500 on February 15; you'll simply get your February statement indicating your statement balance is $500 and payment is due by March 31, still no interest. BUT. If you pay $99 for January, leaving just a single dollar to roll over, you now owe interest on your entire average daily balance. So now you'll receive your February statement indicating $501 + interest on approximately $233.14 of average daily balance ($1 carried + $500 charged on Feb 15) due by March 31. That $1 you let roll over just cost you $3.26 in interest ($233.14 * 0.014). AND. Now that balance is continuing to accrue interest in the month of March until the day you make a payment. It typically takes two consecutive months of payment-in-full before the grace period is restored. There is no sense in continuing to spend on a CC that is carrying a balance and accruing interest even if you intend to pay all of your current month spending entirely. You can avoid 100% of the interest related to your regular spending by simply using a different card, and no rewards will beat the interest you're charged.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "68951b4c12af986332c0bdd35a0d268e",
"text": "This will not result in any finance charges: I wouldn't recommend cutting it quite so close, but as long as you pay the full balance as shown on each statement by the due date shown on that same statement, you won't incur a finance charge. Of course this only applies in the case of ordinary purchases that have a grace period.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4eaf0a4393b2bcfe45e6f66c8a6ad726",
"text": "My concern is that just moving the balance will make you feel like you've accomplished something, when you really haven't. Sure you'll save on interest but that just reduces the rate at which you're bleeding and doesn't heal the wound. It's entirely likely that you'll feel freed by the reduced balance on the original card, ignore the transferred balance since you aren't paying any interest on it, and soon you'll have two cards that are maxed out. I would instead look at getting your expenses under control. Make sure you have the start of an emergency fund - 1-2k depending on your family situation. If you are single start with 1k; if you have kids bump it up to 2k or maybe a little more just to avoid charging any expenses. Get on a written budget, and don't spend any money in the next month that is not accounted for. Then you can figure out how much you can afford to put towards the credit card. That will also tell you how much interest you're going to pay. The only way I would recommend the balance transfer is if the interest savings (after the balance transfer fee) reduced the time it takes to pay off the card by two or more months (since one month isn't going to make a big difference interest-wise), and you immediately cancelled the original card, and cut up both cards (including the new one), making payments by mail or online. Other than that, the interest saved after the balance transfer fee probably isn't worth the risk of being in a worse situation on the other side.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4e39f2aa66c02a22a9eb53c52ff636bd",
"text": "A credit balance can happen any time you have a store return, but paid the bill in full. It's no big deal. Why not just charge the next gas purchase or small grocery store purchase, to cycle it through? Yes - unused cards can get canceled by the bank, and that can hurt your credit score. In the US anyway. I'm guessing it's the same system or similar in Canada.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "00e5b6849aa3eb56d71d5a50da47a537",
"text": "\"Well, I answered a very similar question \"\"Credit card payment date\"\" where I showed that for a normal cycle, the average charge isn't due for 40 days. The range is 35-55, so if you want to feel good about the float just charge everything the day after the cycle closes, and nothing else the rest of the month. Why is this so interesting? It's no trick, and no secret. By the way, this isn't likely to be of any use when you're buying gas, groceries, or normal purchases. But, I suppose if you have a large purchase, say a big TV, $3000, this will buy you extra time to pay. It would be remiss of me to not clearly state that anyone who needs to take advantage of this \"\"trick\"\" is the same person who probably shouldn't use credit cards at all. Those who use cards are best served by charging what they can afford to pay at that moment and not base today's charges on what paychecks will come in by the due date of the credit card bill.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "324dec77ef8d8f5f9ab800ddf5fdd5be",
"text": "Some credit card rewards programs will not give you rewards for balances paid off early. I have a Capitol One Platinum card, and once paid off the full balance; both the full amount due for the recently ended billing period, and the amount that had accrued for the current billing period. I never received any reward points for the additional amount. Though this sounds like it's paying even earlier than you're talking about.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ea8cf8c3c885adde83b300efe2cc62d0",
"text": "When you create a liability account with an opening balance, this creates a transaction to the account Equity:Opening Balance. You really want this transaction to be an expense. I would delete the TEST account and the transactions you have made so far, and start again. Make a liability account (call it Liabilities:Overdue Cable Bill or something similar instead of the uninformative TEST) with an opening balance of 0, and create a transaction dated 01/09/14 which debits Liabilities:Overdue Cable Bill (showing up in the right-hand column as a charge) and credits Expenses:Cable (in the left-hand column as an expense). To check that the sign is right, Liabilities:Overdue Cable Bill should now have a positive balance, because money is owed. This indicates that you spent money you didn't have on cable, and now you owe the cable company. When you pay off the debt, make a transaction that debits (right column) Assets:Cash in Wallet and credits Liabilities:Overdue Cable Bill (left column). Now you should have a reduced balance in Assets:Cash in Wallet and a zero balance in Liabilities:Overdue Cable Bill, and the entry in Expenses:Cable is still there to indicate where the money went. This assumes you paid the bill in cash from your wallet; if you paid it by check or bank transfer or something else, you probably want to substitute Assets:Cash in Wallet with Assets:Checking Account or whatever is appropriate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b13b0be848881f207f07f18d7f4d49e1",
"text": "Your credit card company will send you funds, probably a paper check, if you have a negative balance. So this situation will not last long. I'd guess 3-6 months at most, depending on the company's procedures.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc87b8f551e2bc7d73efaf789f7007ef",
"text": "\"This question has been absolutely perplexing to me. It has spawned a few heated debates amongst fellow colleagues and friends. My laymen understanding has provided me with what I believe to be a simple answer to the originator's question. I'm trying to use common sense here; so be gentle. FICO scores, while very complex and mysterious, are speculatively calculated from data derived from things like length of credit history, utilization, types of credit, payment history, etc. Only a select few know the actual algorithms (closely guarded secrets?). Are these really secrets? I don't know but it's the word on the street so I'm going with it! Creditors report data to these agencies on certain dates- weekly, monthly or annually. These dates may be ascertained by simply calling the respective creditor and asking. Making sure that revolving credit accounts are paid in full during the creditors \"\"data dump\"\" may or may not have a positive impact on ones FICO score. A zero balance reported every time on a certain account may appear to be inactive depending on how the algorithm has been written and vice versa; utilization and payment history may outweigh the negativity that a constantly zero balance could imply. Oh Lord, did that last sentence just come out of my head? I reread it four times just make sure it makes sense. My personal experience with revolving credit and FICO I was professionally advised to: Without any other life changing credit instances- just using the credit card in this fashion- my FICO score increased by 44 points. I did end up paying a little in interest but it was well worth it. Top tier feels great! In conclusion I would say that the answer to this question is not cut and dry as so many would imply. HMMMMM\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b251bd183b378842ff6da7ed601a96b7",
"text": "\"In the US, if your monthly statement was issued by the credit card company on January 1 and it showed a balance of $1000, then a payment must be made towards that balance by January 25 or so, not February 1 as you say, to keep the card in good standing. The minimum payment required to keep the card in good standing is specified in your monthly statement, and failure to meet this requirement can trigger various consequences such as an increase in the interest rate charged by the credit card company. With regard to interest charges, whether your purchase of $2000 on January 3 is charged interest or not depends entirely on what happened the previous two months. If you had paid both your monthly statements dated November 1 and December 1 of the previous year in full by the their respective due dates of November 25 and December 25, and the $1000 balance on the January 1 statement is entirely due to purchases (no cash advances) made in December, then you will not be charged interest on your January purchase of $2000 as long as you pay it off in full by February 25 (the charge will appear on your February 1 statement). But, if you had not paid your December 1 statement in full by December 25, then that $1000 billed to you on January 1 will include purchases made during December finance charges on the unpaid balance from the previous month plus finance charges on the purchases made during December. The finance charges will continue to accumulate during January until such time as you pay off the bill in full (these charges will appear on your February 1 statement), hopefully by the due date of January 25. But even if you pay off that $1000 in full on January 25, your charge of $2000 on January 3 will start to accumulate finance charges as of the day it hits the account and these finance charges will appear on your February 1 statement. If you paid off that $1000 on January 10, say, then maybe there will be no further finance charges on the $2000 purchase on January 3 after January 10 but now we are getting into the real fine print of what your credit card agreement says. Ditto for the case when you pay off that $1000 on January 2 and made the $2000 charge on January 3. You most likely will not be charged interest on that $2000 charge but again it depends on the fine print. For example, it might say that you will be charged interest on the average of the daily balances for January, but will not be charged interest on purchases during the February cycle (unless you miss the February 25 payment and the whole cycle starts all over again). As a general rule, it takes two monthly cycles of payment in full by the due date before one gets into the state of no finance charges for new purchases and effectively an \"\"interest-free\"\" loan of $2000 from January 3 (date of purchase) till February 25 (due date of payment). Matters become more complicated when cash advances are taken from a credit card which are charged interest from the day they are taken but don't trigger finance charges on new purchases or the so-called \"\"zero percent balance transfer offers\"\" are accepted.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "95d09eb0abac324be064402b319b207c",
"text": "I'm not sure if someone else answered already in the same manner I will. I can't guarantee for sure if it's the same in the U.S.A. (it might since major credit cards companies like Visa/MC/AMEX are American companies) but in Canada having/keeping unused CC is a disadvantage because of the following: Banks and financing companies look more at the total amount of credit available to you than at how much purchases you have on your cards. Ex: Let's say that you have the following: - Visa cc with $10,000 limit and $2000 worth of purchases (made more than 30 days ago) on it. - Mastercard cc with $10,000 limit as well and $1000 worth of purchases (less than 30 days old) - A major retail store cc with $2000 limit and $0 balance. Hypothetical situation: You want a bank loan to do some expensive house repairs and are looking for a lower interest rate than what your cc can offer. The bank will not care about the amount on the cards. They will add-up all the limits of your cc and treat your loan request as if ALL your cards were filled to their respective limit. So in this case: they will consider you as being right now in debt of $10K+$10K+$2K = $22,000 instead of only $3000 and they might: 1. refuse you the loan 2. grant it only if you transfer all purchases on a single card and cancel all the others. 3. Once the $3000 is transferred on one of the cards (and the others cancelled), they can require that you reduce the limit of that card. Hope this helps!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "85297a8d9bd54e5aa6f686aafb566160",
"text": "\"You can find gold historical prices on the kitco site. See the \"\"View Data\"\" button.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
fbb4eaedc7f82613d0d81a83c579d94a
|
What should we consider when withdrawing a large amount of money from a bank account?
|
[
{
"docid": "e0870fddcf3a853616d97843fce6d951",
"text": "\"withdraw in cash - bank reports it to IRS no matter what. Would this affect my tax filing in the coming year? No, and no. The bank doesn't report to the IRS. In the US - the bank will probably report to FinCEN. It has nothing to do with your tax return. withdraw in check - bank does not seem to report it. Is this correct? Doesn't have to. Still might, if they think it is a suspicious/irregular activity. wire-transfer to another person's account - would this always be slapped with a \"\"gift tax\"\"? If this is a gift it would. Regardless of how you transfer the money. Is it? Answers to your follow up questions: In the US, what documents do we need to prepare in case our large sum withdraw from the bank triggers a flag in relevant government (local and/or federal) divisions and they decide to investigate? Depending on what the investigators request. FinCEN would investigate money laundering, the IRS would investigate tax evasion, the FBI would investigate terrorism sponsorship, etc. Depending on who's investigating and what the suspicions are - different documents may be required. But the bottom line is that you should be able to explain the source of the funds and the destination. For example \"\"I found $1M in cash and sent it to some drug lord because he's such a good friend of mine\"\" will probably not fly. Does the (local/federal) government care if we stash our money (in cash or check) under our mattress, if we purchase foreign properties (taxable? documents needed for proof?), or if we give it away (to individuals or organizations - individual: a gift tax, organization: tax waivable) ? The government cares about taxes, and illegal activities. Stashing money under a mattress is not illegal, but earning cash and not paying income tax on it usually is. In many cases money stashed under the mattress was obtained illegally and/or income taxes were not paid. It seems that no matter what we do (except spreading thin our assets to multiple accounts in multiple banks), the government will always be notified of any large bank transaction and we would be forever flagged since. Is this correct ? Yes, reportable transactions will be reported. Also spreading around in multiple accounts/transactions to avoid reporting is called \"\"structuring\"\" and is on its own a crime. This is for cash/cash equivalent transactions only, of course. Not sure about the \"\"forever flagged since\"\", that part is probably sourced in your imagination.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f5827ececad5a61f0f7966888a3a9d00",
"text": "\"You state \"\"Any info will be appreciated\"\", so here's some background information on my answer (you can skip to my answer): When I worked for banks, I was required to submit suspicious activity to the people above me by filling out a form with a customer's name, SSN, account number(s) and ID. You may hear in media that it is $10K or sometimes $5K. The truth is that it could be lower than that, depending on what the institution defines as suspicious. Every year we were required to take a \"\"course\"\" which implied that terrorists and criminals use cash regularly - whether we agree or disagree is irrelevant - this is what the course implied. It's important to understand that many people use cash-only budgets because it's easier than relying on the banking system which charges overdraft fees for going over, or in some cases, you pay more at merchants because of card usage (some merchants give discounts for cash). If someone has a budget of $10K a month and they choose to use cash, that's perfectly fine. Also, why is it anyone's business what someone does with their private property? This created an interesting contrast among differently aged Americans - older Americans saw the banking system as tyrannical busybodies whereas young Americans didn't care. This is part of why I eventually left the banking system; I felt sick that I had to report this information, but it's amazing how quick everyone is to accept the new rules. Notice how one of the comments asks you what you intend to do with the money, as if it's any of their business. Welcome to the New America©! My answer: If you withdraw $100,000, here is what will more than likely happen: Now, watch the anger at this answer because I'm telling you the truth. This article will explain why. Your very question had a negative 1, as if asking what you're asking is wrong (see the absurdity)! If Joseph Stalin ran for president in the United States, the majority of Americans would welcome him. You have good reason to be concerned; others at this site have noticed this as well.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1279c055dc6a2e7145425d6b25103af9",
"text": "There are two or three issues here. One is, how quickly can you get cash out of your investments? If you had an unexpected expense, if you suddenly needed more cash than you have on hand, how long would it take to get money out of your Scott Trade account or wherever it is? I have a TD Ameritrade account which is pretty similar, and it just takes a couple of days to get money out. I'm hard pressed to think of a time when I literally needed a bunch of cash TODAY with no advance warning. What sudden bills is one likely to have? A medical bill, perhaps. But hey, just a few weeks ago I had to go to the emergency room with a medical problem, and it's not like they demanded cash on the table before they'd help me. I just got the bill, maybe 3 weeks after the event. I've never decided to move and then actually moved 2 days later. These things take SOME planning. Etc. Second, how much risk are you willing to tolerate? If you have your money in the stock market, the market could go down just as you need the cash. That's not even a worst case scenario, extreme scenario. After all, if the economy gets bad, the stock market could go down, and the same fact could result in your employer laying you off. That said, you could reduce this risk by keeping some of your money in a low-risk investment, like some high-quality bonds. Third, you want to have cash to cover the more modest, routine expenses. Like make sure you always have enough cash on hand to pay the rent or mortgage, buy food, and so on. And fourth, you want to keep a cushion against bookkeeping mistakes. I've had twice in my life that I've overdrawn a checking account, not because I was broke, but because I messed up my records and thought I had more money in the account than I really did. It's impossible to give exact numbers without knowing a lot about your income and expenses. But for myself: I keep a cushion of $1,000 to $1,5000 in my checking account, on top of all regular bills that I know I'll have to pay in the next month, to cover modest unexpected expenses and mistakes. I pay most of my bills by credit card for convenience --and pay the balance in full when I get the bill so I don't pay interest -- so I don't need a lot of cushion. I used to keep 2 to 3 months pay in an account invested in bonds and very safe stocks, something that wouldn't lose much value even in bad times. Since my daughter started college I've run this down to less than 1 months pay, and instead of replacing that money I'm instead putting my spare money into more general stocks, which is admittedly riskier. So between the two accounts I have a little over 2 months pay, which I think is low, but as I say, I'm trying to get my kids through college so I've run down my savings some. I think if I had more than 6 months pay in easily-liquidated assets, then unless I expected to need a bunch of cash for something, buying a new house or some such, I'd be transferring that to a retirement account with tax advantages.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2254fe416d8e60c86d1f4473f3238fe0",
"text": "Update: it looks like this may no longer be a requirement. I was able to withdraw from TreasuryDirect into another bank account without issue.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dbe15f136e1dacd59e65f9053a2451b7",
"text": "\"There will be no police involved. The police do not care. Only the feds care, and they only care about large amounts (over $100,000). What will happen is that the teller will deposit the money like nothing is unusual, but the amount will trigger a \"\"Suspicious Transaction Report\"\" to be filed by the bank. This information goes to the US Treasury and is then circulated by the Treasury to basically every agency in the government: the Department of Defense, the FBI, the NSA, the CIA, the DEA, the IRS, etc. What happens next depends on your relationship with your bank and the personality of the bank. In my case I have made large cash transactions at two different banks, one that I had a long relationship with, and another that I had a long-standing but dormant account. The long-term one was a high end savings bank in a city. The dormant one was one of those bozo retail banks (think \"\"Citizens\"\" or \"\"Bank of America\"\") in a suburb. The long-term bank ignored my first deposit, but after I made some more including one over $50,000 in cash they summoned me via a letter. I went in, talked to the branch manager and explained why I was making the deposits. He said \"\"That sounds plausible.\"\" and that was the end of the interview. It is unlikely that they transferred the information. They probably just wrote it down. They did this because they have \"\"know your customer\"\" regulations and they wanted to be able to prove that they did \"\"due diligence\"\" in case anybody asked about it later. The suburban bank never asked any questions, but they did file the STRs. In general, there is no way to know if the bank will interview you or not. It depends on a lot of different factors. The basic factors are: how much money is it, are you doing a lot of business normally, and how well does the bank know you. If you refuse to answer the bank's questions to their satisfaction, it is a 100% chance that they will close your account. They can also file higher level reports that flag your activity as \"\"highly suspicious\"\" as opposed to just the normal \"\"suspicious\"\". As long as it is a bank employee, you should have no serious concerns unless the guy seems strange and asks really pointed questions. If you have any question whether the \"\"employee\"\" is legitimate, just verify that he/she is a bank employee. Obviously if the feds visit you, you should say nothing. The chance of this happening is 1 in a million.\"",
"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": "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": "a84abc29f80cea29cc9d9ff10b3d315d",
"text": "\"Like the old American Express commercial: \"\"no preset spending limit\"\". It is really up to the bank(s) in question how big a cheque they are willing to honour. A larger amount would likely be held longer by a receiving institution to ensure that it cleared properly, but nothing written in law (in Canada, that I am aware of).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a6646a8fb13a286d8eec676138656def",
"text": "Since you have presumably now been living here for six months you may already have discovered that Australian banks charge a transaction fee whether the funds are deposited from overseas by check/cheque or telegraphically. I have an account with Bank of America and used to be able to draw funds from Australian bank Westpac via their ATMs without incurring a fee, because BofA and Westpac are both members of a Global ATM Alliance that did not charge fees to each others customers. But now they have initiated a new policy, and take 3% of every sum withdrawn. Not quite usury, but in the same ballpark. I'm now investigating the possibility of opening a Schwab or a Capital One account in the US, and using one of their credit cards, which, I believe, would allow withdrawals at Australian ATMs for no fee. If you find or have found a good answer to your dilemma I hope you will share it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d6cafc2d753914341659939edc4ad0ce",
"text": "There's obviously a lot of discussion surrounding your question, but if I thought a bank was going under, then yes, absolutely I would withdraw my money. Now, we can debate whether me thinking the bank was going under was foolish or not, but if I truly believed it, I can't see why I would sit around and do nothing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4fdc0c096584047dd029d2407e86289d",
"text": "With a lot excess cash you eventually have two goals: Since interest on cash bank deposits does not exceed inflation and you have currency risk, you may want to get into other asset classes. Options that might be, but not limited to are:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b0233932bf2985e1e93b85ca2cdd8221",
"text": "If your debit card/ATM card is stolen or lost, someone else might be able to withdraw money from the checking account that it is tied to, or buy things with the card and have the money taken out of the checking account to pay the merchant. Subject to daily withdrawal limits imposed by your bank, a considerable amount of money could be lost in this way. At least in the US, debit or ATM cards, although they are often branded Mastercard or Visa, do not provide the same level of protection as credit cards for which the liability is limited to $50 until the card is reported as lost or stolen and $0 thereafter. Note also that the money in your savings account is safe, unless you have chosen an automatic overdraft protection feature that automatically transfers money from your savings account into the checking account to cover overdrafts. So that is another reason to keep most of your money in the savings account and only enough for immediately foreseeable needs in the checking account (and to think carefully before accepting automatic overdraft protection offers). These days, with mobile banking available via smartphones and the like, transferring money yourself from savings to checking account as needed might be a preferred way of doing things on the go (until the smartphone is stolen!)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "109ca3b612a0ed712240453010ca9c4f",
"text": "This happened to me in the mid 90's. I wanted to withdraw enough cash from my account to buy a new car and they nearly panicked. I took a bank draft instead. I discovered afterward that they can require up to a week's notice for any withdrawl.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "91244f7ce4cb49aed129c124cef17ce9",
"text": "I'd worry about being robbed or losing the money en-route. Is it likely? Probably not. But wow, I wouldn't want to lose serious money in one shot. I have fond memories of the time I was serving as treasurer for a non-profit organization and I was taking $30,000 in contributions to the bank. As I walked across the parking lot with all that money in my brief case, I thought, I would really hate to be robbed right now. When I've moved long distances in the past, I've simply written myself a check from my old account and then deposited that amount to my new account. These days I presume I'd do an electronic transfer. I live in the US so I don't know what the conventions are in Europe, but around here, 5% would be an outrageous fee. I once paid $20 for an electronic transfer of around $3,000, and I considered that an excessive fee. I can understand the bank charging a few bucks, but. I'd check around if there are not other banks with more reasonable fees.",
"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": "bccb983d14f6dd4cd56803b4fd88b12c",
"text": "The Bank have risk. In goods, thrre are two profiles, essentially it can be convenient and hence the usage, pay off monthly or spending future earnings today for luxury. The way cash advance is seen, emergency, ran out of cash in foreign/remote location... Debit cards not working etc. One generally needs small amount of cash. The other segment is loss of income. Essentially I have run out of cash and I need to borrow. This is additional risk and hence is limited or curtailed.",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
0010b40293b918119c27d6115a22a3f6
|
What exactly is a “bad,” “standard,” or “good” annual raise? If I am told a hard percentage and don't get it, should I look elsewhere?
|
[
{
"docid": "dea1a2c3d9dde75823e01547e7a286d1",
"text": "\"TLDR: You will probably need to move to a different employer to get the raise you want/need/deserve. Some employers, in the US, punish longevity through a number of practices. My wife worked as a nurse for about 20 years. During that time she had many employers, leveraging raises with job changes. She quit nursing about 6 years ago and was being paid $38/hour at the time. She had a friend that worked in the same system for 18 years. They had the same position in the same hospital that friend's current rate of pay: $26/hour. You probably don't want to be that person. Given your Stack Overflow participation, I would assume you are some type of web developer. I would recommend updating your resume, and moving for a 20% increase or more. You'll get it as it is a great time to be a web developer. Spending on IT tends to go in cycles, and right now budgets are very healthy for hiring new talent. While your current company might not have enough money in the budget to give you a raise, they would not hesitate hiring someone with your skills at 95K if they had an opening. Its common, but frustrating to all that are involved except the bean counters that looks at people like us as commodities. Think about this: both sides of the table agree that you deserve a 5K raise. But lets say next year only 3k is in the budget. So you are out the 5k you should have been given this year, plus the 2k that you won't get, plus whatever raise was fair for you next year. That is a lot of money! Time to go! Don't bother on holding onto any illusions of a counter offer by your current employer. There will be too much resentment. Shake the dust off your feet and move on. Edit: Some naysayers will cite short work histories as problems for future employment. It could happen in a small number of shops, but short work histories are common in technology that recruiters rarely bat an eye. If they do, as with any objection, it is up to you to sell yourself. In Cracking the Code Interview the author cites that no one is really expecting you to stay beyond 5 years. Something like this would work just fine: \"\"I left Acme because there were indications of poor financial health. Given the hot market at the time I was able to find a new position without the worry of pending layoffs.\"\" If you are a contractor six month assignments are the norm. Also many technology resumes have overlapping assignments. Its what happens when someone is in demand.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c213852bbd84536d7d530f5163e37c72",
"text": "Any such number would depend on the country, the market, and the economic situation - especially inflation ratio. Generally, if you are not in a booming or a dying technology, getting a raise above the inflation ratio is 'good'; anything below is poor.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9452c0d753736f741583048c7893c6fd",
"text": "Keep in mind that unless you have a contract that says you get a certain amount of raise every year, the employer is not required to give you any raise. The quality of a raise is too subjective for anyone to tell you how to judge it. You either get a raise you can live with, it makes you content/happy, and you continue working there, or you get a raise that does not satisfy you, and you jump ship to get more money. Some (most?) employers know that raises can be the tipping point for employees deciding to leave. If you consistently receive raises greater than inflation rate, the message is that the employer values you. If the opposite, they value you enough to continue your employment, but are willing to replace you if you decide to leave. Key thing here is there are three ways of getting increased pay with your current employer. Cost of living or annual raise is the one that we are discussing. Merit based raises are a second way. If you think you deserve a raise, due to loyal consistent contribution, or contributing above your duty, or for whatever reason, then ask for a raise. The third way is to be promoted or transferred to a higher paying position. Often times, you should also make your case to your supervisor why you should have the new position, similar to asking for a merit raise.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9627315eddd9f8cc36b16735eb7d2b78",
"text": "You are not actually entitled to any raise at all, unless you had something contractually (legally binding) which made that so. I'm answering this from the UK, but it has been common practice for people over the last 10 years or so to receive no yearly raise, in some sectors. This is what I would consider a bad raise - if wages are not kept in line with inflation, you are effectively earning less every year. In this regard I would not work for any employer who did not offer an annual raise that was at the very least covering the rate of inflation (these rates are easy to find in your country by Googling it). In terms of a standard raise, I would argue there is no such thing. This depends on the industry/sector you work in, your employers opinion of your performance (note I've used the word opinion because sometimes you may think the effort you put in is different to what they think - be prepared to give evidence of what you've achieved for them, with things to back it up). A good raise is anything which is way above a standard raise. Since there is no concise definiton of a standard raise, this is also hard to quantify. As others have mentioned do not stay in a role where you are not being given a raise that covers inflation, because it means every year you have less purchasing power, which is akin to your salary going down. It's very easy to justify to an employer you're leaving - and indeed one you're going to - why you're making the move under these conditions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8da34da6ec8ad4ad3b909968309d6816",
"text": "\"What makes a \"\"standard\"\" raise depends on how well the economy is doing, how well your particular industry is doing, and how well your employer is doing. All these things change constantly, so anyone who says, \"\"a good raise is 5%\"\" or whatever number is being simplistic. Even if true when he said it, it won't necessarily be true next year, or this year in a different industry, etc. The thing to do is to look for salary surveys that are reasonably current and applicable. If today, in your industry, the average annual raise is 3% -- again, just making up a number -- then that's what you should think of as \"\"standard\"\". If you want a number, okay: In general, as a first-draft number, I look for a raise that's 2% or so above the current inflation rate. Yes, of course I'd LIKE to get a 20% raise every year, but that's not going to happen in real life. On the other hand if a company gives me raises that don't keep pace with inflation, than barring special circumstances I'm going to be looking for another job. But there are all sorts of special circumstances. If the economy is in a depression and unemployment in my field is 50%, I'll probably figure I'm lucky to have a job at all and not be too worried about raises. If the economy is booming and all my friends are getting 10% and 20% raises, then I'll want that too. As others have said, in the United States at least, the best way to get a pay raise is to change jobs. I think most American companies are absolutely stupid about this. They don't want to give current employees big raises, so they let them quit, and then hire replacements at a much higher salary than they were paying the guy they just drove to quit. And the replacement doesn't know the company and may have a lot to learn before he is fully productive. And then they congratulate themselves that they kept raises this year to only 3% -- even though total salaries paid went up by 10% because the new hires demanded higher salaries. They actively punish employees for staying with the company. (Reminds me of an article I read in a business magazine by an executive of a cell phone company. He bemoaned the fact that in the cell phone industry it is very hard to keep customers: they are constantly switching to other vendors. And I thought, Duh, maybe it's because you offer big discounts for the first year or two, and after that you jack your prices up through the roof. You actively punish your customers for staying with you more than 2 years, and then you wonder why customers leave after 2 years.) Oh, if you do change jobs: Absolutely do not buy a line of \"\"we'll start you off with this lower salary but don't worry because you'll get a big raise in a year\"\". When you're looking for a job, it's very easy to turn down a poor offer. Once you have taken a job, leaving to get another job is a big decision and a lot of work. So you have way more bargaining power on starting salary than on raises. And the company knows it and is trying to take advantage of it. Also consider not just percentage increase but what you're making now versus what other people with similar experience are making. If people comparable to you are making $50k and you're making $30k, you're more likely to get a big raise than if you're already making $80k. If the company says, \"\"We just don't have the budget to give you a raise\"\", the key question is, \"\"Is that true?\"\" If the company is tottering on the edge of bankruptcy and trying to cut costs everywhere, then even if they know you're a good and productive employee, they may really just not have the money to give you a good raise. But if business is booming, this could just be an excuse. It might be an excuse for \"\"we're trying to bleed employees white so the CEO can get another million dollar bonus this year\"\". Or it might be a euphemism for \"\"you're really not a very useful employee and we're seriously thinking of firing you, no way we're going to give you a raise for the little bit of work you do when you bother to show up\"\". My final word: Be realistic. What matters isn't what you want or think you need, but what you are worth to the company, and what other people with similar skills are willing to work for. If you are doing work that brings in $20k per year for the company, there is no way they are going to pay you more than $20k for very long. You can go on and on about how expensive it is these days to pay the mortgage and pay medical bills and feed your 10 children and support your cocaine addiction, but none of that is relevant to what you are worth to the company. Likewise if there are millions of people out there who would love to have your job for $20k, if you demand a lot more than that they're going to fire you and hire one of them. Conversely, if you're bringing in $100k a year for the company, they'll be willing to pay you a substantial percentage of that.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bfde5f13a4429df8ffea3d5b0623b409",
"text": "\"your question is based on a false premise. there is no \"\"standard\"\" for raises. some jobs in some years see huge raises. other years those same jobs may see average pay rates drop. if you want a benchmark, you would be better off looking at typical pay rates for people in your job, in your city with your experience. sites like glassdoor can provide that type of information. if you are at the low end of that range, you can probably push for a raise. if you are at the high end, you may find it more difficult. typically your employer will pay you just enough to keep you from leaving. so they will offer you as little as they think you will accept. you can either accept it or find another job that pays more. if you work in software, then you can probably make more by switching jobs. if you work in food service, you might have more trouble finding higher pay elsewhere. if you do find another employer, you might be able to elicit a counter-offer from your current employer. in fact, even suggesting that you will look for another employer may prompt your current employer to be more generous. that said, if your employer thinks you are on your way out, they might cut your bonus or lay you off.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "38ecef31ad5e70b23758e8149dc28c7e",
"text": "\"There are many variables to this answer. One is, how close are you to the average salary range in the industry you are working in. If you are making more than average it would make sense that you are not getting a big raise from the employer's perspective. You have to be a top performer if you are looking for the top salary range. Big raises come from promotions or new jobs, generally speaking. The short and personal answer is, I worked at a big company (bank) and now know that companies do not give large raises to people as a rule. Honestly the only way to make good $ is to leave, all employers have all kinds of excuses as to why they are not giving you significant raises. Large raises and bonuses are reserved for \"\"management\"\". The bigger the company, the less likely it is that they will give you raises just because, esp. above 3-5%. At the same time, the market sets the rate, and if you are not getting passively recruited, it may mean that you need to work on getting a broader skill set if you are looking to make more $ somewhere else. The bottom line is, you have to think of yourself as a free agent at all times. You also need to make yourself more attractive as a potential hire elsewhere.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "ae4c7f1d347f267ce431d74c3b90be5f",
"text": "Not saying it is bad, just saying they put a positive spin on it when in fact it just something that makes good business sense. Both you and I know that Reddit is filled with people complaining about minimum raise and earning a living...etc. This article paints Costco as the good guy, but overall it means one guy gets a well paying job while another one gets no job at all.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cf97003bf5e3864dccaec3b5e5e4b469",
"text": "I was having a conversation about this recently because I got a raise and it kind of surprised me I didn't have to fight so much for it. Companies regularly give us CPI increases but in certain fields (especially IT at the moment) wage growth is so rapid that in 1-2 years you're 10-20% behind your peers. A lot of people change jobs regularly to avoid this. I've fought for raises and kept moving around to different departments to keep my wage up to baseline but I get that for a lot of people thats not possible due to company culture.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e1ce8250eb72a7472e0fcb696d1dc384",
"text": "\"In general, when dealing with quantities like net income that are not restricted to being positive, \"\"percentage change\"\" is a problematic measure. Even with small positive values it can be difficult to interpret. For example, compare these two companies: Company A: Company B: At a glance, I think most people would come away with the impression that both companies did badly in Y2, but A made a much stronger recovery. The difference between 99.7 and 99.9 looks unimportant compared to the difference between 100,000 and 40,000. But if we translate those to dollars: Company A: Y1 $100m, Y2 $0.1m, Y3 $100.1m Company B: Y1 $100m, Y2 $0.3m, Y3 $120.3m Company B has grown by a net of 20% over two years; Company A by only 1%. If you're lucky enough to know that income will always be positive after Y1 and won't drop too close to zero, then this doesn't matter very much and you can just look at year-on-year growth, leaving Y1 as undefined. If you don't have that guarantee, then you may do better to look for a different and more stable metric, the other answers are correct: Y1 growth should be left blank. If you don't have that guarantee, then it might be time to look for a more robust measure, e.g. change in net income as a percentage of turnover or of company value.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "413df26f033408bb007111463e8079c8",
"text": "\"It's simple. At 100% match, it would take a \"\"long\"\" time for bad fees to negate the benefit. Longer than the average person stays with one company. Even though $50/10 shares is crazy, if you wait till you have $500, it's 10%. Still crazy, but you are still getting 90% of the match. I'd avoid this, however, and just go with the closest thing they have to an S&P fund. Invest outside this account to save the right amount to fund your retirement. 2% total isn't enough, obviously.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f370d8a71f896a0c56549e8a543631df",
"text": "Yeah, I mean, what it really comes down to is the fact that life isn't fair. I would think that if your company is squeezed enough that it's paying a lot more for new employees who do what you do already, then if you go to your boss and ask for a raise, he's not going to say no. It's way easier (and cheaper) to keep an employee, particularly a good one, than to find someone new. Just a thought.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4e0f407d03737175db7d72d8f5e9d3e4",
"text": "This is bad statistics. If you look at people who jumped ship, of course you're going to see bigger increases in salary because you're not counting those that looked for a new job and didn't find a better offer. They stayed put. People are complacent but companies are, too. Employers aren't putting a lot of effort into firing bad employees as soon as they can. So there are employees that aren't jumping ship and could be paid more but there are also employees that should be kicked off the ship and paid less, but aren't. All that said, staying put is easier than moving and there's a price for it. If you're willing to move around, you might do better. Might not. If you only look around at the ones that did move, of course it's going to look like they did better!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e62663c9c9db3037afa8721991aebb8d",
"text": "I guess that means I should be making about $250k a year right now. I've been at my company for 16 years. The wage and profit sharing program beat the market wages in my area by a wide margin. Not all companies are interested in screwing their employees.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9efc8dff5ee49184615572633c56638e",
"text": "From a long-term planning point of view, is the bump in salary worth not having a 401(k)? In this case, absolutely. At $30k/year, the 4% company match comes to about $1,200 per year. To get that you need to save $1,200 yourself, so your gross pay after retirement contributions is about $28,800. Now you have an offer making $48,000. If you take the new job, you can put $2,400 in retirement (to get to an equivalent retirement rate), and now your gross pay after retirement contributions is $45,600. Now if the raise in salary were not as high, or you were getting a match that let you exceed the individual contribution max, the math might be different, but in this case you can effectively save the company match yourself and still be way ahead. Note that there are MANY other factors that may also be applicable as to whether to take this job or not (do you like the work? The company? The coworkers? The location? Is there upward mobility? Are the benefits equivalent?) but not taking a 67% raise just because you're losing a 4% 401(k) match is not a wise decision.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "79de53b2ca5cd475b5f1a203e519e4fe",
"text": "I had a colleague turn down a raise once because he believed that female colleagues were already being paid well below his salary and it was unfair to further increase this gap. For very public figures raises are often declined as a form of leadership: showing that management is willing to forgo bonuses and salary increases as a form of solidarity with the employee population. Some leaders forgo a salary altogether (or take a $1/year salary).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3fa67f6d512004eb69580e49b12485e",
"text": "\"Do you recall where you read that 25% is considered very good? I graduated college in 1984 so that's when my own 'investing life' really began. Of the 29 years, 9 of them showed 25% to be not quite so good. 2013 32.42, 2009 27.11, 2003 28.72, 1998 28.73, 1997 33.67, 1995 38.02, 1991 30.95, 1989 32.00, 1985 32.24. Of course this is only in hindsight, and the returns I list are for the S&P index. Even with these great 9 years, the CAGR (compound annual growth) of the S&P from 1985 till the end of 2013 was 11.32% Most managed funds (i.e. mutual funds) do not match the S&P over time. Much has been written on how an individual investor's best approach is to simply find the lowest cost index and use a mix with bonds (government) to match their risk tolerance. \"\"my long term return is about S&P less .05%\"\" sounds like I'm announcing that I'm doing worse than average. Yes, and proud of it. Most investors (85-95% depending on survey) lag by far more than this, many percent in fact)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "60d9ceffbc16b722672b2162d9c4c5fb",
"text": "\"This quote kind of shocked me: \"\"A well-run organization turns over 10% of their organizations, including senior leadership.\"\" I'm not in management, but I have *never* heard anyone say before that employee churn is a good thing. And wanting fully 10 % of all employees to resign every year? That sounds completely insane to me. Is that really normal? Am I not getting something? My current employer works hard on trying to retain employees. When employees quit, we need to train the replacement, it's probably going to take 6 months until the new employees is reasonably productive. Employees are actively encouraged to find new positions within the company and we have actually rehired several employees that quit to do something else and then decided they want to come back. This all seems logical and normal to me. The mindset of wanting to push a significant portion of your workforce away each year is utterly alien to me. Would somebody elucidate me?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a64ac63a5f9bcabcad824375d9dce35",
"text": "Most people aren't 'paid pretty darn well' when looking at historical real wages. This is the result of many things, one being corporate consolidation where any and all efficiencies are passed on to the executives and shareholders. Meanwhile, your wife's salary has been slowly eroded away for the past 30 years. I get trying to see the positive side but c'mon man, you gotta wake up.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eaa8cc9360cece43923f2b00278f1931",
"text": "\"Some companies have a steady, reliable, stream of earnings. In that case, a low P/E ratio is likely to indicate a good stock. Other companies have a \"\"feast or famine\"\" pattern, great earnings one year, no earnings or losses the following year. In that case, it is misleading to use a P/E ratio for a good year, when earnings are high and the ratio is low. Instead, you have to figure out what the company's AVERAGE earnings may be for some years, and assign a P/E ratio to that.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "33ef4776d479359b7d86ad4430afd6ed",
"text": "Maybe the disconnect is in how different people view work and money. In the standard view, work is something negative you do, in order to get something positive - money, or at least the act of spending money gets you something positive. If the work is particularly unpleasant, one would expect employees to demand more money to cancel out the negative things they have to put up with. On the other hand, if the work itself is a net positive even before pay, then when combined with pay, the combined positive may be worth more than the raise they're offered at another company - especially if the new conditions would be poor, and would cancel out the raise, leaving them unhappier, despite having more pay. Of course, we're not a bunch of robots weighing out positive and negative units, much of which are near impossible to measure anyway. I assume a lot of it is just going with gut reactions, using approximations and fuzzy predictions in decisions that sometimes appear rational, but when looking at the underlying data points, may be built on rather irrational hand waving...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "782d34d09fad76321585e1dd453f4ac6",
"text": "Future job offers can go up or down depending on your disclosure, people can interpret it as bragging... maybe you could just use a percentage?",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
cd90d795e053f3c6b9a1b127d4873615
|
How can I help others plan their finances, without being a “conventional” financial planner?
|
[
{
"docid": "5bf12bcfb70c606a3519467ff450d9e2",
"text": "\"In the UK there is a non-profit called the Citizen's Advice Bureau which provides free advice to people on a wide range of subjects, but including debt and budgeting. Consumer Credit Counselling Service provides explicit help but again, in the UK. A search for \"\"volunteer debt counsellor\"\" reveals a whole host of organizations that do that, but almost all based in the UK or Canada or Australia. The US seems not to be well provided with such organizations. This page advises people to volunteer as a debt counsellor, but gives no specifics of organizations, just \"\"Volunteer at local county community centers, churches and agencies. Your local faith-based organization might be a good place to start, even if you are not a member. Regrettably a search for \"\"free debt counselling\"\" produced a similar list of non-profits in UK and Canada, but mainly companies peddling consolidation loans in the US.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c58492dd9413627a4abacef19e9b0799",
"text": "If you personally make any money from it then you need a Series 65, or a Series 63 license. It is a private industry/SEC regulation. The license itself basically spells out your duties and ethical standards for you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d4d050f3138b8eea336811a2c79352fd",
"text": "I am a Certified Financial Planner and provide tactical advice on everything from budgeting to saving for retirement. You do not have to have any series exams or a CFP to do this work, although it helps give you credibility. As long as you DO NOT provide investment advice, you likely do not need to register as an investment advisor or need any certification.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "747228de68d50eeb53a114dfcfce24a9",
"text": "\"I think it's great that you want to contribute. Course Instructor You may want to take a look at becoming an instructor for a course like Dave Ramsey's Financial Peace University. These are commonly offered through churches and other community venues for a fee. This may be a good fit if you want to focus on basic financial literacy, setting up and sticking to a budget, and getting their financial \"\"house\"\" in order. It may not be a good fit if you don't want to teach an existing curriculum, or if you find the tenets of the course too unpalatable. A significant number of the people in Dave's audience are close to or in the middle of a financial meltdown, and so his advice includes controversial ideas such as avoiding credit altogether, often because that's how they got into their current mess. Counselor If you want to run your own show, I know of several people who have built their own practice that is run along the lines of a counselor charging hourly rates, and they work with couples who are having money problems. Building a reputation and a network of referring counselors and professionals is key here, and definitely seems like it would require a full-time commitment. I would avoid \"\"credit counseling\"\" and the like. Most of these organizations are focused on restructuring credit card debt, not spending signficant time on behavioral change. You don't need a series 7, 63, 65 etc. or even a CFA. I've previously acquired a number of these and can confirm that they are investment credentials that are intended to help you get a job and/or get more business as a broker or conventional financial planner, i.e. salesperson of securities. The licensure process is necessary to protect consumers from advice that serves the investment sales force but is bad for the consumer, and because you must be licensed to provide investment advice. There is a class of fee-only financial planners, but they primarily deal with complex issues that allow them to make money, and often give away basic personal finance advice for free in the form of articles, podcasts, etc. Charity For part-time or free work, in my area there are also several charity organizations that help people do their taxes and provide basic budgeting and personal finance instruction, but this is very localized and may vary quite a bit depending on where you live. However, if there are none near you, you can always start one! Journalism If you have an interest in writing, there are also people who work as journalists and write columns, books, or newsletters, and it is much easier now to publish and build a network online, either on your own, through a blog or contributing to a website. Speaker at Community events There are also many opportunities to speak to a specific community such as a church or social organization. For example, where I live there are local organizations for Spanish speaking, Polish speaking, elderly, young professional, young mother and retiree groups for example, all of who might be interested in your advice on issues that specifically address their needs. Good luck!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b421bf39dbf510998ce2aa2bc6ce6f7",
"text": "You know there is a small group of individuals who focus on strictly planning without implementation. They are not securities licensed (no 7,6,66,63 license) so they cannot sell or discuss securities, but they do put together financial plans to help individuals recover from debt and rework spending/saving strategies. They also usually work hand in hand with a CFP or ChFc to do the implementation process. The hard part is making money at it. Financial Planners make most of their income on high net worth clients. You would be targeting low income or troubles income clients that would have a hard time paying money for the service. I am not saying it cannot be done, you just have your work cut out for you. But it is a noble career and you would be helping idividuals have a better life. That speaks volumes!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a09d423d5138871550a7696acd6bc97",
"text": "\"You need a license/registration to be a \"\"conventional\"\" financial planner. But as long as your work is limited to budgets, and cash flow analysis, it may be more like accounting. In your shoes, I would consult the local CPA association about what you need (if anything) to do what you're doing.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "816947f3eceb4fe3417ce1673e77d6ea",
"text": "\"If you want a Do-It-Yourself solution, look to a Vanguard account with their total market index funds. There's a lot of research that's been done recently in the financial independence community. Basically, there's not many money managers who can outperform the market index (either S&P 500 or a total market index). Actually, no mutual funds have been identified that outperform the market, after fees, consistently. So there's not much sense in paying someone to earn you less than a low fee index fund could do. And some of the numbers show that you can actually lose value on your 401k due to high fees. That's where Vanguard comes in. They offer some of the lowest fees (if not the lowest) and a selection of index funds that will let you balance your portfolio the way you want. Whether you want to go 100% total stock market index fund or a balance between total stock market index fund and total bond index fund, or a \"\"lazy 3 fund portfolio\"\", Vanguard gives you the tools to do it yourself. Rebalancing would require about an hour every quarter. (Or time span you declare yourself). jlcollinsnh A Simple Path to Wealth is my favorite blog about financial independence. Also, Warren Buffet recommended that the trustees for his wife's inheritance when he passes invest her trust in one investment. Vanguard's S&P500 index fund. The same fund he chose in a 10 year $1M bet vs. hedge fund managers. (proceeds go to charity). That was about 9 years ago. So far, Buffet's S&P500 is beating the hedge funds. Investopedia Article\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d6302399f615b121a3add9a0f0edf061",
"text": "\"There are several types of financial advisors. Some are associated with brokerages and insurance companies and the like. Their services are often free. On the other hand, the advice they give you will generally be strongly biased toward their own company's products, and may be biased toward their own profits rather than your gains. (Remember, anything free is being paid for by someone, and if you don't know who it's generally going to be you.) There are some who are good, but I couldn't give you any advice on finding them. Others are not associated with any of the above, and serve entirely as experts who can suggest ways of distributing your money based on your own needs versus resources versus risk-tolerance, without any affiliation to any particular company. Consulting these folks does cost you (or, if it's offered as a benefit, your employer) some money, but their fiduciary responsibility is clearly to you rather than to someone else. They aren't likely to suggest you try anything very sexy, but when it comes to your primary long-term savings \"\"exciting\"\" is usually not a good thing. The folks I spoke to were of the latter type. They looked at my savings and my plans, talked to me about my risk tolerance and my goals, picked a fairly \"\"standard\"\" strategy from their files, ran simulations against it to sanity-check it, and gave me a suggested mix of low-overhead index fund types that takes almost zero effort to maintain (rebalance occasionally between funds), has acceptable levels of risk, and (I admit I've been lucky) has been delivering more than acceptable returns. Nothing exciting, but even though I'm relatively risk-tolerant I'd say excitement is the last thing I need in my long-term savings. I should actually talk to them again some time soon to sanity-check a few things; they can also offer advice on other financial decisions (whether/when I might want to talk to charities about gift annuity plans, whether Roth versus traditional 401(k) makes any difference at all at this point in my career, and so on).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5b683b5c56dadebd966fea31964fadf1",
"text": "\"One alternative to bogleheadism is the permanent portfolio concept (do NOT buy the mutual fund behind this idea as you can easily obtain access to a low cost money market fund, stock index fund, and bond fund and significantly reduce the overall cost). It doesn't have the huge booms that stock plans do, but it also doesn't have the crushing blows either. One thing some advisers mention is success is more about what you can stick to than what \"\"traditionally\"\" makes sense, as you may not be able to stick to what traditionally makes sense (all people differ). This is an excellent pro and con critique of the permanent portfolio (read the whole thing) that does highlight some of the concerns with it, especially the big one: how well will it do in a world of high interest rates? Assuming we ever see a world of high interest rates, it may not provide a great return. The authors make the assumption that interest rates will be rising in the future, thus the permanent portfolio is riskier than a traditional 60/40. As we're seeing in Europe, I think we're headed for a world of negative interest rates - something in the past most advisers have thought was very unlikely. I don't know if we'll see interest rates above 6% in my lifetime and if I live as long as my father, that's a good 60+ years ahead. (I realize people will think this is crazy to write, but consider that people are willing to pay governments money to hold their cash - that's how crazy our world is and I don't see this changing.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "d77ecf24ade6171a4838084eeac4a212",
"text": "\"I have always found that the \"\"free\"\" planners are just salesmen pointing you in their best interests. Not that it won't get you a good deal in the processes, but, in my experience, they usually just recommend products that give them the best commission, finders fee, kickback, whatever. Flat fee financial planners are not really to my liking either. This is a taste thing, but generally, I feel like now that they have my fee, what interest do they have in taking care of me. That doesn't mean that they don't give good advise however. They may be a good first step. Percentage based financial planners, those that charge a percentage of assets under management, are my recommendation. The more money they make me the more money they make. This seems to work out quite well. Whatever you do, you need to be aware that financial planners are not just about recommending products, or saving money. That's part of it, but a good planner will also help you look at monthly budgets, current costs, liabilities, and investments. You want to look for someone that you can basically tell your goal to - \"\"I want to have x amount of money saved for y date,\"\" for example, or \"\"I want to reduce my bills by z amount in x months\"\". Run from any planner that looks only at the large sum as the \"\"solution\"\" or only source of money. You want a planner that will look at your first house mortgage(s), care loans, income, other investments, etc. and come up with a full plan for everything. If you're only trying to invest the new house money, and that's it, you're better off just sticking with Google and some research on your own.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a719f612b1a74511964bf3c048865f8c",
"text": "Considering a CFP will likely use the same planning software as any other advisor...just hire an advisor with a clean broker check and solid educational background that doesn't come off as a sleazy sales person. Not to say that a CFP doesn't say ANYTHING about qualifications, but really it's just a marketing ploy from a business perspective.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "46e0e568437fd3adfcb00ecc1a0b2e53",
"text": "Most people I talk with don't even know the difference on a simple level between the Dow, S&P, Russell, Nasdaq, etc. I tell my friends and family that they know more than they realize. I help them use their knowledge and what they see when they want to invest. Or if they prefer not to, just buy index funds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7219d71fd61c6f8af682888a0c103c22",
"text": "\"First, I applaud you for caring. Most people don't! In fact, I was in that category. You bring up several issues and I'll try to address them separately. (1) Getting a financial planner to talk with you. I had the same experience! My belief is that they don't want to admit that they don't know how things work. I even asked if I could pay them an hourly fee to ask questions and review stocks with them. Most declined. You'll find that very few people actually take the time to get trained to evaluate stocks and the stock market as a whole. (See later Investools.com). After looking, however, I did find people who would spend an hour or two with me when we met once a quarter to review my \"\"portfolio\"\"/investments. I later found training that companies offered. I would attend any free training I could get because they actually wanted to spend time and talk and teach investors. Bottom line is: Talking to their clients is the job of a financial planner. If he (or she) is not willing to take this time, it is in your best interest to find someone who will spend that time. (2) Learning about investing! I'm not affiliated with anyone. I'm a software developer and I do my own trading/investments. The opinions I share are my own. When I was 20 years away from retirement, I started learning about the stock market so that I would know how it worked before I retired so that (a) I could influence a change if one was needed, and (b) so I wouldn't have to blindly accept the advice of the \"\"experts\"\" even when the stock market is crashing. I have used Investools.com, and TDAmeritrade's Think-or-Swim platform. I've learned a tremendous amount from the Investools training. I recommend them. But don't expect to learn how to get rich from them or any training you take. The TDA Think-or-swim platform I highly recommend BECAUSE it has a feature called \"\"Paper Money\"\". It lets you trade using the real market but with play money. I highly recommend ANY platform that you can use to trade IN PAPER money! The think-or-swim platform would allow you to invest $30,000 in paper money (you can have as much as you want) into any stock. This would let you see if you can make more money than your current investment advisor. You could invest $10K in one SPY, $10K in DIA and $10K in IWM (these are symbols for the S&P 500, Dow 30, and Small Cap stocks). This is just an example, I'm not suggesting any investment advise! It's important that you actually do this not just write down on a piece of paper or Excel spreadsheet what you were going to do because it's common to \"\"cheat\"\" and change the dates to meet your needs. I have found it incredibly helpful to understand how the market works by trying to do my own paper and now real money investing. I was and you will be surprised to find that many trades lose money during the initial start part of the trade because it's very difficult to buy at the exact right time. An important part of managing your own investments is learning to trade with rules and not get \"\"emotionally involved\"\" in your trades. (3) Return on investment. You were not happy with $12 return. Low returns are a byproduct of the way most investment firms (financial planners) take (diversification). They diversify to take a \"\"hands off\"\" approach toward investment because that approach has been the only approach that they have found that works relatively well in all market conditions. It's not (necessarily) a bad approach. It avoids large losses in down markets (most riskier approaches lose more than the market). The downside is it also avoids the high returns. If the market goes up 15% the investment might only go up 5%. 30K is enough to give to multiple investment firms a try. I gave two different firms $25K each to see how they would invest. The direction was to accept LOTS of risk (with the potential for large losses or large gains). In a year that the market did very well, one lost money, and one made a small gain. It was a learning experience. I, now, have taken the money back and invest it myself. NOTE: I would be happy with a guy who made me 10-15% year over year (in good times and bad) and didn't talk with me, but I haven't found someone who can do that. :-) NOTE 2: Don't believe what you hear from the news about the stock market being up 5% year to date. Do your own analysis. NOTE 3: Investing in \"\"the market\"\" (S&P 500 for example) is a great way to go if you're just starting. Few investment firms can beat \"\"the market\"\" although many try to do so. I too have found it's easier to do that than other approaches I've learned. So, it might be a good long term approach as well. Best wishes to you in your learning about the market and desires to make money with your money. That is what is all about.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6435f24f13a0fde33b0d612aa3ee4b3d",
"text": "Firstly, make sure annual income exceeds annual expenses. The difference is what you have available for saving. Secondly, you should have tiers of savings. From most to least liquid (and least to most rewarding): The core of personal finance is managing the flow of money between these tiers to balance maximizing return on savings with budget constraints. For example, insurance effectively allows society to move money from savings to stocks and bonds. And a savings account lets the bank loan out a bit of your money to people buying assets like homes. Note that the above set of accounts is just a template from which you should customize. You might want to add in an FSA or HSA, extra loan payments, or taxable brokerage accounts, depending on your cash flow, debt, and tax situation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "43b3828038e246be1a8a086d1e9172df",
"text": "\"The key for your friends is a robust and detailed form of budgeting. There are plenty of website resources to help them through that process and you should steer them there rather than go through it with them yourself. Of course you should show willing to answer questions and help if asked. The budgeting exercise will require quite some effort and diligence to track historical and current actual expenditure (keeping a detailed spending diary is an excellent way to start). This must be coupled with a lot thought about ways to trim at various degrees of severity. For example it means analysing all utilities deals to make sure they're on the most suitable package. It is also an ongoing, iterative process - not a one-off. The only way in which you giving money to them would be of help is if they have borrowings and the cost of servicing that debt via interest is what's tipping their budget from positive to negative. Only if they are averaging a cash surplus each month can they make headway. Otherwise, the underlying causes of their woes are not being addressed, existing spending habits continue and they are merely deferring the changes they need to make. Your friends have to adopt LBYM - Living Below Your Means. That's simply a modern version of Mr Micawber's famous, and oft-quoted, recipe for happiness: \"\"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen [pounds] nineteen [shillings] and six [pence], result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.\"\" Discussion forums like this make interesting reading: http://boards.fool.com/living-below-your-means-100158.aspx?mid=30971651&sort=collapsed\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e43f9d61bad87cff37e8eca0c342c31e",
"text": "I find that when I have to justify why I want something to someone else, I eliminate impulse buys because I have to think about it enough to explain to someone else why it is desirable. Simply going through that process in my own head in advance of a conversation to justify it I talk myself out of a lot of purchases. I'm married, so I have these conversations with my wife. She is very supportive of me buying things that I want if they will bring value. If I wasn't married and couldn't control my spending, I'd find a good friend or relative that I trust, and I would create a trust with me as the primary beneficiary, and I would appoint a trustee who was willing to sign off on any purchase that I wanted to make after justifying it to them. If I had no friends or relatives that I trusted in that role, I'd hire a financial adviser to fill the same role. Contractually I would want to be able to terminate the arrangement if it was not working, but that would mean sacrificing the legal fees to alter the trust and appoint a new trustee.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3752027275a54f8d477ceff2be25b5e8",
"text": "\"Technically, anyone who advises how you should spend or proportion your money is a financial adviser. A person that does it for money is a Financial Advisor (difference in spelling). Financial Advisors are people that basically build, manage, or advise on your portfolio. They have a little more institutional knowledge on how/where to invest, given your goals, since they do it on a daily basis. They may know a little more than you since, they deal with many different assets: stocks, ETFs, mutual funds, bonds, insurances (home/health/life), REITs, options, futures, LEAPS, etc. There is risk in everything you do, which is why what they propose is generally according to the risk-level you want to assume. Since you're younger, your risk level could be a little higher, as you approach retirement, your risk level will be lower. Risk level should be associated with how likely you're able to reacquire your assets if you lose it all as well as, your likelihood to enjoy the fruits from your investments. Financial Advisors are great, however, be careful about them. Some are payed on commissions, which are given money for investing in packages that they support. Basically, they could get paid $$ for putting you in a losing situation. Also be careful because some announce that they are fee-based - these advisers often receive fees as well as commissions. Basically, associate the term \"\"commission\"\" with \"\"conflict-of-interest\"\", so you want a fee-only Advisor, which isn't persuaded to steer you wrong. Another thing worth noting is that some trading companies (like e*trade) has financial services that may be free, depending how much money you have with them. Generally, $50K is on the lower end to get a Financial Advisors. There has been corruption in the past, where Financial Advisors are only given a limited number of accounts to manage, that means they took the lower-valued ones and basically ran them into the ground, so they could get newer ones from the lot that were hopefully worth more - the larger their portfolio, the more $$ they could make (higher fees or more commissions) and subjectively less work (less accounts to have to deal with), that's subjective, since the spread of the wealth was accross many markets.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab5edd271f5b25ac7c596587f7e13ac2",
"text": "If you use a financial planner not only should they be a fiduciary but you should just pay them an hourly rate once a year instead of a percentage unless the percentage is cheaper at this time. To find a good one, go to the National Association of Personal Financial Advisers website, NAPFA.org. Another good resource is Garrett Planning Network: GarrettPlanningNetwork.com.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fda5f5c4f7c382202bb5fab7941277f4",
"text": "\"The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC) has a page specifically about working with a financial planner or advisor. It's a good starting point if you are thinking about getting a financial professional to help you plan and manage your investments. In the \"\"Where To Look\"\" section on that page, FCAC refers to a handful of industry associations. I'll specifically highlight the Financial Planning Standards Council's \"\"Find a planner\"\" page, which can help you locate a Certified Financial Planner (CFP). Choose financial advice carefully. Prefer certified professionals who charge a set fee for service over advisors who work on commission to push investment products. Commission-based advice is seldom unbiased. MoneySense magazine published a listing last year for where to find a fee-only financial planner, calling it \"\"The most comprehensive listing of Canadian fee-only financial planners on the web\"\" — but do note the caveat (near the bottom of the page) that the individuals & firms have not been screened. Do your own due diligence and check references.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "db7a27bf0afb30d12a004f760578f6a8",
"text": "\"is there anything I can do now to protect this currency advantage from future volatility? Generally not much. There are Fx hedges available, however these are for specialist like FI's and Large Corporates, traders. I've considered simply moving my funds to an Australian bank to \"\"lock-in\"\" the current rate, but I worry that this will put me at risk of a substantial loss (due to exchange rates, transfer fees, etc) when I move my funds back into the US in 6 months. If you know for sure you are going to spend 6 months in Australia. It would be wise to money certain amount of money that you need. So this way, there is no need to move back funds from Australia to US. Again whether this will be beneficial or not is speculative and to an extent can't be predicted.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
bda83ebf364b9539c7d3420fd51a854d
|
Where can I lookup accurate current exchange rates for consumers?
|
[
{
"docid": "0d54bb4724c3cde18970948c74e5dec8",
"text": "What you see on XE, is the rate at which it is being traded in the market. What you receive from a broker is the rate minus a fee, for the service being provided. You can check what rates are available for visa and mastercard on the following websites. Visa rates Mastercard rates I want to shop in the currency that will be cheapest in CAD at any given time. This is a mirage and isn't going to help much. The prices you pay might be reflecting the exchange rates, difference in the product quality and other factors too. Rates are fixed for a day, so any FX movement you see in the market willn't be reflected in what you pay.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c4b740c53cd6ff4f2ff8b29ed3c99642",
"text": "I want to shop in the currency that will be cheapest in CAD at any given time. How do you plan to do this? If you are using a debit or credit card on a CAD account, then you will pay that bank's exchange rate to pay for goods and services that are billed in foreign currency. If you plan on buying goods and services from merchants that offer to bill you in CAD for items that are priced in foreign currency (E.g. buying from Amazon.co.uk GBP priced goods, but having Amazon bill your card with equivalent CAD) then you will be paying that merchant's exchange rate. It is very unlikely that either of these scenarios would result in you paying mid-market rates (what you see on xe.com), which is the average between the current ask and bid prices for any currency pair. Instead, the business handling your transaction will set their own exchange rate, which will usually be less favorable than the mid-market rate and may have additional fees/commission bolted on as a separate charge. For example, if I buy 100 USD worth of goods from a US vendor, but use a CAD credit card to pay, the mid-market rate on xe.com right now indicates an equivalent value of 126.97 CAD. However the credit card company is more likely to charge closer to 130.00 CAD and add a foreign transaction fee of maybe $2-3, or a percentage of the transaction value. Alternatively, if using something like Amazon, they may offer to bill the CAD credit card in CAD for those 100 USD goods. No separate foreign transaction fee in this case, but they are still likely to exchange at the less favorable 130.00 rate instead of the mid-market rates. The only way you can choose to pay in the cheapest equivalent currency is if you already have holdings of all the different currencies. Then just pay using whichever currency gets you the most bang for your buck. Unless you are receiving payments/wages in multiple currencies though, you're still going to have to refill these accounts periodically, thus incurring some foreign transaction fees and being subject to the banker's exchange rates. Where can I lookup accurate current exchange rates for consumers? It depends on who will be handling your transaction. Amazon will tell you at the checkout what exchange rate they will apply if you are having them convert a bill into your local currency for you. For credit/debit card transactions processed in a different currency than the attached account, you need to look at your specific agreement or contact the bank to see which rate they use for daily transactions (and where you can obtain these rates), whether they convert on the day of the transaction vs. the day it posts to your account, and how much they add on ($ and/or %) in fees and commission.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8bcdf4cca2c9f6777c2b69ade14f4138",
"text": "Current and past FX rates are available on Visa's website. Note that it may vary by country, so use your local Visa website.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "81736205bbbb2bef19b6b96f71dcb2db",
"text": "\"You might convert all your money in local currency but you need take care of following tips while studying abroad.Here are some money tips that can be useful during a trip abroad. Know about fees :- When you use a debit card or credit card in a foreign country, there are generally two types of transaction fees that may apply: Understand exchange rates :- The exchange rate lets you know the amount of nearby money you can get for each U.S. dollar, missing any expenses. There are \"\"sell\"\" rates for individuals who are trading U.S. dollars for foreign currency, and, the other way around, \"\"purchase\"\" rates. It's a smart thought to recognize what the neighborhood money is worth in dollars so you can comprehend the estimation of your buys abroad. Sites like X-Rates offer a currency converter that gives the current exchange rate, so you can make speedy comparisons. You can utilize it to get a feel for how much certain amount (say $1, $10, $25, $50, $100) are worth in local currency. Remember that rates fluctuate, so you will be unable to suspect precisely the amount of a buy made in a foreign currency will cost you in U.S. dollars. To get cash, check for buddy banks abroad:- If you already have an account with a large bank or credit union in the U.S., you may have an advantage. Being a client of a big financial institution with a large ATM system may make it easier to find a subsidiary cash machine and stay away from an out-of-system charge. Bank of America, for example, is a part of the Global ATM Alliance, which lets clients of taking an interest banks use their debit cards to withdraw money at any Alliance ATM without paying the machine's operator an access fee, in spite of the fact that you may at present be charged for converting dollars into local currency used for purchases. Citibank is another well known bank for travelers because it has 45,000 ATMs in more than 30 countries, including popular study-abroad destinations such as the U.K., Italy and Spain. ATMs in a foreign country may allow withdrawals just from a financial records, and not from savings so make sure to keep an adequate checking balance. Also, ATM withdrawal limits will apply just as they do in the U.S., but the amount may vary based on the local currency and exchange rates. Weigh the benefits of other banks :- For general needs, online banks and even foreign banks can also be good options. With online banks, you don’t have to visit physical branches, and these institutions typically have lower fees. Use our checking account tool to find one that’s a good fit. Foreign banks:- Many American debit cards may not work in Europe, Asia and Latin America, especially those that don’t have an EMV chip that help prevent fraud. Or some cards may work at one ATM, but not another. One option for students who expect a more extended stay in a foreign country is to open a new account at a local bank. This will let you have better access to ATMs, and to make purchases more easily and without as many fees. See our chart below for the names of the largest banks in several countries. Guard against fraud and identity theft:- One of the most important things you can do as you plan your trip is to let your bank know that you’ll be abroad. Include exact countries and dates, when possible, to avoid having your card flagged for fraud. Unfortunately, incidents may still arise despite providing ample warning to your bank. Bring a backup credit card or debit card so you can still access some sort of money in case one is canceled. Passports are also critical — not just for traveling from place to place, but also as identification to open a bank account and for everyday purposes. You’ll want to make two photocopies and give one to a friend or family member to keep at home and put the other in a separate, secure location, just in case your actual passport is lost or stolen.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "652a441b503ccae88a469cfbf4f0a0d6",
"text": "I can't think of any specifically, but if you haven't already done so it would be worthwhile reading a textbook on macro-economics to get an idea of how money supply, exchange rates, unemployment and so on are thought to relate. The other thing which might be interesting in respect of the Euro crisis would be a history of past economic unions. There have been several of these, not least the US dollar (in the 19C, I believe); the union of the English and Scottish pound (early 1600s); and the German mark. They tend to have some characteristic problems, caused partly by different parts of the union being at different stages in an economic cycle. Unfortunately I can't think of a single text which gathers this together.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0044afa440570181fb34cb566eaab389",
"text": "I found the zephyr database, which does the job. Nonetheless if someone knows other (open) sources, be welcome to answer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e61919cc2567f96df4868a9c4de17281",
"text": "At any instant, three currencies will have exchange rates so if I know the rate between A and B, and B to C, the A to C rate is easily calculated. You need X pounds, so at that moment, you are subject to the exchange rate right then. It's not a deal or bargain, although it may look better in hindsight if the currencies move after some time has passed. But if a currency is going to depreciate, and you have the foresight to know such things, you'd already be wealthy and not visiting here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "500aba91d79281094dbadba775df5b7a",
"text": "I'm using iBank on my Mac here and that definitely supports different currencies and is also supposed to be able to track investments (I haven't used it to track investments yet, hence the 'supposed to' caveat).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd7f2b503ced211bf1dc76b6d304183f",
"text": "Central banks don't generally post exchange rates with other currencies, as they are not determined by central banks but by the currency markets. You need a source for live exchange rate data (for example www.xe.com), and you need to calculate the prices in other currencies dynamically as they are displayed -- they will be changing continually, from minute to minute.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f7ff0489f0eabd8d4d808b9215088b15",
"text": "You can get this data from a variety of sources, but likely not all from 1 source. Yahoo is a good source, as is Google, but some stock markets also give away some of this data, and there's foreign websites which provide data for foreign exchanges. Some Googling is required, as is knowledge of web scraping (R, Python, Ruby or Perl are great tools for this...).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "81a0892a695ba40344a68db23cb8c3a6",
"text": "moneydashboard.com claims to be the UK's Mint but I have problem using it with my HSBC account right now. I have contacted their helpdesk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b0d59e3f864aab765fbc03b515de78f",
"text": "\"The setting of interest rates (or \"\"repurchase rates\"\") varies from country to country, as well as with the independence of the central bank. There are a number of measurements and indices that central bankers can take into account: This is a limited overview but should give an indication of just how complex tracking inflation is, let alone attempting to control it. House prices are in the mix but which house or which price? The choice of what to measure faces the difficulty of attempting to find a symmetrical basket which really affects the majority regularly (and not everyone is buying several new houses a year so the majority are ring-fenced from fluctuations in prices at the capital end, but not from the interest-rate end). And this is only when the various agencies (Statistics, Central Bank, Labour, etc.) are independent. In countries like Venezuela or Argentina, government has taken over release of such data and it is frequently at odds with individual experience. Links for the US: And, for Australia:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "041ce37bd0f111523e88e92d4ce75aaf",
"text": "\"Large multinationals who do business in multiple locales hedge even \"\"stable\"\" currencies like the Euro, Yen and Pound - because a 5-10% adverse move in an exchange rate is highly consequential to the bottom line. I doubt any of them are going to be doing significant amounts of business accepting a currency with a 400% annual range. And why should they? It's nothing more than another unit of payment - one with its own problems.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b0eea496577f21e08aba1c08f0120db3",
"text": "\"I've been doing a bunch of Googling and reading since I first posed this question on travel.SE and I've found an article on a site called \"\"thefinancebuff.com\"\" with a very good comparison of costs as of September 2013: Get the Best Exchange Rate: Bank Wire, Xoom, XE Trade, Western Union, USForex, CurrencyFair by Harry Sit It compares the following methods: Their examples are for sending US$10,000 from the US to Canada and converting to Canadian dollars. CurrencyFair worked out the cheapest.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "db751b9cc469f547550a323044b23d8e",
"text": "For manual conversion you can use many sites, starting from google (type 30 USD in yuan) to sites like xe.com mentioned here. For programmatic conversion, you could use Google Calculator API or many other currency exchange APIs that are available. Beware however that if you do it on the real site, the exchange rate is different from actual rates used by banks and payment processing companies - while they use market-based rates, they usually charge some premium on currency conversion, meaning that if you have something for 30 dollars, according to current rate it may bet 198 yuan, but if he uses a credit card for purchase, it may cost him, for example, 204 yuan. You should be very careful about making difference between snapshot market rates and actual rates used in specific transaction.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a63c6cf65d6173908d16b4ae483f407",
"text": "I thought to enlarge on user Zephyr's comment above. PC Financial seems to fail to calculate explicitly and then display the cashback reward return of 1%, for the benefit of consumers; does it want to conceal or mislead or conceal customers. Anyhow, I show this using this info below. I'll just calculate using the rate for 'everywhere you shop', since many deem travel a luxury. (1) 20,000 PC points = $20 in Free Groceries Minimum redemption is 20,000 PC Points (2) Earn 10 PC points for every $1 spent, everywhere you shop Earn 20 PC points for every $1 spent on travel services at pctravel.ca† Cashback Reward Rate = Reward/Expenditure. I find confusing the exposition '20,000 PC points = $20', because this is NOT the cost or expenditure; I regard this as the reward. The key step is to calculate the expenditure needed to achieve this reward, which again is 20,000 PC points. Thus, we must attain (1) from (2), and must solve for ¿ in this ratio problem: 10/20,000 = $1/¿ ===> ? = $2000. So $2000 must be spent, to reap $20 as the reward. Altogether, cashback reward = $20/$2000 = 0.01 = 1%. QED. I Googled this card before, and I infer from this article that PC changed its cashback ratios: You get five PC points for every dollar you spend on your bank card at participating stores where President’s Choice products are sold. This is a bit disappointing as I can do the math in my head and determine that the PC points rewards are only worth 0.5% of your purchase amount. I had expected at least 1% to compete with the top reward credit cards. Also, the webpage errs in the following; the 'cent' is supposed to be a dollar: PC points are worth one tenth of a cent each. So if you use the minimum allowable amount of PC points of 20,000, you will get $20.00 worth of groceries.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8257d17b4fce98bacecffd5f57a491f1",
"text": "\"I've considered simply moving my funds to an Australian bank to \"\"lock-in\"\" the current rate, but I worry that this will put me at risk of a substantial loss (due to exchange rates, transfer fees, etc) when I move my funds back into the US in 6 months. Why move funds back? If you want to lock in current exchange rates, figure out how much money you are likely to spend in Australia for the next six months. Move just enough funds to cover that to an Australian bank. Leave the remainder in the United States (US), as your future expenses will be in US dollars. So long as you don't find some major, unanticipated purchase, this covers you. You have enough money for the next six months with no exchange rate worries. At the end of the six months, if you fall slightly short, cover with your credit card as you are doing now. You'll take a loss, but on a small amount of money. If you have a slight excess and you were right about the exchange rate, you'll make a little profit at the end. If you were wrong, you'll take a small loss. The key here is that you should be able to budget for your six months. You can lock in current exchange rates just for that amount of money. Moving all your funds to Australia is a gamble. You can certainly do that if you want, but rather than gambling, it may be better to take the sure thing. You know you need six months expenses, so just move that. You will definitely be spending six months money in Australia, so you are immune to exchange rate fluctuations for that period. The remainder of your money can stay in the US, as that's where you plan to spend it. However, recent political events back in the States have me (and, I'm sure, every currency speculator and foreign investor) worried that this advantage will not last for much longer. If currency speculators expect exchange rates to fall, then they'd have already bid down the rates. I.e. they'd keep speculating until the rates did fall. So the speculators expect the current rates are correct, otherwise they'd move them. Donald Trump's state goal is to increase exports relative to imports. If he's successful, this could cause the US dollar to fall to make exports cheaper and imports more expensive. However, if his policies fail, then the opposite is likely to happen. Most of his announced trade policies are more likely to increase the value of the dollar than to decrease it. In particular, that is the likely result of increased tariffs. If you are worried about Trump failing, then you should worry about a strong dollar. That's more in line with actual speculation since the election. I don't know that I'd make a strong bet in either direction. Hedging makes more sense to me, as it simply locks in the current situation, which you apparently find favorable. Not hedging at all might produce some profit if the dollar goes up. Gambling all your funds might produce some profit if the dollar goes down. The middle path of hedging just what you're spending is the safest if least likely to produce profit. My recommendation is to hedge the six months expenses and enjoy your time abroad. Why worry about political events that you can't control? Enjoy your working (studying) vacation.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f8a3b86208adcc243e3092e47447862d",
"text": "It seems like there are a few different things going on here because there are multiple parties involved with different interests. The car loan almost surely has the car itself as collateral, so, if you stop paying, the bank can claim the car to cover their costs. Since your car is now totaled, however, that collateral is essentially gone and your loan is probably effectively dead already. The bank isn't going let you keep the money against a totaled car. I suspect this is what the adjuster meant when he said you cannot keep the car because of the loan. The insurance company sounds like they're going to pay the claim, but once they pay on a totaled car, they own it. They have some plan for how they recover partial costs from the wreck. That may or may not allow you (or anyone else) to buy it from them. For example, they might have some bulk sale deal with a salvage company that doesn't allow them to sell back to you, they may have liability issues with selling a wrecked car, etc. Whatever is going on here should be separate from your loan and related to the business model of your insurance company. If you do have an option to buy the car back, it will almost surely be viewed as a new purchase by the insurances company and your lender, as if you bought a different car in similar condition.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ae8757cb4b52e6c71805b1c811186142
|
What should I do with the change in my change-jar?
|
[
{
"docid": "9abb9c67f5d9b752d21d6be9d5cd17f1",
"text": "Every now and then I fill a pocket with a handful of coins and spend it on a very small shop on my way home, i.e. a loaf of bread (£1.50), a pint of milk (50p) by using the self-check out (Tesco/Sainsbury's) which has a coin slot or even better the little bowl where you put coins down. I find this pretty straightforward. There's no point having a jar at home worth £50.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e7b16d8fd53d30ebcc15ef950ddf947f",
"text": "I don't like paying the percentage on the supermarket coin counters, and don't feel like buying a coin counter so I have my own solution. I keep higher value coins for vending machines, parking meters etc, and lower value coins I put in charity boxes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "93f36ea4cc5f8bfbaeb82ff0e07742a1",
"text": "Are you in an occupation that regularly collects change or is this change left in your pocket at the end of the day? Here in the US it is typically worth it to invest in some automatic coin counters if you are in an occupation that regularly collects coins. In your case you can collect the little baggies from the bank, use your coin counters and then make a deposit. Here is an example of US coin counters. If it is just pocket change then in the morning, make it a habit of taking some with you. This way you are less likely to break larger bills. Also if you are making a deposit at the bank, add some change to the deposit without making it to annoying.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "008bb5e59816da765e0c8664641db52a",
"text": "\"In the U.S. at least, a lot of these CoinStar machines are now owned and operated by the store or other venue in which they're placed, as a convenience to customers, and the fee for using it is waived. These machines, even without a fee attached, are still beneficial to the store, for two reasons. First, they bring in potential customers; the machine usually spits out a ticket that you take to the cashier, meaning you pass by all the impulse items they put in the checkout lines, and someone using the change catcher will invariably pick up a pack of gum or a magazine to spend your newfound wealth. The fact that one store has a change machine while another doesn't can also be the difference between choosing that store over the other for a planned shopping trip. Second, and less obvious, a store that owns a CoinStar machine has full access to the change people put in it (hey, they own the machine and are paying out cash on the receipts it spits out). During normal use of a cash drawer or register to take in money, large bills ($20/20€ or larger) are accumulated to be \"\"broken\"\", small to medium bills (1-10 units) stay roughly static in number as payments are made and larger bills are broken, and coins are invariably depleted as change is paid out. This means the average retail store needs a constant incoming supply of coinage, and that generally happens either through armored car service or similar commercial banking (which costs the store money), or through \"\"change catchers\"\" like gumball machines (which usually can't supply all the needed denominations). The Coinstar machine effectively reverses at least a portion of this attrition of coins and accumulation of large bills; the store can now receive coins and pay out large bills as a part of its day to day business, reducing or even eliminating the need to have a bank or armored car perform this service. Anyway, check and see whether the CoinStar machine you last used is still operating on a percentage-fee basis; it might be the case that the store has purchased the machine outright and is offering its services free of charge. If not, look around; other stores may be waiving the CoinStar fee where this one isn't (or they may have similar, non-CoinStar branded machines). Lastly, as other answers have mentioned, if you cash out in the form of a gift card, there's no fee, so you can pick a gift card to a store you're likely to visit anyway; in the U.S. there are a lot of good choices, like home improvement stores, Starbucks, major department stores/clothing retailers, and even an airline.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6a9ba9d1b4bcc1164a90d43eebcb8187",
"text": "\"I don't know if those machines work this way in the UK too, but here in the US you can often avoid the coin-counting fee if you opt to convert the money into a gift certificate instead of cash. I routinely convert my coins to Amazon gift certificate money with no charge. Individual machines differ in which particular gift cards they use, but at the least, almost all of them offer the option for a no-fee conversion to a voucher/gift certificate to the store where the machine is. So it's likely you'd be able to use the machine to convert the cash to \"\"money\"\" you can use to buy groceries.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "fbd6c2dfd00266e39e2432389d038f40",
"text": "The money NEVER becomes your money. It has been paid to you in error. Your best response is to write to the company who has paid you in error and tell them that for the responsibilty and subsequent stress caused to you by them putting you in a position of looking after their money you hereby give notice that you are charging them $50 per week until such time as they request the repayment of their money. Keep a dated copy of your letter and if they fail to respond then in 12 weeks they will have to pay you $600 to retrieve their $600. If they come back to you anytime after that they will OWE YOU money - but I wouldn't push for payment on that one. I have successfully used this approach with companies who send unsolicited goods and expect me to mess about returning them if I don't want them. I tell them the weekly fee I am charging them for storage and they quickly make arrangements to either take their goods back or (in one case) told me to keep them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "41d16faa39889d7deb9d94d194aa8873",
"text": "It helps to put the numbers in terms of an asset. Say a bottle of wine costs 10 dollars, but the price rises to 20 dollars a year later. The price has risen 100%, and your dollars have lost value. Whereas your ten used to be worth 100% of the price of bottle of wine, they now are worth 50% of the risen price of a bottle of wine so they've lost around 50% of their value. Divide the old price by the new inflated price to measure proportionally how much the old price is of the new price. 10 divided by 20 is 1/2 or .50 or 50%. You can then subtract the old price from the new in proportional terms to find how much value you've lost. 1 minus 1/2 or 1.00 minus .50 or 100% minus 50%.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "adbd26a148ea4692bd89917533e0a3ab",
"text": "\"First of all, it's quite common-place in GnuCash (and in accounting in general, I believe) to have \"\"accounts\"\" that represent concepts or ideas rather than actual accounts at some institution. For example, my personal GnuCash book has a plethora of expense accounts, just made up by me to categorize my spending, but all of the transactions are really just entries in my checking account. As to your actual question, I'd probably do this by tracking such savings as \"\"negative expenses,\"\" using an expense account and entering negative numbers. You could track grocery savings in your grocery expense account, or if you want to easily analyze the savings data, for example seeing savings over a certain time period, you would probably want a separate Grocery Savings expense account. EDIT: Regarding putting that money aside, here's an idea: Let's say you bought a $20 item that was on sale for $15. You could have a single transaction in GnuCash that includes four splits, one for each of the following actions: decrease your checking account by $20, increase your expense account by $20, decrease your \"\"discount savings\"\" expense account by $5, and increase your savings account (where you're putting that money aside) by $5.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3643d7beeb720ccb8b716a16c50eaae2",
"text": "\"The best I could come up with would be to simply ask for the amount of \"\"notes\"\" and \"\"coins\"\" you would like, and specify denominations thereof. The different currency labels exist for the reason that not all of them are valued the same, so USD 100 is not the same as EUR 100. To generalize would mean some form of uniformity in the values, that just isn't there.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "82556cf6dd6ff545b2163acfa5412108",
"text": "\"An accounting general ledger is based on tracking your actual assets, liabilities, expenses, and income, and Gnucash is first and foremost a general ledger program. While it has some simple \"\"budgeting\"\" capabilities, they're primarily based around reporting how close your actual expenses were to a planned budget, not around forecasting eventual cash flow or \"\"saving\"\" a portion of assets for particular purposes. I think the closest concept to what you're trying to do is that you want to take your \"\"real\"\" Checking account, and segment it into portions. You could use something like this as an Account Hierarchy: The total in the \"\"Checking Account\"\" parent represents your actual amount of money that you might reconcile with your bank, but you have it allocated in your accounting in various ways. You may have deposits usually go into the \"\"Available funds\"\" subaccount, but when you want to save some money you transfer from that into a Savings subaccount. You could include that transfer as an additional split when you buy something, such as transferring $50 from Assets:Checking Account:Available Funds sending $45 to Expenses:Groceries and $5 to Assets:Checking Account:Long-term Savings. This can make it a little more annoying to reconcile your accounts (you need to use the \"\"Include Subaccounts\"\" checkbox), and I'm not sure how well it'd work if you ever imported transaction files from your bank. Another option may be to track your budgeting (which answers \"\"How much am I allowed to spend on X right now?\"\") separately from your accounting (which only answers \"\"How much have I spent on X in the past?\"\" and \"\"How much do I own right now?\"\"), using a different application or spreadsheet. Using Gnucash to track \"\"budget envelopes\"\" is kind of twisting it in a way it's not really designed for, though it may work well enough for what you're looking for.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f836cd217d6541bbfe6c08fcca1719a",
"text": "The question is about the US but to add the European perspective: The rule over here (I only know German law, but assume it's the same for all of the Euro area) is that you need more than half of the bill or you have to be able to prove that more than half of the bill was destroyed (good luck) in order to get it replaced. Deformed coins can also be replaced. But all only as long as you didn't break it on purpose. So giving half of the bill to the cab driver would be on purpose and (if the central bank knows about it) make the bill (or coin) invalid. German information: https://www.bundesbank.de/Navigation/DE/Aufgaben/Bargeld/Beschaedigtes_Geld/beschaedigtes_geld.html",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb31aa53139708b7c3827e7e98a67dc2",
"text": "\"As others have noted, US law says that if you have over half the bill, it's worth the full value, under half is worth nothing. I presume if it is very close to half, if even careful measurements show that you have 50.5%, you'll have difficulty cashing it in, precisely because the government and the banking system aren't going to allow themselves to be easily fooled by someone cutting bills in half and then trying to redeem both halves. I've seen several comments on here about how you'd explain to the bank how so many bills were cut in half. What if you just told them the truth? Not the part about killing someone, of course, but tell them that you made a deal, neither of you wanted to bother with complex contracts and having to go to court if the other side didn't pay up, so your buddy cut all the bills in half, etc. As you now have both halves and they clearly have the same serial number, this no real evidence of fraud. Okay, this is technically illegal -- 18 US Code Section 333, \"\"Whoever mutilates, CUTS, defaces, disfigures, or perforates, or unites or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking association, or Federal Reserve bank, or the Federal Reserve System, with intent to render such bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt unfit to be reissued, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.\"\" But you didn't do it, the other guy did. I presume the point of this law is to say that you can't get a hold of currency belonging to someone else and mutilate it so as to make it worthless. As he's now given you both halves, I doubt anyone would bother to track him down and prosecute him. Just BTW, while checking up on the details of the law, I stumbled across 18 USC 336, which says that it's illegal to write a check for less than $1, with penalties of 6 months in prison. I just got a check from AT&T for 15 cents for one of those class action suits where the lawyers get $100 million and the victims get 15 cents each. Apparently that was illegal.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5fc6ec273abd1bf196aef714bfe04e1d",
"text": "A pencil and a small notepad really work here, but if you have a smartphone then some way of using it makes sense as well. Try: Transcribe all of these onto a better record at the end of each day. Also record the amount of money in your wallet/purse/pocket every day, and check to see if the amounts you've recorded add up to the amount you've spent. It'll be easier to remember that newspaper you bought at the end of the day, rather than a week later. Or just record the difference as 'miscellaneous'.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3fbc8def7c62a89fdfaa00e3e20db01",
"text": "\"As others have mentioned, it's important that there is a fair assessment of the market value of the items being donated. Joel's point about the government not looking kindly upon overvalued donations also applies in Canada: the CRA doesn't look kindly upon donation schemes such as \"\"buy-low, donate-high arrangements.\"\" Since nobody has offered up authoritative information for Canada yet, here's something to look at: Excerpts: 3) Gifts in kind of a taxpayer include capital property, depreciable property, personal-use property ... [...] 6) The fair market value of a gift in kind as of the date of the donation (the date on which beneficial ownership is transferred from the donor to the donee) must be determined before an amount can be recorded on a receipt for tax purposes. [...] The person who determines the fair market value of the property must be competent and qualified to evaluate the particular property being transferred by way of a gift. Property of little or only nominal value to the donor will not qualify as a gift in kind. Used clothing of little value would be an example of a non-qualifying contribution. You will need to find a charity that would both value the books you would be donating and be willing to issue you a receipt for your charitable donation. Whatever receipt they issue should be in line with fair market value of the goods donated. Assume your donation receipt will be challenged, and keep both: Finally, reasonable comparables might be prices for similar used goods, not a percentage of new. Though, if you can't find a price for a particular title in the used market, an estimate consistent with other valuations in the lot would be better than nothing, perhaps.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c35140524ccf9b513b1f488b10cb16a",
"text": "\"of course if you asked me to give you $24.4955 I can't. No, but if I asked you to give me $24.4955 and you gave me a piece of paper saying \"\"I O U $24.4955\"\", and then this happened repeatedly until I had collected 100 of these pieces of paper from you, then I could give them back to you in exchange for $2449.55 of currency. There's nothing magical about the fact that there doesn't happen to be a $0.001 coin in current circulation. This question has some further information.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f938294b1e5fa886e3ab9505c06a4245",
"text": "\"The question I think is not: \"\"What is a certain material worth in a coin\"\" but \"\"What is a certain material worth in a coin and how much does it cost to get it out of there\"\". Just because something contains a certain element doesn't mean that you can get to it cheaply. Also as George Marian said: I don't think that it is legal to melt coins. So if the time comes you would first have to find a company willing to process the coins etc. Also you should not only compare what it is worth now and at a later time but also what that money would be worth if you put it into a high yielding savings account or something like that.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f223389ac294be1c02dff830429e81dd",
"text": "First question: Any, probably all, of the above. Second question: The risk is that the currency will become worth less, or even worthless. Most will resort to the printing press (inflation) which will tank the currency's purchasing power. A different currency will have the same problem, but possibly less so than yours. Real estate is a good deal. So are eggs, if you were to ask a Weimar Germany farmer. People will always need food and shelter.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3a3089e2ce15824c40e5d7da0c02e29",
"text": "Is this even legal? How can a bank refuse to deposit legal tender in the United States? Legal for all debts, public or private, doesn't mean quite what I used to think, either. Per The Fed: This statute means that all United States money as identified above is a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person, or an organization must accept currency or coins as payment for goods or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether to accept cash unless there is a state law which says otherwise. Yes, they can refuse loose change. Also, they aren't refusing your deposit, just requiring that it be rolled. What do I do with my change? I do not want to spend the time rolling it, and I am not going to pay a fee to cash my change. There aren't many other options, change is a nuisance. I believe Coinstar machines reduce/remove their fee if you exchange coins for gift cards, so that might be the best option for convenience and retaining value.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9ab1ec05f4e7fd0f7cefbed8358144d4",
"text": "Shred it all. You might want to keep a record going back at most a year, just in case. But just in case of what? What is a good idea is to have an electronic record. It's a good practice to know how your spending changes over time. Beyond that, it's just a fire hazard. The thing is, I know I'm right in the above paragraph, but I'm a hypocrite: I have years' worth of paper records of all kinds. I need to get rid of it. But I have grown attached. I have trucked this stuff around in move after move. I have a skill at taking good care of useless things. I've even thought of hiring somebody to scan it all in for me, so that I can feel safe shredding all this paper without losing any of the data. But that's insane!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "abcb1b0b0dcb18fd1442e0ce54d706b1",
"text": "So your dollar never leaves America until it leaves for an investment - which would be FDI. If you sent the dollar home to Mexico, that’s a remittance current account flow. Then later, you want to use that dollar for a housing investment in Mexico, it’s just domestic investment. If you move to the US, I believe that’s another remittance flow (though it might even be a service flow because the bank is the one moving the dollar!). Then to invest in Mexico you need to go through an FDI channel.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a4c55a7d818cf4fb28de1fc6b24e709e
|
Do I need to report to FInCEN if I had greater than $10,000 worth of bitcoin in a foreign bitcoin exchange?
|
[
{
"docid": "efce0491704a8e58e2bad654003dc996",
"text": "Yes, I'd say you do. This is similar to reporting a brokerage account. Also, don't forget the requirements for form 8938.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af3575f1faff6c617daffd493faa8815",
"text": "Lets look at possible use cases: If you ever converted your cryptocurrency to cash on a foreign exchange, then **YES** you had to report. That means if you ever daytraded and the US dollar (or other fiat) amount was $10,000 or greater when you went out of crypto, then you need to report. Because the regulations stipulate you need to report over $10,000 at any point in the year. If you DID NOT convert your cryptocurrency to cash, and only had them on an exchange's servers, perhaps traded for other cryptocurrency pairs, then NO this did not fall under the regulations. Example, In 2013 I wanted to cash out of a cryptocurrency that didn't have a USD market in the United States, but I didn't want to go to cash on a foreign exchange specifically for this reason (amongst others). So I sold my Litecoin on BTC-E (Slovakia) for Bitcoin, and then I sold the Bitcoin on Coinbase (USA). (even though BTC-E had a Litecoin/USD market, and then I could day trade the swings easily to make more capital gains, but I wanted cash in my bank account AND didn't want the reporting overhead). Read the regulations yourself. Financial instruments that are reportable: Cash (fiat), securities, futures and options. Also, http://www.bna.com/irs-no-bitcoin-n17179891056/ whether it is just in the blockchain or on a server, IRS and FINCEN said bitcoin is not reportable on FBAR. When they update their guidance, it'll be in the news. The director of FinCEN is very active in cryptocurrency developments and guidance. Bitcoin has been around for six years, it isn't that esoteric and the government isn't that confused on what it is (IRS and FinCEN's hands are tied by Congress in how to more realistically categorize cryptocurrency) Although at this point in time, there are several very liquid exchanges within the United States, such as the one NYSE/ICE hosts (Coinbase).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2bffe90d075b52449ec5d91e29289f36",
"text": "\"Firstly you have to know exactly what you are asking here. What you have if you \"\"own\"\" bitcoins is a private key that allows you to make a change to the blockchain that can assign a piece of information from yourself to the next person. Nothing more nothing less. The fact that this small piece of information is considered to have a market value, is a matter of opinion, and is analagous to owning a domain name. A domain name is an entry in a register, that has equal weight to all other entries, but the market determines if that information (eg: CocaCola.com) has any more value than say another less well know domain. Bitcoin is the same - an entry in a register, and the market decides which entry is more valuable than another. So what exactly are you wanting to declare to FinCEN? Are you willing to declare the ownership of private key? Of course not. So what then? An uncrackable private key can be generated at will by anyone, without even needing to \"\"own\"\" or transact in bitcoins, and that same private key would be equally valid on any of the 1000's of other bitcoin clones. The point I want to make is that owning a private key in itself is not valuable. Therefore you do not need, nor would anyone advise notifying FinCEN of that fact. To put this into context, every time you connect to online banking, your computer secretly generates a new random private key to secure your communications with the bank. Theoretically that same private key could also be used to sign a bitcoin transaction. Do you need to declare every private key your computer generates? No. Secondly, if you are using any of the latest generation of HD wallets, your private key changes with every single transaction. Are you seriously saying that you want to take it on your shoulders to inform FinCEN every time you move information (bitcoin amounts) around even in your own wallets? The fact is FinCEN could never \"\"discover\"\" your ownership of bitcoins (or any of the 1000s of alt coins) other than by you informing them of this fact. You may want to carefully consider the personal implications of starting down this road especially as all FinCEN would need to do is subpoena your bitcoin private key to steal your so-called funds, as they have done recently to other more prominent persons in the community. EDIT to clarify the points raised in comments. You do not own the private key to the bitcoins stored on a foreign exchange, nor can you discover it. The exchange owns the private key. You therefore do not either technically have control over the coins (MtGox is a very good example here - they went out of business because they allowed their private keys to be used by some other party who was able to siphon off the coins). Your balance is only yours when you own the private keys and the ability to spend. Any other situation you can neither recover the bitcoin to sell (to pay for any taxes due). So you do not either have the legal right nor the technical right to consider those coins in your possession. For those who do not understand the technical or legal implications of private key ownership, please do not speculate about what \"\"owning\"\" bitcoin actually means, or how ownership can be discovered. Holding Bitcoin is not illegal, and the US government who until recently were the single largest holder of Bitcoin demonstrate simply by this fact alone that there is nothing untoward here.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "3d950755a8b61ed3e9d7451cdd84b0b3",
"text": "\"Im not sure, but let me try. \"\"That person\"\" won't affect the value of currency, after two (or three) years (maybe months), agencies will report anomalies in country. Will be start the end of market. God bless FBI and NSA for prevent this. Actually, good \"\"hypothetical\"\" question.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6741ccbfeef4e9a7fda20823cabc2b82",
"text": "No, you don't. But you do need to file FBAR to report your foreign accounts if you have $10K or more at any given day in all of them combined, when you're a US resident. You need to file FBAR annually by the end of June (note: it must be received by FinCEN by the end of June, but nowadays you file it electronically anyway).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "956ddecfc0653002284ed107b47600ee",
"text": "Don't all of the major bitcoin processors limit the risk to basically zero for the large multinationals that choose to accept bitcoin? I haven't been involved recently, but I know when bitpay and coinbase were starting, whatever bitcoin you received was automatically transferred to USD at the current rate, unless you opted out and chose to keep the bitcoin.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "10d39f80d62655e1021c876a1a6d6781",
"text": "If you buy foreign currency as an investment, then the gains are ordinary income. The gains are realized when you close the position, and whether you buy something else go back to the original form of investment is of no consequence. In case #1 you have $125 income. In case #2 you have $125 income. In case #3 you have $166 loss. You report all these items on your Schedule D. Make sure to calculate the tax correctly, since the tax is not capital gains tax but rather ordinary income at marginal rates. Changes in foreign exchange between a transaction and the conversion of the proceeds to USD are generally not considered as income (i.e.: You sold a property in Mexico, but since the money took a couple of days to clear, the exchange rate changed and you got $2K more/less than you would based on the exchange rate on the day of the transaction - this is not a taxable income/loss). This is covered by the IRC Sec. 988. There are additional rules for contracts on foreign currency, TTM rules, etc. Better talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) for anything other than trivial.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "532edf7ff562fcf73cde242b4cffd10a",
"text": "> If you have a different currency from the U.S. Dollar, and it increases in value greatly, do you have to pay tax on that increased value relative to the U.S. dollar? Technically, all profit you make as a US citizen or resident is subject to tax. It doesn't matter in what currency the profit takes place, and it doesn't matter if the profit never hits US dollars at all. You made profit, you owe tax. Obviously the IRS is not going to bother with enforcing taxation on that Canadian twenty-dollar bill in your wallet from your last trip to Vancouver. But if you're sitting on a million dollars in Bitcoin profit, and the IRS finds out about it, expect them to start caring quite a bit. > There isn't much of a transaction record, is there? There is in fact a detailed and public transaction record. What there isn't is an easy way to match wallets to people; however, all similar machine learning projects seem to indicate that it wouldn't be hard at all to make these matchups.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c44e8add21de2cabf4f249a87937361",
"text": "I do not think banks have an obligation to report any deposits to the IRS, however, they probably have an obligation to report deposits exceeding certain threshold amounts to FinCEN. At least that's how it works in Canada, and we're known to model our Big Brother-style activities after our neighbour to the South.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0714e64d06233bbf500bca0aeeafe657",
"text": "\"The existing IRS guidance in the US related to bitcoin indicates it will be taxed as property. You'll sell your coins then when you file your taxes for that year you will indicate the dollar value that you sold as a capital gain with a $0 cost basis since you can't prove your initial cost. You can use a block chain explorer to get an idea of when the coins were transferred to your wallet to lay to rest any idea that someone paid you $1,000,000 for some sort of nefarious reason today. Prepare to be audited, I'd probably shop around for a local tax guy willing to prepare your return. Additionally, I probably wouldn't sell it all at once or even all in a single year. It's obvious but I think it's worth saying, there's no law against making money. You bought the equivalent of junk a number of years ago that, by some kind of magic, has a value today. You're capitalizing on the value increase. I don't think there's a reason to \"\"worry\"\" about the government.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "278761b17fa57982144a46c66491ce57",
"text": "Like-kind of exchanges have a list of requirements. The IRS has not issued formal guidance in the matter. I recommend to be aggressive and claim the exchange, while justifying it with a good analogy to prove good faith (and persuade the IRS official reading it the risk of losing in tax court would be to high). Worst case the IRS will attempt to reject the exchange, at which point you could still pony up to get rid of the problem, interest being the only real risk. For example: Past tax court rulings have stated that collectable gold coins are not like kind to gold bars, and unlike silver coins, but investment grade gold coins are like kind to gold bars. So you could use a justification like this: I hold Bitcoin to be like-kind to Litecoin, because they use the same fundamental technology with just a tweak in the math, as if exchanging different grades of gold bars, which has been approved by tax court ruling #xxxxx. Note that it doesn't matter whether any of this actually makes sense, it just has be reasonable enough for you to believe, and look like it is not worth pursuing to an overworked IRS official glancing at it. I haven't tried this yet, so up to now this is a guess, but it's a good enough guess in my estimation that I will be using it on some rather significant amounts next year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca4f820b9bdb5a53b055950641355db2",
"text": "Do not try to deposit piece wise. Either use the system in complete transparence, or do not use it at all. The fear of having your bank account frozen, even if you are in your rights, is justified. In any case, I don't advise you to put in bank before reaching IRS. Also keep all the proof that you indeed contacted them. (Recommended letter and copy of any form you submit to them) Be ready to also give those same documents to your bank to proove your good faith. If they are wrong, you'll be considered in bad faith until you can proove otherwise, without your bank account. Do not trust their good faith, they are not bad people, but very badly organized with too much power, so they put the burden of proof on you just because they can. If it is too burdensome for you then keep cash or go bitcoin. (but the learning curve to keep so much money in bitcoin secure against theft is high) You should declare it in this case anyway, but at least you don't have to fear having your money blocked arbitrarily.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7272c31978e10ac0038691e7e9e1f605",
"text": "\"The only \"\"authoritative document\"\" issued by the IRS to date relating to Cryptocurrencies is Notice 2014-21. It has this to say as the first Q&A: Q-1: How is virtual currency treated for federal tax purposes? A-1: For federal tax purposes, virtual currency is treated as property. General tax principles applicable to property transactions apply to transactions using virtual currency. That is to say, it should be treated as property like any other asset. Basis reporting the same as any other property would apply, as described in IRS documentation like Publication 550, Investment Income and Expenses and Publication 551, Basis of Assets. You should be able to use the same basis tracking method as you would use for any other capital asset like stocks or bonds. Per Publication 550 \"\"How To Figure Gain or Loss\"\", You figure gain or loss on a sale or trade of property by comparing the amount you realize with the adjusted basis of the property. Gain. If the amount you realize from a sale or trade is more than the adjusted basis of the property you transfer, the difference is a gain. Loss. If the adjusted basis of the property you transfer is more than the amount you realize, the difference is a loss. That is, the assumption with property is that you would be using specific identification. There are specific rules for mutual funds to allow for using average cost or defaulting to FIFO, but for general \"\"property\"\", including individual stocks and bonds, there is just Specific Identification or FIFO (and FIFO is just making an assumption about what you're choosing to sell first in the absence of any further information). You don't need to track exactly \"\"which Bitcoin\"\" was sold in terms of exactly how the transactions are on the Bitcoin ledger, it's just that you bought x bitcoins on date d, and when you sell a lot of up to x bitcoins you specify in your own records that the sale was of those specific bitcoins that you bought on date d and report it on your tax forms accordingly and keep track of how much of that lot is remaining. It works just like with stocks, where once you buy a share of XYZ Corp on one date and two shares on another date, you don't need to track the movement of stock certificates and ensure that you sell that exact certificate, you just identify which purchase lot is being sold at the time of sale.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b4a5fff5ef3a98fcf333a137464c7af",
"text": "Deliberately breaking transactions into smaller units to avoid reporting requirements is called structuring and may attract the attention of the IRS and/or law enforcement agencies. I'm not sure what the specific laws are on structuring with respect to FBAR reporting requirements and/or electronic transfers (as opposed to cash transactions). However, there's been substantial recent publicity about cases where people had their assets seized simply because federal agents suspected they were trying to avoid reporting requirements (even if there was no hard evidence of this). It is safer not to risk it. Don't try to structure your transactions to avoid the reporting requirements.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c7cf03316171ccd1ef7f305ef2953a99",
"text": "Sure; you can deposit cash. A few notes apply: Does the source of cash need to be declared ? If you deposit more than $10,000 in cash or other negotiable instruments, you'll be asked to complete a form called a Currency Transaction Report (here's the US Government's guidance for consumers about this form). There's some very important information in that guidance document about structuring, which is a fairly serious crime that you can commit if you break up your deposits to avoid reporting. Don't do this. The linked document gives examples. Also don't refuse to make your deposit and walk away when presented with a CTR form. In addition, you are also required to report to Customs and Border Protection when you bring more than $10,000 in or out of the country. If you are caught not doing so, the money may be seized and you could be prosecuted criminally. Many countries have similar requirements, often with different dollar amounts, so it's important to make sure you comply with their laws as well. The information from this reporting goes to the government and is used to enforce finance and tax laws, but there's nothing wrong or illegal about depositing cash as long as you don't evade the reporting requirements. You will not need to declare precisely where the cash comes from, but they will want the information required on the forms. Is it taxable ? Simply depositing cash into your bank account is not taxable. Receiving some forms of income, whether as cash or a bank deposit, is taxable. If you seem to have a large amount of unexplained cash income, it is possible an IRS audit will want an explanation from you as to where it comes from and why it isn't taxable. In short, if the income was taxable, you should have paid taxes on it whether or not you deposit it in a bank account. What is the limit of the deposit ? There is no government limit. An individual bank may have their own limit and/or may charge a fee for larger deposits. You could always call the bank and ask.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc29f3df7b49d4faef1a5644c2244382",
"text": "It's not enough just to check if your order doesn't exceed 10% of the 20 day average volume. I'll quote from my last answer about NSCC illiquid charges: You may still be assessed a fee for trading OTC stocks even if your account doesn't meet the criteria because these restrictions are applied at the level of the clearing firm, not the individual client. This means that if other investors with your broker, or even at another broker that happens to use the same clearing firm, purchase more than 5 million shares in an individual OTC stock at the same time, all of your accounts may face fees, even though individually, you don't exceed the limits. The NSCC issues a charge to the clearing firm if in aggregate, their orders exceed the limits, and the clearing firm usually passes these charges on to the broker(s) that placed the orders. Your broker may or may not pass the charges through to you; they may simply charge you significantly higher commissions for trading OTC securities and use those to cover the charges. Since checking how the volume of your orders compares to the average past volume, ask your broker about their policies on trading OTC stocks. They may tell you that you won't face illiquid charges because the higher cost of commissions covers these, or they may give you specifics on how to verify that your orders won't incur such charges. Only your broker can answer this with certainty.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4dda835616037c706767369d1efac27a",
"text": "\"See \"\"Structuring transactions to evade reporting requirement prohibited.\"\" You absolutely run the risk of the accusation of structuring. One can move money via check, direct transfer, etc, all day long, from account to account, and not have a reporting issue. But, cash deposits have a reporting requirement (by the bank) if $10K or over. Very simple, you deposit $5000 today, and $5000 tomorrow. That's structuring, and illegal. Let me offer a pre-emptive \"\"I don't know what frequency of $10000/X deposits triggers this rule. But, like the Supreme Court's, \"\"We have trouble defining porn, but we know it when we see it. And we're happy to have these cases brought to us,\"\" structuring is similarly not 100% definable, else one would shift a bit right.\"\" You did not ask, but your friend runs the risk of gift tax issues, as he's not filing the forms to acknowledge once he's over $14,000.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d50c7fdfce08325fca77e8f189c16e91",
"text": "It's important to note that the US is also the country that taxes its expats when they live abroad, and forces foreign banks to disclose assets of US citizens. Americans are literally the property of their government. America is a tax farm and its citizens can't leave the farm. Wherever you go, you are owned. And that now appears to be true of your Bitcoin as well. Even if you spend 50 years outside the USA, your masters want a piece of what you earn. Land of the Free.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b150e70290c5aecd9fe5a1668cc56656
|
Can expense ratios on investment options in a 401(k) plan contain part of the overall 401(k) plan fees?
|
[
{
"docid": "2a0af1c2c1b6c26dbc6f6d137d149688",
"text": "There are several things being mixed up in the questions being asked. The expense ratio charged by the mutual fund is built into the NAV per share of the fund, and you do not see the charge explicitly mentioned as a deduction on your 401k statement (or in the statement received from the mutual fund in a non-401k situation). The expense ratio is listed in the fund's prospectus, and should also have been made available to you in the literature about the new 401k plan that your employer is setting up. Mutual fund fees (for things like having a small balance, or for that matter, sales charges if any of the funds in the 401k are load funds, God forbid) are different. Some load mutual funds waive the sales charge load for 401k participants, while some may not. Actually, it all depends on how hard the employer negotiates with the 401k administration company who handles all the paperwork and the mutual fund company with which the 401k administration company negotiates. (In the 1980s, Fidelity Magellan (3% sales load) was a hot fund, but my employer managed to get it as an option in our plan with no sales load: it helped that my employer was large and could twist arms more easily than a mom-and-pop outfit or Solo 401k plan could). A long long time ago in a galaxy far far away, my first ever IRA contribution of $2000 into a no-load mutual fund resulted in a $25 annual maintenance fee, but the law allowed the payment of this fee separately from the $2000 if the IRA owner wished to do so. (If not, the $25 would reduce the IRA balance (and no, this did not count as a premature distribution from the IRA). Plan expenses are what the 401k administration company charges the employer for running the plan (and these expenses are not necessarily peanuts; a 401k plan is not something that needs just a spreadsheet -- there is lots of other paperwork that the employee never gets to see). In some cases, the employer pays the entire expense as a cost of doing business; in other cases, part is paid by the employer and the rest is passed on to the employees. As far as I know, there is no mechanism for the employee to pay these expenses outside the 401k plan (that is, these expenses are (visibly) deducted from the 401k plan balance). Finally, with regard to the question asked: how are plan fees divided among the investment options? I don't believe that anyone other than the 401k plan administrator or the employer can answer this. Even if the employer simply adopts one of the pre-packaged plans offered by a big 401k administrator (many brokerages and mutual fund companies offer these), the exact numbers depend on which pre-packaged plan has been chosen. (I do think the answers the OP has received are rubbish).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c2985abf51365c0748e889c837755967",
"text": "I question the reliability of the information you received. Of course, it's possible the former 401(k) provider happened to charge lower expense ratios on its index funds than other available funds and lower the new provider's fees. There are many many many financial institutions and fees are not fixed between them. I think the information you received is simply an assumptive justification for the difference in fees.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "99f5a86c40bb640dd563d824d274a358",
"text": "The management expense ratio (MER) is the management fee, plus all of the other costs required to run the fund, excluding any trading costs. Here's a pretty good explanation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d6c3b768179744cbae7673ecd47ecee",
"text": "The expense ratio is stated as an annual figure but is often broken down to be taken out periodically of the fund's assets. In traditional mutual funds, there will be a percent of assets in cash that can be nibbled to cover the expenses of running the fund and most deposits into the fund are done in cash. In an exchange-traded fund, new shares are often created through creation/redemption units which are baskets of securities that make things a bit different. In the case of an ETF, the dividends may be reduced by the expense ratio as the trading price follows the index usually. Expense ratios can vary as in some cases there may be initial waivers on new funds for a time period to allow them to build an asset base. There is also something to be said for economies of scale that allow a fund to have its expense ratio go down over time as it builds a larger asset base. These would be noted in the prospectus and annual reports of the fund to some degree. SPDR Annual Report on page 312 for the Russell 3000 ETF notes its expense ratio over the past 5 years being the following: 0.20% 0.20% 0.22% 0.20% 0.21% Thus, there is an example of some fluctuation if you want a real world example.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a93de0c47ea465ff6df525d0abc886ad",
"text": "The presence of the 401K option means that your ability to contribute to an IRA will be limited, it doesn't matter if you contribute to the 401K or not. Unless your company allows you to roll over 401K money into an IRA while you are still an employee, your money in the 401K will remain there. Many 401K programs offer not just stock mutual funds, but bond mutual funds, and international funds. Many also have target date funds. You will have to look at the paperwork for the funds to determine if any of them meet your definition of low expense. Because any money you have in those 401K funds is going to remain in the 401K, you still need to look at your options and make the best choice. Very few companies allow employees to invest in individual stocks, but some do. You can ask your employer to research other options for the 401K. The are contracting with a investment company to make the plan. They may be able to switch to a different package from the same company or may need to switch companies. How much it will cost them is unknown. You will have to understand when their current contract is up for renewal. If you feel their current plan is poor, it may be making hiring new employees difficult, or ti may lead to some employees to leave in search of better options. It may also be a factor in the number of employees contributing and how much they contribute.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "88bb43b977aa1af15ce7a4b0fd2dbc66",
"text": "Zero. Zero is reasonable. That's what Schwab offers with a low minimum to open the IRA. The fact is, you'll have expenses for the investments, whether a commission on stock purchase or ongoing expense of a fund or ETF. But, in my opinion, .25% is criminal. An S&P fund or ETF will have a sub-.10% expense. To spend .25% before any other fees are added is just wrong.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "33f9814f52c84615639ea6c51e2dbc68",
"text": "\"Week after week, I make remarks regarding expenses within retirement accounts. A 401(k) with a 1% or greater fee is criminal, in my opinion. Whole life insurance usually starts with fees north of 2%, and I've seen as high as 3.5% per year. Compare that to my own 401(k) with charges .02% for its S&P fund. When pressed to say something nice about whole life insurance, I offer \"\"whole life has sent tens of thousands of children to college, the children of the people selling it.\"\" A good friend would never suggest whole life, a great friend will physically restrain you from buying such a product.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9f92b437d308995bcd00e2e5cc8c7f1d",
"text": "I like that you are hedging ONLY the Roth IRA - more than likely you will not touch that until retirement. Looking at fees, I noticed Vanguard Target retirement funds are .17% - 0.19% expense ratios, versus 0.04 - 0.14% for their Small/Mid/Large cap stocks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "398e0210b897b26b43d1e3f1a3761f2f",
"text": "It says expense ratio of 0.14%. What does it mean? Essentially it means that they will take 0.14% of your money, regardless of the performance. This measures how much money the fund spends out of its assets on the regular management expenses. How much taxes will I be subject to This depends on your personal situation, not much to do with the fund (though investment/rebalancing policies may affect the taxable distributions). If you hold it in your IRA - there will be no taxes at all. However, some funds do have measures of non-taxable distributions vs dividends vs. capital gains. Not all the funds do that, and these are very rough estimates anyway. What is considered to be a reasonable expense ratio? That depends greatly on the investment policy. For passive index funds, 0.05-0.5% is a reasonable range, while for actively managed funds it can go up as much as 2% and higher. You need to compare to other funds with similar investment policies to see where your fund stands.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a286b75a29218a3fd4c1ff216ddc054a",
"text": "Annual-report expense ratios reflect the actual fees charged during a particular fiscal year. Prospectus Expense Ratio (net) shows expenses the fund company anticipates will actually be borne by the fund's shareholders in the upcoming fiscal year less any expense waivers, offsets or reimbursements. Prospectus Gross Expense Ratio is the percentage of fund assets used to pay for operating expenses and management fees, including 12b-1 fees, administrative fees, and all other asset-based costs incurred by the fund, except brokerage costs. Fund expenses are reflected in the fund's NAV. Sales charges are not included in the expense ratio. All of these ratios are gathered from a fund's prospectus.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bce10b43f033ce8418cd40a93e9741fd",
"text": "When you look at managed funds the expense ratios are always high. They have the expense of analyzing the market, deciding where to invest, and then tracking the new investments. The lowest expenses are with the passive investments. What you have noticed is exactly what you expect. Now if you want to invest in active funds that throw off dividends and capital gains, the 401K is the perfect place to do it, because that income will not be immediately taxable. If the money is in a Roth 401K it is even better because that income will never be taxed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed0ed68df5683cfbdc67e5ce8577bcd3",
"text": "Any ETF has expenses, including fees, and those are taken out of the assets of the fund as spelled out in the prospectus. Typically a fund has dividend income from its holdings, and it deducts the expenses from the that income, and only the net dividend is passed through to the ETF holder. In the case of QQQ, it certainly will have dividend income as it approximates a large stock index. The prospectus shows that it will adjust daily the reported Net Asset Value (NAV) to reflect accrued expenses, and the cash to pay them will come from the dividend cash. (If the dividend does not cover the expenses, the NAV will decline away from the modeled index.) Note that the NAV is not the ETF price found on the exchange, but is the underlying value. The price tends to track the NAV fairly closely, both because investors don't want to overpay for an ETF or get less than it is worth, and also because large institutions may buy or redeem a large block of shares (to profit) when the price is out of line. This will bring the price closer to that of the underlying asset (e.g. the NASDAQ 100 for QQQ) which is reflected by the NAV.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "61983126d87c9525df8f5091a81f81dd",
"text": "Even ignoring the match (which makes it like a non-deductible IRA), the 401k plans that I know all have a range of choices of investment. Can you find one that is part of the portfolio that you want? For example, do you want to own some S&P500 index fund? That must be an option. If so, do the 401k and make your other investments react to it-reduce the proportion of S&P500 because of it(remember that the values in the 401k are pretax, so only count 60%-70% in asset allocation). The tax deferral is huge over time. For starters, you get to invest the 30-40% you would have paid as taxes now. Yes, you will pay that in taxes on withdrawal, but any return you generate is (60%-70%) yours to keep. The same happens for your returns.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "76fdec82f23aeb8c14fab73c29211526",
"text": "\"Your employer could consider procuring benefits via a third party administrator, which provides benefits to and bargains collectively on behalf of multiple small companies. I used to work for a small start-up that did exactly that to improve their benefits across the board, including the 401k. The fees were still higher than buying a Vanguard index or ETF directly, but much better than the 1% you're talking about. In the meantime, here's my non-professional advice from personal experience and hindsight: If you're in a low/medium tax bracket and your 401k sucks, you might be better off to pay the tax up front and invest in a taxable account for the flexibility (assuming you're disciplined enough that you don't need the 401k to protect you from yourself). If you max out a crappy 401k today, you might miss a better opportunity to contribute to a 401k in the future. Big expenses could pop up at exactly the same time you get better investment options. Side note: if not enough employees participate in the 401k, the principals won't be able to take full advantage of it themselves. I think it's called a \"\"nondiscrimination test\"\" to ensure that the plan benefits all employees, not just the owners and management. So voting with your feet might be the best way to spark improvement with your employer. Good luck!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2f1a0f80e6dd21796aad206c5e742633",
"text": "Some index funds offer lower expense ratios to those who invest large amounts of money. For example, Vanguard offers Admiral Shares of many of its mutual funds (including several index funds) to individuals who invest more than $50K or $100K, and these Shares have lower expense ratios than the Investor shares in the fund. There are Institutional Shares designed for investments by pension plans, 401k plans of large companies etc which have even lower expenses than Admiral Shares. Individuals working for large companies sometimes get access to Institutional Shares through their 401k plans. Thus, there is something to gained by investing in just one index fund (for a particular index) that offers lower expense ratios for large investments instead of diversifying into several index funds all tracking the same index. Of course, this advantage might be offset by failure to track the index closely, but this tracking should be monitored not on a daily basis but over much longer periods of time to test whether your favorite fund is perennially trailing the index by far more than its competitors with larger expense ratios. Remember that the Net Asset Value (NAV) published by each mutual fund after the markets close already take into account the expense ratio.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f238a39c1647a151a0184a59ce1b787b",
"text": "There are hundreds of entities which offer mutual funds - too many to adequately address here. If you need to pick one, just go with Vanguard for the low low low fees. Yes, this is important. A typical expense ratio of 1% may not sound like much until you realize that the annualized real rate of return on the stock market - after inflation - is about 4%... so the fund eats a quarter of your earnings. (Vanguard's typical expense ratios are closer to 0.1-0.2%). If your company offers a tax-deferred retirement account such as a 401(k), you'll probably find it advantageous to use whatever funds that plan offers just to get the tax advantage, and roll over the account to a cheaper provider when you change employers. You can also buy mutual funds and exchange-traded funds (ETFs) through most brokerages. E*Trade has a nice mutual fund screener, with over 6700 mutual funds and 1180 ETFs. Charles Schwab has one you can browse without even having an account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "48200c2619731735e1decc0ae5936cd2",
"text": "\"It seems I can make contributions as employee-elective, employer match, or profit sharing; yet they all end up in the same 401k from my money since I'm both the employer and employee in this situation. Correct. What does this mean for my allowed limits for each of the 3 types of contributions? Are all 3 types deductible? \"\"Deductible\"\"? Nothing is deductible. First you need to calculate your \"\"compensation\"\". According to the IRS, it is this: compensation is your “earned income,” which is defined as net earnings from self-employment after deducting both: So assuming (numbers for example, not real numbers) your business netted $30, and $500 is the SE tax (half). You contributed $17.5 (max) for yourself. Your compensation is thus 30-17.5-0.5=12. Your business can contribute up to 25% of that on your behalf, i.e.: $4K. Total that you can contribute in such a scenario is $21.5K. Whatever is contributed to a regular 401k is deferred, i.e.: excluded from income for the current year and taxed when you withdraw it from 401k (not \"\"deducted\"\" - deferred).\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
cdebe29b008de6d02511e3052b676368
|
How does end-of-year interact with mutual fund prices (if it does)?
|
[
{
"docid": "1d7415e57f6fb728475f29326f504f12",
"text": "\"This answer is applicable to the US. Similar rules may hold in some other countries as well. The shares in an open-ended (non-exchange-traded) mutual fund are not traded on stock exchanges and the \"\"market\"\" does not determine the share price the way it does for shares in companies as brokers make offers to buy and sell stock shares. The price of one share of the mutual fund (usually called Net Asset Value (NAV) per share) is usually calculated at the close of business, and is, as the name implies, the net worth of all the shares in companies that the fund owns plus cash on hand etc divided by the number of mutual fund shares outstanding. The NAV per share of a mutual fund might or might not increase in anticipation of the distribution to occur, but the NAV per share very definitely falls on the day that the distribution is declared. If you choose to re-invest your distribution in the same fund, then you will own more shares at a lower NAV per share but the total value of your investment will not change at all. If you had 100 shares currently priced at $10 and the fund declares a distribution of $2 per share, you will be reinvesting $200 to buy more shares but the fund will be selling you additional shares at $8 per share (and of course, the 100 shares you hold will be priced at $8 per share too. So, you will have 100 previous shares worth only $800 now + 25 new shares worth $200 for a total of 125 shares at $8 = $1000 total investment, just as before. If you take the distribution in cash, then you still hold the 100 shares but they are worth only $800 now, and the fund will send you the $200 as cash. Either way, there is no change in your net worth. However, (assuming that the fund is is not in a tax-advantaged account), that $200 is taxable income to you regardless of whether you reinvest it or take it as cash. The fund will tell you what part of that $200 is dividend income (as well as what part is Qualified Dividend income), what part is short-term capital gains, and what part is long-term capital gains; you declare the income in the appropriate categories on your tax return, and are taxed accordingly. So, what advantage is there in re-investing? Well, your basis in those shares has increased and so if and when you sell the shares, you will owe less tax. If you had bought the original 100 shares at $10 and sell the 125 shares a few years later at $11 and collect $1375, you owe (long-term capital gains) tax on just $1375-$1200 =$175 (which can also be calculated as $1 gain on each of the original 100 shares = $100 plus $3 gain on the 25 new shares = $175). In the past, some people would forget the intermediate transactions and think that they had invested $1000 initially and gotten $1375 back for a gain of $375 and pay taxes on $375 instead. This is less likely to occur now since mutual funds are now required to report more information on the sale to the shareseller than they used to in the past. So, should you buy shares in a mutual fund right now? Most mutual fund companies publish preliminary estimates in November and December of what distributions each fund will be making by the end of the year. They also usually advise against purchasing new shares during this period because one ends up \"\"buying a dividend\"\". If, for example, you bought those 100 shares at $10 on the Friday after Thanksgiving and the fund distributes that $2 per share on December 15, you still have $1000 on December 15, but now owe taxes on $200 that you would not have had to pay if you had postponed buying those shares till after the distribution was paid. Nitpickers: for simplicity of exposition, I have not gone into the detailed chronology of when the fund goes ex-dividend, when the distribution is recorded, and when cash is paid out, etc., but merely treated all these events as happening simultaneously.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "ef1d46e35b4796f95e4728a467cc4b46",
"text": "\"A mutual fund's return or yield has nothing to do with what you receive from the mutual fund. The annual percentage return is simply the percentage increase (or decrease!) of the value of one share of the mutual fund from January 1 till December 31. The cash value of any distributions (dividend income, short-term capital gains, long-term capital gains) might be reported separately or might be included in the annual return. What you receive from the mutual fund is the distributions which you have the option of taking in cash (and spending on whatever you like, or investing elsewhere) or of re-investing into the fund without ever actually touching the money. Regardless of whether you take a distribution as cash or re-invest it in the mutual fund, that amount is taxable income in most jurisdictions. In the US, long-term capital gains are taxed at different (lower) rates than ordinary income, and I believe that long-term capital gains from mutual funds are not taxed at all in India. You are not taxed on the increase in the value of your investment caused by an increase in the share price over the year nor do you get deduct the \"\"loss\"\" if the share price declined over the year. It is only when you sell the mutual fund shares (back to the mutual fund company) that you have to pay taxes on the capital gains (if you sold for a higher price) or deduct the capital loss (if you sold for a lower price) than the purchase price of the shares. Be aware that different shares in the sale might have different purchase prices because they were bought at different times, and thus have different gains and losses. So, how do you calculate your personal return from the mutual fund investment? If you have a money management program or a spreadsheet program, it can calculate your return for you. If you have online access to your mutual fund account on its website, it will most likely have a tool called something like \"\"Personal rate of return\"\" and this will provide you with the same calculations without your having to type in all the data by hand. Finally, If you want to do it personally by hand, I am sure that someone will soon post an answer writing out the gory details.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b962d0c6c11e5ca3e77f09acaddf793b",
"text": "Most bond ETFs have switched to monthly dividends paid on the first of each month, in an attempt to standardize across the market. For ETFs (but perhaps not bond mutual funds, as suggested in the above answer) interest does accrue in the NAV, so the price of the fund does drop on ex-date by an amount equal to the dividend paid. A great example of this dynamic can be seen in FLOT, a bond ETF holding floating rate corporate bonds. As you can see in this screenshot, the NAV has followed a sharp up and down pattern, almost like the teeth of a saw. This is explained by interest accruing in the NAV over the course of each month, until it is paid out in a dividend, dropping the NAV sharply in one day. The effect has been particularly pronounced recently because the floating coupon payments have increased significantly (benchmark interest rates are higher) and mark-to-market changes in credit spreads of the constituent bonds have been very muted.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7a252d3d90b6059f7c527797d75585a7",
"text": "\"I'll try to answer using your original example. First, let me restate your assumptions, slightly modified: The mutual fund has: Note that I say the \"\"mutual fund has\"\" those gains and losses. That's because they occur inside the mutual fund and not directly to you as a shareholder. I use \"\"realized\"\" gains and losses because the only gains and losses handled this way are those causes by actual asset (stock) sales within the fund (as directed by fund management). Changes in the value of fund holdings that are not sold are not included in this. As a holder of the fund, you learn the values of X, Y, and Z after the end of the year when the fund management reports the values. For gains, you will also typically see the values reported on your 1099-DIV under \"\"capital gains distributions\"\". For example, your 1099-DIV for year 3 will have the value Z for capital gains (besides reporting any ordinary dividends in another box). Your year 1 1099 will have $0 \"\"capital gains distributions\"\" shown because of the rule you highlighted in bold: net realized losses are not distributed. This capital loss however can later be used to the mutual fund holder's tax advantage. The fund's internal accounting carries forward the loss, and uses it to offset later realized gains. Thus your year 2 1099 will have a capital gain distribution of (Y-X), not Y, thus recognizing the loss which occurred. Thus the loss is taken into account. Note that for capital gains you, the holder, pay no tax in year 1, pay tax in year 2 on Y-X, and pay tax in year 3 on Z. All the above is the way it works whether or not you sell the shares immediately after the end of year 3 or you hold the shares for many more years. Whenever you do sell the shares, you will have a gain or loss, but that is different from the fund's realized losses we have been talking about (X, Y, and Z).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f6098bada08d41d7fd8943cd63346d6f",
"text": "From The Prospectus for VTIVX; as compared to the Total Stock Market Fund; You can see how the Target date fund is a 'pass through' type of expense. It's not an adder. That's how I read this.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "be31b0d0a6d96cd68b06fdd5cbdf2958",
"text": "This is great. Thanks! So, just assuming a fund happened to average out to libor plus 50 for a given year, would applying that rate to the notional value of the index swaps provide a reasonable estimate of the drag an ETF investor would experience due to the cost associated with the index swaps? For instance, applying this to the hypothetical I linked to in the original question, they assumed fund assets of $100M with 2x leverage achieved through $85M of S&P500 stocks, $25M of S&P500 futures, and a notional value of the S&P500 swaps at $90M. So the true costs to an ETF investor would be: expense ratio + commissions on the $85M of S&P500 holdings + costs associated with $25M of futures contracts + costs associated with the $90M of swaps? And the costs associated with the $90M of swaps might be roughly libor plus 50?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e8af2153d47ac0e34eafd553a1d3ccd",
"text": "After searching a bit and talking to some investment advisors in India I got below information. So thought of posting it so that others can get benefited. This is specific to indian mutual funds, not sure whether this is same for other markets. Even currency used for examples is also indian rupee. A mutual fund generally offers two schemes: dividend and growth. The dividend option does not re-invest the profits made by the fund though its investments. Instead, it is given to the investor from time to time. In the growth scheme, all profits made by the fund are ploughed back into the scheme. This causes the NAV to rise over time. The impact on the NAV The NAV of the growth option will always be higher than that of the dividend option because money is going back into the scheme and not given to investors. How does this impact us? We don't gain or lose per se by selecting any one scheme. Either we make the choice to get the money regularly (dividend) or at one go (growth). If we choose the growth option, we can make money by selling the units at a high NAV at a later date. If we choose the dividend option, we will get the money time and again as well as avail of a higher NAV (though the NAV here is not as high as that of a growth option). Say there is a fund with an NAV of Rs 18. It declares a dividend of 20%. This means it will pay 20% of the face value. The face value of a mutual fund unit is 10 (its NAV in this case is 18). So it will give us Rs 2 per unit. If we own 1,000 units of the fund, we will get Rs 2,000. Since it has paid Rs 2 per unit, the NAV will fall from Rs 18 to Rs 16. If we invest in the growth option, we can sell the units for Rs 18. If we invest in the dividend option, we can sell the units for Rs 16, since we already made a profit of Rs 2 per unit earlier. What we must know about dividends The dividend is not guaranteed. If a fund declared dividends twice last year, it does not mean it will do so again this year. We could get a dividend just once or we might not even get it this year. Remember, though, declaring a dividend is solely at the fund's discretion; the periodicity is not certain nor is the amount fixed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b609126cbf14eb629535679ac0a875d7",
"text": "Hello, I was curious if anyone had any insight as to why some mutual funds had different settlement dates than others. I've seen many funds that settle T+1 and some that are T+2 and yet others that are even longer than that. Just curious what is going on behind the scenes that could cause the variation in settlement times. I've looked on investopedia, my broker's website and other google related searches and couldn't find an answer. If anyone had a link or experience with this I would appreciate the information.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e1b383fd0db28de0e0948544e307d5f",
"text": "Yes, add the stocks/mutual funds that you want and then you would just need to add all the transactions that you theoretically would have made. Performing the look up on the price at each date that you would have sold or bought is quite tedious as well as adding each transaction.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f9540286c4bcd9d9b76518407c6796ed",
"text": "The fund should be reporting returns net of expenses, so your interpretation is right; it made something like 0.42% (which sounds plausible, based on current yields on short-term securities), and the 0.05% is what's left after expenses. I've never seen a regular mutual fund report raw returns before expenses. If one does, the my personal opinion would be that they're trying to snooker you, as that number isn't actually representative of anybody's actual returns. If you look carefully, you should be able to find a table that reports several kinds of adjusted returns for the fund: As to what happens if a fund can't earn enough returns to cover its expenses, in that case the value of the fund shares will decrease. This happens from time to time with riskier funds. It shouldn't happen with a money market fund because both the returns and the expenses are fairly predictable, so the fund managers should be able to avoid it, unless they get caught up in a major crisis like the 2008 banking crisis. In ordinary times, a money market fund managers who couldn't keep expenses below income would find themselves looking for a new job fairly quickly. Finally, for what it's worth, 0.37% is a really high expense ratio for a money market fund. If you were to shop around, you could easily find comparable funds with expenses less than half that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "daccd8ca0d17624588d8df91bea8c332",
"text": "One advantage not pointed out yet is that closed-end funds typically trade on stock exchanges, whereas mutual funds do not. This makes closed-end funds more accessible to some investors. I'm a Canadian, and this particular distinction matters to me. With my regular brokerage account, I can buy U.S. closed-end funds that trade on a stock exchange, but I cannot buy U.S. mutual funds, at least not without the added difficulty of somehow opening a brokerage account outside of my country.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa381432a94c74fa8cc9b5ffd9ec4751",
"text": "Owning a stock via a fund and selling it short simultaneously should have the same net financial effect as not owning the stock. This should work both for your personal finances as well as the impact of (not) owning the shares has on the stock's price. To use an extreme example, suppose there are 4 million outstanding shares of Evil Oil Company. Suppose a group of concerned index fund investors owns 25% of the stock and sells short the same amount. They've borrowed someone else's 25% of the company and sold it to a third party. It should have the same effect as selling their own shares of the company, which they can't otherwise do. Now when 25% of the company's stock becomes available for purchase at market price, what happens to the stock? It falls, of course. Regarding how it affects your own finances, suppose the stock price rises and the investors have to return the shares to the lender. They buy 1 million shares at market price, pushing the stock price up, give them back, and then sell another million shares short, subsequently pushing the stock price back down. If enough people do this to effect the share price of a stock or asset class, the managers at the companies might be forced into behaving in a way that satisfies the investors. In your case, perhaps the company could issue a press release and fire the employee that tried to extort money from your wife's estate in order to win your investment business back. Okay, well maybe that's a stretch.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "046ecaa7a1cf3caaa077dc7b109211f5",
"text": "Let's say I have $10,000, and I invest said monies in mutual fund XXXXX at $100/share, effectively giving me 100 shares. Now, let's assume at the end of the year I have a 5% return. My $10,000 is now $10,500. At what point does my investment benefit from compounded interest? Monthly? Quarter? Yearly? Does it even benefit? Daily would be my answer as your investment, unless you are selling shares or not re-investing distributions is getting the following day's change that impacts the overall return. Consider how if your fund went up 2% one day and then 2% another day from that $10,000 initial investment. The first gain brings it up to $10,200 and then the second makes it $10,402 where the extra $2 is from the compounding. The key though is that these are generally small movements that have to be multiplied together. Note also that if your fund goes up and down, you may end up down overall given how the returns compound. Consider that your $10,000 goes up 10% to $11,000 and then down 10% to result in $9,900 as the return for up x% and down x% is (1+x)(1-x)=1-x^2 which in this case is 1% as 10% of 10% is 1%. The key is how long do you keep all the money in there so that the next day is applied to that amount rather than resetting back to the initial investment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "35c459b8792369297e41681430c55724",
"text": "Mutual funds are collections of investments that other people pay to join. It would be simpler to calculate the value of all these investments at one time each day, and then to deem that any purchases or sales happen at that price. The fund diversifies rather than magnifies risk, looking to hold rather than enjoy a quick turnaround. Nobody really needs hourly updated price information for an investment they intend to hold for decades. They quote their prices on a daily basis and you take the daily price. This makes sense for a vehicle that is a balanced collection of many different assets, most of which will have varying prices over the course a day. That makes pricing complicated. This primer explains mutual fund pricing and the requirements of the Investment Company Act of 1940, which mandates daily price reporting. It also illustrates the complexity: How does the fund pricing process work? Mutual fund pricing is an intensive process that takes place in a short time frame at the end of the day. Generally, a fund’s pricing process begins at the close of the New York Stock Exchange, normally 4 p.m. Eastern time. The fund’s accounting agent, which may be an affiliated entity such as the fund’s adviser, or a third-party servicer such as the fund’s administrator or custodian bank, is usually responsible for calculating the share price. The accounting agent obtains prices for the fund’s securities from pricing services and directly from brokers. Pricing services collect securities prices from exchanges, brokers, and other sources and then transmit them to the fund’s accounting agent. Fund accounting agents internally validate the prices received by subjecting them to various control procedures. For example, depending on the nature and extent of its holdings, a fund may use one or more pricing services to ensure accuracy. Note that under Rule 22c-1 forward pricing, fund shareholders receive the next daily price, not the last daily price. Forward pricing makes sense if you want shareholders to get the most accurate sale or purchase price, but not if you want purchasers and sellers to be able to make precise calculations about gains and losses (how can you be precise if the price won't be known until after you buy or sell?).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "75f914274e0dd57bcb5f30258ce50a8c",
"text": "One estimate is to sell today, estimate the taxes, and determine how much cash you need to set aside over the next 12 months. The is no way to calculate what impact dividends and capital gains the funds will have, because unlike interest they aren't guaranteed. The other complexity is that the funds themselves could drop in value. In that case the dividends and capital gains may not even be enough to get you back to even. I use mutual funds to invest over the long term, with the idea of spending the funds over decades. When needing to save for a short term goal, I use banking products. They are guaranteed not to lose value, and the interest changes are slowerand thus easier to predict.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b994b0f50c6b08e9548da99ccc0e2b00",
"text": "I don't think that they ask you for your citizenship status when you apply in a dealership. At least I don't remember being asked. I know of at least 3 people from my closest circle of friends who are in various immigration statuses (including one on F1) and got an auto loan from a dealership without a problem and with good rates. They have to ask for your immigration status on online applications because of the post-9/11 law changes. Edit to allow Dilip to retract his unjustified downvote: Chase and Wells Fargo have a reliable track of extending auto loans to non-permanent residents.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
823c51c60c3a0c7907cf102fd4993d78
|
Why is economic growth so important?
|
[
{
"docid": "98f54d88a85a868307f65e8850755114",
"text": "\"One of the best answers to this question that I've ever read is in a paper published by Robert Lucas in the Journal of Economic Perspectives. That journal is meant to a be a place for experts to write about their area of expertise (in economics) for a general but still technically-minded audience. They recently opened up the journal as free to the public, which is a fantastic resource -- you no longer need a subscription to JSTOR (or whatever) to read it. You can read the abstract to the paper, and find a link to it, here. One of the things that I like a lot about this paper is that it strips out absolutely everything even slightly unnecessary to thinking about a macroeconomy, and just discusses what one can arrive at with a very very simple model. Of course, with great simplicity come sacrifice about details. However, it does a great job of answering your question, \"\"why do people care about growth?\"\" A quick note: the key to understanding the answer to your question is to think about things in terms of \"\"the long term\"\" -- not even looking forward to the future, because we'll be dead by then, but looking back to the past. The key to the importance of growth is that, for the last ~200 years, the US has, on average, had maybe 2-3% \"\"real growth\"\" per year (I'm pulling these numbers out of my head; I think much better numbers are in that paper somewhere). On average, over that period of time, this growth has meant that the quality of life that one has, if one lives in a country experiencing this growth, is enormous compared to countries that do not experience this average growth over that period. Statistically speaking, growth is also somewhat auto-correlated. Roughly speaking, if it was low the last few periods, you can expect it to be low the next period. Same thing if it's high. Then, the reason we care about growth right now: if you have too many periods of low growth, pretty soon the average \"\"over the long term\"\" growth will be pulled down -- and then quality of life can't be higher in the future (which quickly becomes someone's \"\"present\"\"). The paper above makes this point with a very simple model. Of course, none of this touches on distributional issues, which are another issue entirely. With respect to, \"\"The economy needs to grow to just keep up with its debt repayments,\"\" I think the answer is along the lines of, \"\"sometimes countries get into debt expecting that growth will increase their resources in the future, and thus they can pay back their debt.\"\" That strategy is, of course, the strategy that anyone borrowing (\"\"taking out a loan\"\") should be employing -- you should expect that your future income will be enough to pay back your interest+principle on a loan you took. Otherwise you're irresponsible. At the aggregate level, production is the nation's \"\"income\"\" -- it is what you have, all that you have (as a nation) to pay back any debt you've incurred at the national level.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e1e60f940729d54ff30ec905c0b827c0",
"text": "If you have an increasing population but a steady supply of wealth then there will be a perceived effect of decline. As the average person can afford less and less. If inflation is factored in this effect is accelerated as the value of money is reduced but the availability of that money is as well. In this model those who have tend to accumulate as they produce. And those who do not have tend to lose wealth as they consume to fill basic needs, at ever increasing prices, with a declining source of income, exacerbating the effect. If you control your population, prevent inflation and deflation, and maintain a constant production/consumption cycle that is perfectly in balance then you could have that utopian society. But in practice there is waste. That waste makes maintaining that balance impractical at best. People have different desires and motivations. So while that utopian society that you propose seems possible at the theoretical level when solely looking at the mechanics and economics, in practice it becomes more about managing the people. Which makes the task virtually impossible. As for the debt issue that is the strategy of many of the western nations. Most of them experienced growth over the last 50 years that was unprecedented in history. Many of them simply assumed it would continue indefinitely and failed to plan for a downturn. In addition they planned for the growth and borrowed based on the assumptions. When the growth slowed several continued to use the same projections for their budgeting, with the effect of spending money they would not take in. So in a way, yes the growth is needed to service the continued growth of debt, unless the government issuing that debt is willing to reduce its expenses.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "801125f5adf1109ba87736274e2082da",
"text": "\"Wealth is not distributed equally in any economy. And, even if it were, differentiation between people would lead to different interests being expressed in different ways. As people either attempt to earn more (to improve their situation) or different people express those interests in different ways (saving money to go on a skiing holiday, or to put a downpayment on a house) people invite new products and services to be created to satisfy those demands. In addition, there is the problem of uncertainty. People save money today to cope with uncertainty tomorrow (healthcare, pensions, education, etc.). Those savings don't remain idle, but are lent to others who believe that they can make a return through investing in new businesses or ideas. The point being that any dynamic economy will experience change in the amount of goods available to the people within that economy. From an economic perspective \"\"growth\"\" is just another permutation. From a political perspective, \"\"growth\"\" implies that people are getting wealthier. If that growth is asymmetrically distributed (e.g. the poor don't experience it and the middle classes don't feel they get enough of it) then that is a problem for politicians. The emerging markets of the world are trying to raise millions of people out of poverty. Growth is a way of measuring how quickly they are achieving that end. Growth, in and of itself, is meaningless. There are some people who believe that \"\"we\"\" (as some proxy of society) have enough stuff and growth is unnecessary but that implies that everyone is satisfied. For as long as some people wish to have more wealth/stuff, and have the means to achieve this, there will be growth. And for as long as there is uncertainty growth will vary.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5ae49d98c90ce4a6e696625fb9652c41",
"text": "\"There is an economic principle called \"\"non-satiation,\"\" which translated into plain English means \"\"people always want more.\"\" (This was best illustrated in the movie, Oliver Twist, \"\"Please sir, can I have MORE?\"\") Over time, most people won't be satisfied with \"\"things as they are.\"\" Which is why growth is so important. Many behavioral economists would argue that it is not the LEVEL of utility, but rather the utility CHANGES (in calculus, \"\"deltas\"\" or \"\"derivatives\"\") that make people happy. Or not.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e",
"text": "",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "75a613f300d608dc836212f6ab7e764b",
"text": "The way the world gained all its wealth is by innovation driven by the pursuit of profit/higher standard of living. If you remove that incentive then we will no longer keep progressing. That's why socialism always fails - you eventually run out of other people's money and innovation halts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f2bef14f660f139c46d5101f2705180",
"text": "Manufacturing *employment*. Manufacturing *output* has increased. The people who used to be employed in manufacturing are slowly being shuffled to places where they can be more productive rather than taking up space in jobs where they have become extraneous due to productivity gains. This means a lot of retraining is necessary but there's really little alternative. This has nothing whatsoever with the growth potential of the economy, so I'm not sure why you brought it up.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3ad3d880e9d7646869f8714ddd5dd6f0",
"text": "The problem here is that the metrics that are used to track the economy are looking for things like growth and change. In a perfect world, everyone would have exactly what they need and there would no need for economists because the economy would be static.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "49a4e089e1558189fc81624d3f4d8ebc",
"text": "I think the straight productivity curve is supposed to represent the idea that the economy is always growing as opposed to shrinking overall, like you said. I beleive the video leaves out the idea of innovation to keep it simpler and cut down on length(Of an already half hour video). Thanks for the connection between innovation and productivity. Im new to this stuff and it hadn't occured to me.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "17361070131059b6ba867cba09f1d51b",
"text": "The President, Democrat or Republican, has very little effect on the growth or performance of an economy. The Federal Reserve has the largest impact, followed by Congress. Interestingly, if US government spending was not frozen in 2010, the US would have grown closer to the historical average of 3%. Government spending, which is controlled by Congress, brought down GDP growth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4648dfc15b0c956e6a3a09c8f7728c39",
"text": "Anything related to the central bank will have a large impact, as they are the ones who determine interest rates, and interest rates have a big effect on currency flows. GDP is also important, as when there is an economic slowdown it may result in the central bank reducing rates to boost economic activity. The opposite is also true, large increases in GDP may mean that an interest rate hike might be needed. Inflation data is also very important. Again, large changes in inflation either way may push the central bank towards changing rates. This data typically is in the form of CPI Note that each central bank is different. They all have specific mandates and specific pieces of economic data that they place emphasis on. The Federal Reserve as of late has closely been watching inflation data, especially wage inflation data, and employment. Significant deviations in these data points from whats expected by investors can greatly move the market. However, these specific factors are a little less important for, say, Mexico, which is mostly concerned with headline inflation. Read the statements issued by the central banks to find out whats important to them. Central banks also issue expectations for things like growth, CPI, etc. If these expectations are not met, it may result in a policy change, or at least talk of a policy change, at the next meeting of the central bank. Anticipating these policy changes and trading accordingly is one strategy to be a profitable forex trader Also, there are several forex news calendars online that indicate what is likely to be high impact news. These can be helpful starting out.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a3d4e2f50066dd7f36ddafc743b62f23",
"text": "Don't try because it's a moving target. A thriving economy on paper can be entirely valuation based. It tells you nothing about distribution of wealth in the economy. The majority would be destitute and we could still be talking of booming times if speculative markets can find creative ways of growing valuations of existing assets with credi growth. All that is needed is for two people to bid a painting to 100 million for the painting to have contributed positively to a growth in the value of goods and services in the economy. The same is done with intellectual property and corporate valuations. Good times are times when capital gains can be seized on account of expansionin of credit or government spending. Recessions are closer when governments try and pull in more than they spend and when lending can't expand. Government spending is increaasing these days despite talk of the contrary.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c5400b79beb6a45b0d3b754088bd5599",
"text": "The few short years of economic pain from the devaluation will produce a better and growing economy over the long run. My thought with their devaluing of the currency is that more foreign capital would flow in and be used for investment which would lead to economic growth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1bf91e63d694815d6891b3f80d18ba29",
"text": "What I think Warren means is that people like him are really good at making money and setting things up to continue being rich. In Warren's case he's very good at evaluating businesses and if they would be good investments. In the micro this isn't really a problem. Instead the problem is on the macro-level. When enough potential market participants (i.e. people / businesses) aren't enabled to participate in the economy in the same way. This feeds into a growing wealth inequality. The people who have the resources to continue playing the game can also continue with more chances. It's a Pareto Principle situation. No opportunity to play, little to improve, and a continually disadvantaged population. Add time into the soup. Rich get richer, the poor poorer, the gap widens more. Add inflationary mechanics, and the fact that being poor is more expensive. Add debt and an inability to purchase for long term solutions. You get a situation where 99% of the money is cycling around in the top 1% of players. The other 99% of potential market participants are poorly utilized up to the point where their wealth is something they have trouble spending for things like...healthcare. The idea of poorly utilized market participants is key. A growing economy wants more bandwidth. It wants more agents or market participants contributing to the flow. Get rich enough and you'll find you can't spend more than the interest on investments. On the contrary if you don't have very much money, it's easy as hell to spend it quickly! It's straightforward to say that if more of the global population weren't in debt, if they weren't in a state where they can't participate in economic growth, then maybe the economic growth of human society wouldn't be so bottle-necked.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd5b4a324c5974866517d822c8a855a4",
"text": "I mostly agree with everything you said except the part regarding debt. The whole point was that continued growth would pay off debt, not that individuals would go into more debt than they can pay off. The second idea would be illogical as debt holders want to get payed back.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd627ec2164df6539634b7486e7d0ba3",
"text": "That's like saying corporations ruin the economy because they employ people that could otherwise start their own successful business. Why didn't those people start a successful business? Why do people work for corporations? Building infrastructure in poor countries adds to the resources that these people can tap into and also adds value to their community.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c453261c2cf0ac5964870d3679062958",
"text": "Some innovations increase productivity quite a bit. So in the long run, innovations is a main driver or economical growth. And innovation is fueled by, indeed, debt. The straight curve in the video, the economical growth, should not be a straight line, but a upwardly curved one. It cannot go down because innovations in productivity are not lost (I challenge you for an example contradicting this. Normally, every upward cycle should create an extra increase in productivity. The government also plays a role in stimulating innovation. I loved this video btw.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fea4987a372acd24b105dcf1e353b304",
"text": "Hurricanes are not good for the economy. They might be good for GDP, but GDP is not a good measure of the economy in cases of natural disasters. [The increase in GDP is due to rebuilding and replacing things that existing prior to the disaster](http://www.marketwatch.com/story/no-hurricanes-are-not-good-for-the-economy-2017-08-28). There is no increase in the size of the economy or improvements in living standards. Also see: [the parable of the broken window](http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/broken-window-fallacy.asp) for why disasters are not good for the economy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e39b94e58872fe0eeae94b3879bbb6b",
"text": "\"Economics is built on the assumption that people make rational decisions based on the desire to increase their economic well-being. While economists have long known that isn't strictly true, Thaler was a pioneer in studying why people sometimes make irrational decisions, and how they can be encouraged to make smarter ones. He's made economics more human,\"\" said Peter Gärdenfors, a member of the commitee that awarded the prize.\"\" So how come the business world still ignores him? And treat humans like machines?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "460d85a7c8ff70a578985dbad0479ede",
"text": "A growing economy should become more efficient because of increased opportunity for division of labor: specialization. External regulation or monetary policy external to the free market can cause parts of the economy to grow in response to said regulations. This creates inefficiencies that are wrung out of the economy after the policies reverse. A couple of examples: Tinkering with the economy causes the inefficiencies.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
d6cabbd9cca5953b2b891df6c2eb28bf
|
What is the main purpose of FED increase and decrease interest rate?
|
[
{
"docid": "298aceb6b086f2bd4e05a455c82ccb76",
"text": "When inflation is high or is rising generally interest rates will be raised to reduce people spending their money and slow down the rate of inflation. As interest rates rise people will be less willing to borrow money and more willing to keep their money earning a good interest rate in the bank. People will reduce their spending and invest less into alternative assets but instead put more into their bank savings. When inflation is too low and the economy is starting to slow down generally interest rates will be raised to encourage more spending to restart the economy again. As interest rates drop more will take their saving out of their bank accounts as is starts to earn very little in interest rate and more will be willing to borrow as it becomes cheaper to borrow. People will start spending more and investing their money outside of bank savings.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "afcfaa3930781982e106f63f9e89ae04",
"text": "Why can't the Fed simply bid more than the bond's maturity value to lower interest rates below zero? The FED could do this but then it would have to buy all the bonds in the market since all other market participants would not be willing to lend money to the government only to receive less money back in the future. Not everyone has the ability to print unlimited amounts of dollars :)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7a66ffd467cfa8743dc1cf6724f238af",
"text": "You understand that the Fed is *supposed* to make overnight loans to banks, that one of its primary jobs is to be a lender of last resort? And yes, some were foreign banks; foreign subsidies of US banks or counter-parties to large US banks. Near-zero, yes for course we're talking about *overnight* loans. The current commercial rate for overnight euro LIBOR is 0.26179%, in other words, 0.0026, near zero OMG conspiracy!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f60d0a00d26b6902b0811938684a0671",
"text": "\"Quantitative Easing Explained: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/10/07/130408926/quantitative-easing-explained The short of it is that you're right; the Fed (or another country's Central Bank) is basically creating a large amount of new money, which it then injects into the economy by buying government and institutional debt. This is, in fact, one of the main jobs of the central bank for a currency; to manage the money supply, which in most fiat systems involves slowly increasing the amount of money to keep the economy growing (if there isn't enough money moving around in the economy it's reflected in a slowdown in GDP growth), while controlling inflation (the devaluation of a unit of currency with respect to most or all things that unit will buy including other currencies). Inflation's primary cause is defined quite simply as \"\"too many dollars chasing too few goods\"\". When demand is low for cash (because you have a lot of it) while demand for goods is high, the suppliers of those goods will increase their price for the goods (because people are willing to pay that higher price) and will also produce more. With quantitative easing, the central bank is increasing the money supply by several percentage points of GDP, much higher than is normally needed. This normally would cause the two things you mentioned: Inflation - inflation's primary cause is \"\"too many dollars chasing too few goods\"\"; when money is easy to get and various types of goods and services are not, people \"\"bid up\"\" the price on these things to get them (this usually happens when sellers see high demand for a product and increase the price to take advantage and to prevent a shortage). This often happens across the board in a situation like this, but there are certain key drivers that can cause other prices to increase (things like the price of oil, which affects transportation costs and thus the price to have anything shipped anywhere, whether it be the raw materials you need or the finished product you're selling). With the injection of so much money into the economy, rampant inflation would normally be the result. However, there are other variables at play in this particular situation. Chief among them is that no matter how much cash is in the economy, most of it is being sat on, in the form of cash or other \"\"safe havens\"\" like durable commodities (gold) and T-debt. So, most of the money the Fed is injecting into the economy is not chasing goods; it's repaying debt, replenishing savings and generally being hoarded by consumers and institutions as a hedge against the poor economy. In addition, despite how many dollars are in the economy right now, those dollars are in high demand all around the world to buy Treasury debt (one of the biggest safe havens in the global market right now, so much so that buying T-debt is considered \"\"saving\"\"). This is why the yields on Treasury bonds and notes are at historic lows; it's bad everywhere, and U.S. Government debt is one of the surest things in the world market, especially now that Euro-bonds have become suspect. Currency Devaluation - This is basically specialized inflation; when there are more dollars in the market than people want to have in order to use to buy our goods and services, demand for our currency (the medium of trade for our goods and services) drops, and it takes fewer Euros, Yen or Yuan to buy a dollar. This can happen even if demand for our dollars inside our own borders is high, and is generally a function of our trade situation; if we're buying more from other countries than they are from us, then our dollars are flooding the currency exchange markets and thus become cheaper because they're easy to get. Again, there are other variables at play here that keep our currency strong. First off, again, it's bad everywhere; nobody's buying anything from anyone (relatively speaking) and so the relative trade deficits aren't moving much. In addition, devaluation without inflation is self-stablizing; if currency devalues but inflation is low, the cheaper currency makes the things that currency can buy cheaper, which encourages people to buy them. At the same time, the more expensive foreign currency increases the cost in dollars of foreign-made goods. All of this can be beneficial from a money policy standpoint; devaluation makes American goods cheaper to Americans and to foreign consumers alike than foreign goods, and so a policy that puts downward pressure on the dollar but doesn't make inflation a risk can help American manufacturing and other producer businesses. China knows this just as well as we do, and for decades has been artificially fixing the exchange rate of the Renmin B (Yuan) lower than its true value against the dollar, meaning that no matter how cheap American goods get on the world market, Chinese goods are still cheaper, because by definition the Yuan has greater purchasing power for the same cost in dollars. In addition, dollars aren't only used to buy American-made goods and services. The U.S. has positioned its currency over the years to be an international medium of trade for several key commodities (like oil), and the primary currency for global lenders like the IMF and the World Bank. That means that dollars become necessary to buy these things, and are received from and must be repaid to these institutions, and thus the dollar has a built-in demand pretty much regardless of our trade deficits. On top of all that, a lot of countries base their own currencies on our dollar, by basically buying dollars (using other valuable media like gold or oil) and then holding that cash in their own central banks as the store of value backing their own paper money. This is called a \"\"dollar board\"\". Their money becomes worth a particular fraction of a dollar by definition, and that relationship is very precisely controllable; with 10 billion dollars in the vault, and 20 billion Kabukis issued from Kabukistan's central bank, a Kabuki is worth $.50. Print an additional 20 billion Kabuki and the value of one Kabuki decreases to $.25; buy an additional 10 billion dollars and the Kabuki's value increases again to $.50. Quite a few countries do this, mostly in South America, again creating a built-in demand for U.S. dollars and also tying the U.S. dollar to the value of the exports of that country. If Kabukistan's goods become highly demanded by Europe, and its currency increases relative to the dollar, then the U.S. dollar gets a boost because by definition it is worth an exact, fixed number of Kabukis (and also because a country with a dollar board typically has no problem accepting dollars as payment and then printing Kabukis to maintain the exchange rate)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7573e4ed4182d7fe0dec027f67145669",
"text": "\"Wiki's not entirely accurate. My conspiracy theorist answer is because the Fed is not a government entity, it gives them increased flexibility with decreased transparency and the ability to do what is necessary to keep the currency/economy afloat under the fiat money system. A good book I found on this is Ron Paul's \"\"End the Fed\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "94f4b3bad0673cfc2d66983ab898f89d",
"text": "What you said is technically correct. But the implication OP might get from that statement is wrong. If the Fed buys bonds and nominal yields go down (Sometimes they might even go up if it meant the market expected the Fed's actions to cause more inflation), inflation expectations don't go down unless real yields as measured by TIPs stay still.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e383f03888247ea2380a334c0f3734c",
"text": "\"Haha now there's two of you. I have two twits parrot squawking in my ears in stereo. Okay, so maybe you aren't from the US, in which case I can forgive your confusion and completely circular logic. You must have gone back to Wikipedia or something, because the IS and LM curves are not, in your words, operating without \"\"control by powerful offices in government.\"\" The IS and LM curve indeed cross at a level that is consistent with an equilibrium between income and expenditure's equilibirium with the money market. But that's just the label slapped on it, it's not determinative as some sort of naturally occurring law of economics in our society. No, these things don't just happen on their own. If what you're inartfully implying were true, then there would be no such thing as an expansionary or contractionary monetary policy. Manipulating and controlling the money supply is the entire reason for the existence of the Federal Reserve! What is wrong with you? Go read a book or something on it, fuck me. The Federal Reserve, by setting interest rates mainly, and by open market operations, and by less frequently changing the reserve requirements which directly controls the MONEY MULTIPLIER (you know, that thing that creates money out of thin air you seem to not be able to understand exists?) is constantly changing AGGREGATE DEMAND in the economy. Aggregate demand is what the ISLM curve is about. It's about the equilibrium between price levels and the level of economic OUTPUT DEMANDED. But not supplied. That's aggregate supply, and the Federal Reserve effects that less. But yes, you've simply expanded the scope of things I could talk about that are fucked up about banks and the Fed in particular, because the Federal Reserve, in manipulating aggregate demand for money, actually is destroying money and the efficient use of money at the same time, because the LM curve in particular really represents the relationship between REAL income and the REAL money supply. Real means not nominal, but in actual purchasing terms. The Fed is manipulating an LM curve that at its base is a piece of logic built on the assumption that what's going into it are real numbers, and yet by definition, the Fed acting to manipulate it makes those numbers not determined by purely market forces, but also by the Fed. That makes them less than real. Basically the Federal Reserve pumps up artificial levels of demand in the economy, which lasts for a bit to generate growth numbers, but in the long term it simply results in inflation and a continually delayed (at least for now) reckoning where the artificial demand (i.e. the government's ability to borrow) cannot be further expanded, and something has to give. This down the road would be a monetary crisis involving the US dollar being knocked off its perch as the world's primary reserve currency, and the yields on Treasuries skyrocketing to the point that the government is either forced to behave or else print so much money to actually cover interest payments on the debt that the flood of money into the economy causes catastrophic inflation. But anyway, my point is that you're making a circular argument, because you're saying that the Fed doesn't interfere in or exert tremendous control over the economy, because there's something that we know shows the given price level of money in an economy called the ISLM curve, falsely implying that everything's fine with money because it's determined by mechanical, natural laws, almost like gravity, when in fact the Federal Reserve's whole purpose is to manipulate the inputs that go into that curve. It reduces interest rates which artificially increases income. It also increases the velocity of money, an input for the LM curve, by increasing nominal economic output, etc. etc. The IS and LM curves are not these things that just sort of happen on their own. This may come as a shock, but the US has a central bank which has as its sole purpose the manipulation of these curves. Its central mandate is control of price levels. Its unspoken mandate is to preserve the status of the big banks on the top of society, which is why the big banks created it in the first place, and why they own all the branches (this is the root fact behind why some people say that the Federal Reserve is in fact not federal and is instead privately owned, which isn't completely literally true, but true enough in the sense that it has a clear conflict of interest between the public good it's supposed to be upholding and the private interests of the banks that own its branches and exert control over the financial system, mainly through the New York branch). But that's not the whole story about the total money supply. There's also the pyramiding effect of the money multiplier. It's as if you're just pretending these things don't exist. It's real, I assure you. Banks create money out of thin air when they extend credit to you. To pay the obligation to them, you use the real money you in fact earned through your own labor, or from some real asset you might have. They get the better end of the deal, and almost all the money in the economy is spawned by this process, this insanely exorbitant privilege they have. And yes, I have a problem with it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "28187df0941807dfabb9cb1a848d3531",
"text": "\"Keep in mind that the Federal Reserve Chairman needs to be very careful with his use of words. Here's what he said: It is arguable that interest rates are too high, that they are being constrained by the fact that interest rates can't go below zero. We have an economy where demand falls far short of the capacity of the economy to produce. We have an economy where the amount of investment in durable goods spending is far less than the capacity of the economy to produce. That suggests that interest rates in some sense should be lower rather than higher. We can't make interest rates lower, of course. (They) only can go down to zero. And again I would argue that a healthy economy with good returns is the best way to get returns to savers. So what does that mean? When he says that \"\"we can't make interest rates lower\"\", that doesn't mean that it isn't possible. He's saying that our demand for goods is lower than our ability to produce them. Negative interest would actually make that problem worse -- if I know that things will cost less in a month, I'm not going to buy anything. The Fed is incentivizing spending by lowering the cost of capital to zero. By continuing this policy, they are eventually going to bring on inflation, which will reduce the value of the currency -- which gives people and companies that are sitting on money an dis-incentive to continue hoarding it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "76188a98f807d3db4916876259ef74a0",
"text": "Typically developing economics are marked by moderate to high inflation [as they are growing at a faster pace], higher in savings rate and higher lending rates. If you reduce the lending rate, more business / start-up will borrow at cheaper rate, this in turn means lowers savings rate and leads to higher inflation. To combat this Central Banks make borrowing expensive, which lowers inflation and increases the saving rate. Essentially all these 3 are tied up. As to why these countries offer higher interest on USD is because most of the developing countries have trade [current account] deficit. They need to bring in more USD in the country. One of the ways is to encourage Non Resident Citizens to park their foreign earning back home, ensuring more funds USD inflow. The rate differential also acts as a guide as to how the currency would be valued against USD. For example if you get 8% on USD, less than 12% had you converted same to Rouble, at the end of say 3 years, the exchange rate between USD and Rouble would factor that 4%, ie rouble will go down. Developed countries on the other hand are marked by low inflation [they have already achieved everything] as there is no spurt in growth, it more BAU. They are also characterized by low savings and lending rates.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ec7d7e5c5674d90ed20fb432879d9ef9",
"text": "That's just factually incorrect. Outright lying aside, the previously mentioned contraction is after after a 2.1% Q4 and clocked in just .2% below last year's national average (a five year low). Regardless of that tiny bit of logic, the Fed has forecast a 2.9% Q2. Full employment and highest consumer confidence in years are driving it. Even worse case in that article, the forecasts are above 2.5% for the next quarter.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1a9ceb43bcd442954e28400976f767e",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.ceps.eu/publications/why-are-central-bankers-shifting-goalposts) reduced by 87%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Given its comfortable position today, it is difficult to explain why the ECB is continuing unconventional monetary policy measures, such as negative interest rates or QE. The theme of this year&#039;s meeting of the world&#039;s central bankers in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, had little to do with monetary policy. > Central banks are made independent precisely because it is understood that they are accountable for achieving their own objective of maintaining price stability, regardless of the economy&#039;s underlying growth rate. > In 1999, a core inflation rate of around 2%, combined with unemployment below 5%, justified a federal funds rate of 5%. Today, the Federal Reserve has kept its benchmark rate below 1.5% - 350 basis points lower than in 1999 - and has postponed any reduction in its bloated balance sheet. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6z2pql/ceps_why_are_central_bankers_shifting_the/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~207107 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **rate**^#1 **policy**^#2 **today**^#3 **inflation**^#4 **monetary**^#5\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe4cac5d97ea232f71072bed556b83c2",
"text": "Great reply. This is one of reasons why I like this subreddit. I thought that fed interest are far more important that you state. Rate is low + economy is booming (lender thinks there is good chance of repayment), banks loan money much more willingly (reserves are covered by cheap fed loans -> greater profit). That should significantly affect money supply.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b8d65f6a17d78cbd91372e411f776a69",
"text": "\"You are forgetting one crucial point regarding the money supply. The US Federal Reserve increases the money supply, meaning some of the money is not really loaned, it just appears out of nowhere. At first glance this seems even worse: over the short term, the Fed changes the money supply to help the economy in whatever way it sees fit. But over the long term, the money supply increases to reflect economic growth. As new technology is introduced, more can be accomplished with the same labor and resources, and thus the money supply needs to be increased. Money is really just a convenient replacement for the barter system, so if there are more things to barter \"\"for\"\" (goods and services) then there should also be more things to barter \"\"with\"\" (money). Also keep in mind inflation. The cost of goods and services goes up over time due to the inflation of currency, and so the money supply must also be increased so that those goods and services do not artificially increase in value, which would be very bad.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cf8c5a3d72f99e79d0eee15526e05b00",
"text": "This is similar to the overnight lending rate set by the US Federal Reserve Board. If money is more expensive to borrow (higher interest rate) then less will be borrowed. Commercial and consumer loan rates follow up or down via market pressures (though possibly to a lesser extent in China) to adjust to the new central bank rate. Money creation is driven in part by fractional reserve banking: banks are required to have but a small percentage of deposits on hand in cash, and the rest can be lent out, deposited in another bank that has the same fractional reserve requirement, and that money can be lent out, etc. Higher interest rates dampen this lending activity, so inflation is toned down.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e4ee281926e6a79e88acbe72e41096f9",
"text": "\"First of all, just for the sake of clarity, the Federal Reserve doesn't actually \"\"print\"\" money - that's the job of the BEP. What they do is they buy US Treasury bonds - i.e., loan money to the US government. The money they do it with are created \"\"from thin air\"\" - just by adding some numbers in certain accounts, thus it is described as \"\"printing money\"\". The US government then spends the money however it wishes to. The idea is that this money is injected into the economy - since the only way the US government can use the money from these loans is to spend them on buying something or give it to some people that would spend them. As it is a loan, sometime in the future the US government would pay these loans back, and in this moment the Fed would decide - if they want to \"\"contract\"\" the supply of money back, they just \"\"destroy\"\" the money they've got, by erasing the numbers they created before. They could also do it by selling the bonds they hold on the open market and then again \"\"destroy\"\" the money they got as proceeds, thus lowering the amount of money existing in the economy. This way the Fed can control how much money is out there and thus supposedly influence inflation and economic activity. The Fed could also inject money in the economy by buying any assets after creating the money - for example, right now they own about a trillion dollars worth of various mortgage-based securities. But since buying specific security would probably give unfair advantage to the issuers and owners of this security, usually US treasury bonds if what they buy. The side effect of increased supply of money denominated in dollars would be, as you noted, devaluation of dollars compared to other currencies.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "02796cad037fa47f7f1dc2560189d293",
"text": "\"What is your biggest wealth building tool? Income. If you \"\"nerf\"\" your income with payments to banks, cable, credit card debt, car payments, and lattes then you are naturally handicapping your wealth building. It is sort of like trying to drive home a nail holding a hammer right underneath the head. Normal is broke, don't be normal. Normal obtains student loans while getting an education. You don't have to. You can work part time, or even full time and get a degree. As an example, here is one way to do it in Florida. Get a job working fast food and get your associates degree using a community college that are cheap. Then apply for the state troopers. Go away for about 5 months, earning an income the whole time. You automatically graduate with a job that pays for state schools. Take the next three years (or more if you want an advanced degree) to get your bachelors. Then start your desirable career. What is better to have \"\"wasted\"\" approx 1.5 years being a state trooper, or to have a student loan payment for 20 years? There is not even pressure to obtain employment right after graduation. BTW, I know someone who is doing exactly what I outlined. Every commercial you watch is geared toward getting you to sign on the line that is dotted, often going into debt to do so. Car commercials will tell you that you are a bad mom or not a real man if you don't drive the 2015 whatever. Think differently, throw out your numbers and shoot for zero debt. EDIT: OP, I have a MS in Comp Sci, and started one in finance. My wife also has a masters. We had debt. We paid that crap off. Work like a fiend and do the same. My wife's was significant. She planned on having her employer pay it off for each year she worked there. (Like 20% each year or something.) Guess what, that did not work out! She went to work somewhere else! Live like you are still in college and use all that extra money to get rid of your debt. Student loans are consumer debt.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
65fa29d06172724da570f24d4f0fa825
|
Is Weiss Research, Inc. a legitimate financial research company?
|
[
{
"docid": "fc7f42649f3f23fb3fac410b56aced21",
"text": "\"This company was a reputable rating agency for many years. See Weiss Research website, ratings section for a very different perspective on Martin Weiss's work than the websites with which he is now associated. I checked both links provided, and agree with the questioner in every way: These appear to be highly questionable investment research websites. I use such strong terms based on the fact that the website actually uses the distasteful pop-up ploy, \"\"Are you SURE you want to leave this site?\"\" Clearly, something changed between what Weiss Ratings was in the past (per company history since 1971) and what Martin Weiss is doing now. Larry Edelson seems to have been associated exclusively with questionable websites and high pressure investment advice since 2007. From 1996 through the present, he worked as either an employee or contractor of Weiss Research. Let's answer each of your questions. On June 22, 2006, the Commission instituted settled administrative proceedings against Weiss Research, Inc., Martin Weiss, and Lawrence Edelson (collectively, “Respondents”) for violations of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 in connection with their operation of an unregistered investment adviser and the production and distribution of materially false and misleading marketing materials. Full details about Weiss Ratings operations, including its history from 1996 through 2001, when it operated in compliance with securities laws, then from 2001 through 2005, which was when the SEC filed charges for regulatory violations, are available from the June 2006 U.S. SEC court documents PDF. Finally, this quantitative assessment, \"\"Safe With Martin Weiss? (December 2010) by CXO Advisory (providers of \"\"objective research and reviews to aid investing decisions\"\") for its readers concluded the following: In summary, the performance of Martin Weiss’ premium services in aggregate over the past year is unimpressive. The study methodology was good, but I recommend reading the article (I posted the URL) to fully understand what caveats and assumptions were done to reach that conclusion.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7327c36a4ef5c342503f871de7ebbf99",
"text": "Weiss Ratings is an independent company providing data and analysis for the bank and insurance industries. We’ve published the Weiss Financial Strength Ratings for banking institutions and insurance companies since 1989 and continue to use the methodology praised by the GAO back in 1994. Weiss Ratings has consistently graded failed institutions in the lowest Weiss Rating tier at the time of failure. We invite you to look at the Weiss Ratings' track record.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b3792c3a2741f0f3f60b41fecae7b073",
"text": "It is a scam organization praying on fear of the simple minded. The facts Edelson presents are not accurate - http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2006/ia-2525.pdf",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "ffb51ec6e667a0e05d682b5d8b706b67",
"text": "I am very familiar with the Bloomberg terminal service and agree that their info on securities & markets, especially fixed income, is unparalleled. However, their news and editorial departments espouse the viewpoints of Michael Bloomberg such as being permabullish in the face of data, pro gun control, pro immigration (legal+illegal), pro Israel, and pro Sunni monarchies (Saudi et al).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "587eb9e7541a4f51164b1e072cf2a0b8",
"text": "I recall at the time that people on investment boards were circulating lists of companies audited by AA, as a - quite reliable - indication that they were fraudulent. I have had a lot of dealings with their offshoot AA Consulting, now known as Accenture. These dealings have not, to put it mildly, given me any reason to think that AA's culture was very ethical. And if you cannot trust an auditor, they are worthless.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a4d030a54052cb3d51590f518fd22cdc",
"text": "What you were told isn't an absolute truth, so trying to counter something fundamentally flawed won't get you anywhere. For example: chinese midcap equities are up 20% this year, even from their high of 100%. While the BSE Sensex in India is down several percentage points on the year. Your portfolio would have lost money this year taking advice from your peers. The fluctuation in the rupees and remnibi would not have changed this fact. What you are asking is a pretty common area of research, as in several people will write their dissertation on the exact same topic every year, and you should be able to find various analysis and theories on the subject. But the macroeconomic landscape changes, a lot.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1479bfc3f23662f17bdf12c0074e13f8",
"text": "\"I like Muro questions! No, I don't think they do. Because for me, as a personal finance investor type just trying to save for retirement, they mean nothing. If I cannot tell what the basic business model of a company is, and how that business model is profitable and makes money, then that is a \"\"no buy\"\" for me. If I do understand it, they I can do some more looking into the stock and company and see if I want to purchase. I buy index funds that are indexes of industries and companies I can understand. I let a fund manager worry about the details, but I get myself in the right ballpark and I use a simple logic test to get there, not the word of a rating agency. If belong in the system as a whole, I could not really say. I could not possibly do the level of accounting research and other investigation that rating agencies do, so even if the business model is sound I might lose an investment because the company is not an ethical one. Again, that is the job of my fund manager to determine. Furthermore and I mitigate that risk by buying indexes instead of individual stock.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "812a21841968b8016fe9dddda33b9b22",
"text": "Is there one out there that doesn't suffer from massive survivorship bias? Most that I've looked at gather their data from discretionary reporting from the manager themselves, and many stop reporting after bad months when they aren't going to be raising capital anyway.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "47d2401e8c9dcd835a24ea517a73bda6",
"text": "I've seen this tool. I'm just having a hard time finding where I can just get a list of all the companies. For example, you can get up to 100 results at a time, if I just search latest filings for 10-K. This isn't really an efficient way to go about what I want.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "364c5bdcc35696cb53ff746d43d1bfbe",
"text": "> Wait, so you can travel to see clients but can't travel to visit companies/do research? Don't clients respect alpha over face time? Sounds like absolutely typical financial company behavior. Especially with the research showing that active management (i.e., that alpha you mention) is only a product of luck anyways.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e8c17841933b6b14b58b1d4691dbda53",
"text": "\"Yes, I did. I won't deny it. But, as I said in my original post - \"\"I don't know much about this subject [finances]\"\". Well, that's why I came here to ask a question. I don't know what \"\"trusted\"\" sources are in this field - it's not as if there are real scientific journals in this field as in biology (my profession). So... is this a problem in your view?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96e8cc6c3a6bfb65d7beed0e346de265",
"text": "\"Yes ROI is legitimate, in my opinion. My old boss used to say 'change the paradigm' all the time though, and only used it when someone came to him with a problem and he didn't want to deal with it. \"\"Bob, we have a problem with XYZ\"\" \"\"No no no, change the paradigm. This is an opportunity for you to shine. Go get em!\"\" Maybe my experience with a horrible, horrible boss that abused a lot of these phrases and thought he was Jack Welch's long lost son just made me bitter any time I see marketing bullshit. :)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d4fd0fd56a1b7feca90b6b112f98d98",
"text": "Thanks for the tip, I hope I don't get banned -- I got approval from the moderators before posting here! The reason we're posting here and not just in SurveyResearch is because (a) we think this may be fun/interesting to users on this board, and we're happy to share the results, and (b) we specifically need participants who have some interest or experience in finance or investing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c16ef1a480e16041e398776b006863fc",
"text": "So the MS analyst wasn't acting independently of MS's role as underwriter when he revised his earnings estimates? MS is a big place. I guess I just assumed that someone could be on one end saying something, with other parts of the company blissfully unaware. All without a conspiracy to commit fraud. Good to know. Perhaps you can point - for those of us ignorant in finance - to the rules or laws that were broken here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c2e93a7327f67ea293c9ba6375203b36",
"text": "\"Ok, I stand corrected. Still... those papers are quite away from my field of expertise and I don't want to lose a lot of time learning all the financial lingo. I asked an easy question: \"\"Is this [the everything bubble] a thing or not?\"\" It seems that it's not, but I still wanted to know more about it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c08b825fd49af4408560809e33a42a6",
"text": "\"I know I replied in another section of this tread as well, but are you looking at MS/Smith Barney, trowe advisory planning, or directly within their mutual fund equity research? The reason I ask is because often there is a misunderstanding between Financial Advisory (FA) work and working directly within a fund doing equity research (Equity Analyst). People often think FA's do a lot of research, and they do, but you'll effectively blackball yourself from **ever** entering research because there's a \"\"sales-person\"\" stigma attached to being an FA.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b00994a3199a212843647560130837fa",
"text": "Expecting accurate accounting in a war-zone is unrealistic. Money is used to buy loyality that would be lost if it got out that they had accepted infidel invader's money. Secrets are a characteristic of all wars. Expecting accurate accounting in a wallstreet investment firm is completely reasonable.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b4ed0e1efb37c9bb688d7f1e3dbac9d",
"text": "I'm really sorry, but what do you mean by ISM? I googled it but found nothing.. Thanks! Anyway, the WF product is really good indeed. Maybe we (r/finance) could start a weekly report too, quoting major reports like this one, and make some comments/analysis. That could be interesting don't you think? It would take quite some time but I think this sub lacks something like this.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b022cb9f5cefca22a4ec19030d0cb1d7
|
Closing a credit card with an annual fee without hurting credit score?
|
[
{
"docid": "68783a5b04d0137e5486a0089d3501a1",
"text": "The two factors that will hurt you the most is the age of the credit account, and your available credit to debt ratio. Removing an older account takes that account out of the equation of calculating your overall credit score, which can hurt significantly, especially if that is the only, or one of just a couple, of open credit lines you have available. Reducing your available credit will make your current debt look bigger than what it was before you closed your account. Going over a certain percentage for your debt to available credit can make you look less favorable to lenders. [As stated above, closing a credit card does remove it from the credit utilization calculation which can raise your debt/credit ratio. It does not, however; affect the average age of credit cards. Even closed accounts stay on your credit report for ten years and are credited toward average age of cards. When the closed credit card falls off your report, only then, will the average age of credit cards be recalculated.] And may I suggest getting your free credit report from https://www.annualcreditreport.com . It's the only place considered 'official' to receive your free annual credit report as told by the FTC. Going to other 3rd party sites to pull your credit report can risk your information being traded or sold. EDIT: To answer your second point, there are numerous factors that banks and creditors will consider depending on the type of card you're applying for. The heavier the personal rewards (cash back, flyer miles, discounts, etc.) the bigger the stipulation. Some factors to consider are your income to debt ratio, income to available credit ratio, number of revolving lines of credit, debt to available credit ratio, available credit to debt ratio, and whether or not you have sufficient equity and/or assets to cover both your debt and available credit. They want to make sure that if you go crazy and max out all of your lines of credit, that you are capable of paying it all back in a sufficient amount of time. In other words, your volatility as a debt-consumer.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "de2025b241f8fe7e14defc87ce78a3fd",
"text": "\"One key point that other answers haven't covered is that many credit cards have a provision where if you pay it off every month, you get a grace period on the interest. Interest doesn't accrue at all unless you rollover a non-zero balance. But if you do, you pay interest on the average balance, not the rolled-over balance, for the entire month. You have to ask yourself what you are trying to accomplish with your credit history? Are you trying to maximize your \"\"buying power\"\" (really, leverage)? Or are you trying to make sure that you get the best terms on a moderately sized loan (house mortgage, car note)? As JohnFx and losthorse already noted, it's in the banker's best interest to maximize the profit they make off of you. Of course, that is not in your best interest. Keeping a credit card balance from month to month definitely feeds the greedy nature of the financing beast. And makes them willing to take more risks, because the returns are also higher. But those returns cost you. If you are planning to get sensible loans in the future, that you can comfortably afford, you won't need a maxed credit score. You won't get the largest loan amounts, but because you are doing the sensible thing and making a large down payment, the risk is also very low and you'll find lenders willing to give you a low interest rate. Because even though the reward is lower than the compulsive purchaser who pays an order of magnitude more in financing fees, the return/risk ratio is still very favorable to the bank. Don't play the game that maximizes their return. That happens when you have a loan of maximum size, high interest rate, and struggle to make payments, end up missing a couple and paying late fees, or request forbearance which compounds the interest. Play to minimize risk.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9db5f2bb069cd14d9733940060d165ac",
"text": "\"The biggest (but still temporary) ding you'll see on your credit score from opening a new account is from the low average (and low minimum) account age. This will have a stronger effect than the hard pull of the credit report, which is still a factor (but not much of one if you only have 1-2 pulls in the past couple years). Having a lower average account age increases your risk to lenders. Your average will go up by one month per month, and each time you open an account it will suffer a drop proportional to the number of accounts you already had open before. So if you want to have a more \"\"solid\"\" credit score that stays strong in the face of new accounts in the future, it's better to open a few more accounts now (assuming you can ride out the temporary drop in score and aren't planning to go e.g. mortgage-shopping in the very near future). Having an additional line of credit will also likely cause your credit card utilization (total balance / total credit limit, expressed as a percentage) to decrease, which would tend to increase your credit score, counteracting the age factor, unless your utilization is already extremely low (which it probably is given your monthly account payoffs). There are various credit score simulators out there, from places that show you your credit score, and you can put in a hypothetical new card account to see the immediate likely impact for your particular situation. You identified other costs, such as risk of fraud and fees. You should check your statements once in a while even if you're not using the card, just to make sure no one else is. The bit of additional time required for this is a nonzero cost of having an open credit card account. So is the additional hassle of dealing with having the card stolen etc. if you carry it in your wallet and your wallet's stolen. If you have an account with zero activity for some number of years, the bank may close it automatically and that can reflect negatively on a credit report (as a bank closure of the account, the reason is often obscured). Check your terms and conditions and/or have some activity every so often to prevent this from happening. Some of the otherwise most attractive credit cards have monthly or annual fees, which will cost you, and you won't want to close those because it would then reduce your credit score (e.g. by reducing the total available credit and increasing your utilization percentage) - so the solution is don't apply for credit cards that have monthly/annual fees. There are plenty of good cards without those fees. With a credit score that high, you can get cards that have some very good benefits and rewards programs, as well as some with great introductory offers. Though I'm not familiar with details of Amazon's offer, $80 cash up-front with nothing else seems unlikely to be among your best options. I would think that for at least some of the fee-free cards available to you, the benefits exceed the costs, and you could \"\"cash in\"\" some of the benefits of your good credit record to get those benefits (i.e. this is one of those things you work hard to build good credit for), while also building your long-term reputation for repayment reliability. Also be aware as you shop around for cards that credit card companies pay fairly high referral fees to websites that send customers their way, so if you want you can think about who you're supporting when you click the link that takes you to an application you complete, and choose to support a site you think is providing a useful consumer-focused service. As factors affecting your credit score in addition to payment history (i.e. making regular payments as agreed on the new account will help you), Equifax lists:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d993d1e702f9e83f0ef2b0d52494616",
"text": "Your best option is just to pick a card that gives you the best (highest) rewards without charging you an annual or other fees (or the lowest annual or other fees). As you are looking to pay off the full balance by the due date you won't have to worry about the interest rate but just make sure you get an interest free period.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5fa2fdb9afac53bf36b34740cd97dec0",
"text": "\"The question asked in your last paragraph (what's the downside) is answered simply; if you take out a loan and close the cards, that's a ding on your score because your leverage ratio on this portion of your credit jumps to 100% or more, and because you'll be reducing the average age of your lines of credit (one line of credit a few days old versus five lines of credit several years old each). If you take out the loan and don't close the accounts, it's one more line of credit, increasing your total credit, lowering your leverage, but making institutions more reluctant to give you any more credit until they see what you'll do with what you have. In either case, assuming you can get the loan at less than the average rate of the cards (that's actually not a guarantee; a lot of lenders will want APRs in the 20s or 30s even for a title loan or other collateralized loan), then your cost of capital will also go down. That gives you more of a gap of discretionary income that you can better use to \"\"snowball\"\" all this debt as you are planning. Another thing to keep in mind is that the minimum payment changes as the balance does. The minimum payment covers monthly interest at least, and therefore varies based on your interest rate (usually variable) and your balance (which will hopefully be decreasing). A constant payment over the current minimum, much like a more traditional amortization, would be preferable.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "312d32a49042514a7405bb87a35c97c5",
"text": "I disagree with the reply. Your both impressions are correct. - Do not close old credit cards because they keep your credit rating high (fico score) - Also low utilization that credit cards report to credit rating companies, improves your rating.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "469cdfdf93fe42ed1e5dee41831d0e41",
"text": "\"paying it off over time, which I know is the point of the card That may very well be the card issuer's goal, but it need not be yours. The benefits, as your question title seems to ask for - That said, use the card, but don't spend more than you have in your checking account to pay it when the bill comes. What you may want to hear - \"\"Charge the furniture. Pay it off over the next year, even at 20%/yr, the total interest on $2000 of furniture will only be $200, if you account for the declining balance. That's $4/week for a year of enjoying the furniture.\"\" You see, you can talk yourself into a bad decision. Instead, shop, but don't buy. Lay out the plan to buy each piece as you save up for it. Consider what would happen if you buy it all on the card and then have any unexpected expenses. It just gets piled on top of that and you're down a slippery slope.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2c9c75c629be6d5071b24dbc148034f2",
"text": "Please realize that your issuer can close the account for any number of reasons. Inactivity is one, as having a credit line open costs them money and if you never charge anything, the company doesn't get any transaction fees from vendors nor does the company get to charge you any interest. An occasional charge is likely to keep your card from being closed automatically, but it is not a guarantee. Another reason they may close the account is that you have other bad marks show up on your credit score, or their criteria for offering you the card change so you no longer match their target demographic. I have a credit card issued by my credit union that I have not used for a couple of years. They will not close the card account because my other accounts are still very profitable for them. If I were not an otherwise profitable customer, I wouldn't be surprised if they closed my credit card account. If you are serious about keeping the account open, you should probably have more than a trivial amount of usage.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d47872c305ac82a7baf1b8d3fd8b0b2",
"text": "The difference in interest is not a huge factor in your decision. It's about $2 per month. Personally I would go ahead and knock one out since it's one less to worry about. Then I would cancel the account and cut that card up so you are not tempted to use it again. To address the comments... Cutting up the card is NOT the ultimate solution. The solution is to stop borrowing money... Get on a strict budget, live on less than what you bring home, and throw everything you can at this high-interest debt. The destroying of the card is partly symbolic - it's a gesture to indicate that you're not going to use credit cards at all, or at least until they can be used responsibly, not paying a DIME of interest. It's analogous to a recovering alcoholic pouring out bottles of booze. Sure you can easily get more, but it's a commitment to changing your attitude and behavior. Yes leaving the card open will reduce utilization and improve (or not hurt) credit score - but if the goal is to stop borrowing money and pay off the other card, then once that is achieved, your credit score will be significantly improved, and the cancelling of the first card will not matter. The card (really both cards) should never, ever be used again.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3bee47d0f50380f7d37d3db993228a35",
"text": "There's no harm in keeping them open. Like you said, closing the lines will potentially hurt your utilization. The extent of that impact will depend on your particular situation. There are situations where closing a line will have no actual impact on your utilization. If you have 100k of open credit and a debt load of $2k, if you close a $10k line you won't really have an issue because your utilization is 2% and closing the line will take you to 2.2%.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cb85de0b7686d07f00729fa1f49c9002",
"text": "The U.S. bankruptcy laws no longer make it simple to discharge credit card debt, so you can't simply run up a massive tab on credit cards and then just walk away from them anymore. That used to be the case, but that particular loophole no longer exists the way it once did. Further, you could face fraud charges if it can be proven you acted deliberately with the intent to commit fraud. Finally, you won't be able to rack up a ton of new cards as quickly as you might think, so your ability to amass enough to make your plan worth the risk is not as great as you seem to believe. As a closing note, don't do it. All you do is make it more expensive for the rest of us to carry credit cards. After all, the banks aren't going to eat the losses. They'll just pass them along in the form of higher fees and rates to the rest of us.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e05a4fe9b8fc3d695a78129c4107f782",
"text": "\"FICO 08, a newer fico formula that many lenders are simultaneously switching to now, ignores artificially lengthened credit history/score by piggybacking. So don't feel left out in that regard. Average age of accounts is affected when closed accounts fall off your credit report, which can take 7 years, not just by closing them. But I'm not familiar with the latest \"\"weightings\"\" of these things, so its tough to say how significant it will be when that happens. There are also newer FICO formulas, that may become relevant 7 years from now, so it is definitely something to be conscious of but they aren't immediately consequential, since you can do other things to improve your credit worthiness in the near term.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba5b7274a04a768d3faedd8fe82590a8",
"text": "I've got a card that I've had for about 25 years now. The only time they charged me interest I showed it was their goof (the automatic payment failed because of their mistake) and they haven't cancelled it. No annual fee, a bit of cash back. The only cards I've ever had an issuer close are ones I didn't use.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "886e255b1882e28b54fd09c9515931c6",
"text": "You can always cancel the card and close this account. Consider switching to a bank that has better customer service. Closing accounts typically gets a lot of attention and it's fairly likely they will contact you to reconsider and so you'll have a chance to air your grievances. Whether they have anything to offer that would cause you to stay is for you to decide.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4e305ff507936645db116a265d935c3f",
"text": "See if the bank has other credit cards they offer. Many banks have multiple ones: some cards have great benefits, others do not; some cards have high rates, some do not; some cards are secured, some do not. If they have a card that you like ask them to switch you to the card you want. They should be able to do so very easily. Your card number will change, but they will treat it is a replacement so that your credit score will not take a hit during the switch. It may be possible to get them to waive the annual fee, but most won't because each card type they offer are separate products so they only allow you to pick one of their options. If they don't have a card to your liking apply for a card from anther bank that has the benefits and annual fees (zero) that you are looking for. It may be that the new card will start with a lower limit, but it will increase over time, especially as you shift more of your business to the new card. When you cancel the old card before the next year rolls around you will take a small short hit to your credit score, but that is ok.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d8a0ea3b3dde6eb528f6510f15113ddb",
"text": "\"There are two factors in your credit score that may be affected. The first is payment history. Lenders like to see that you pay your bills, which is the most straightforward part of credit scores IMO. If you've actually been paying your bills on time, though, then this should still be fine. The second factor is the average age of your open accounts. Longer is considered better here because it means you have a history of paying your bills, and you aren't applying for a bunch of credit recently (in which case you may be taking on too much and will have difficulties paying them). If this card is closed, then it will no longer count for this calculation. If you don't have any other open credit accounts, then that means as soon as you open another one, your average age will be one day, and it will take a long time to get it to \"\"good\"\" levels; if you have other matured accounts, then those will balance out any new accounts so you don't get hit as much. Incidentally, this is one of the reasons why it's good to get cards without yearly fees, because you can keep them open for a long time even if you switch to using a different card primarily.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.