query_id
stringlengths 32
32
| query
stringlengths 6
3.9k
| positive_passages
listlengths 1
21
| negative_passages
listlengths 10
100
| subset
stringclasses 7
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
ca9ccbfee61283a0817aa09982ff9c2c
|
Can you explain the mechanism of money inflation?
|
[
{
"docid": "371e8f2e82be060229ed7fa33316d364",
"text": "The mechanism of supply and demand is imperfect. Producers don't know exactly how many purchasers/consumers for a good there are. Some goods, by their nature, are in short supply, and some are plentiful. The process of price discovery is one where (in a nominally free market) producers and purchasers make offers and counter-offers to assess what the price should be. As they do this the historical price changes, usually floating around some long-term average. As it goes up, we experience inflation. As it goes down, deflation. However, there isn't a fixed supply of producers and purchasers, so as new ones arrive and old ones leave, this too has an impact on supply and prices. Money (either in electronic or physical form) needs to be available to reflect the transactions and underpin the economy. Most central banks (at least in more established economies) aim for inflation of 2-4% by controlling the availability of money and the cost of borrowing new money. There are numerous ways they can do this (printing, issuing bonds, etc.). The reason one wants some degree of inflation is because employees will never accept a pay cut even when one would significantly improve the overall economy. Companies often decrease their prices in order to match lower demand, but employees don't usually accept decreased wages for decreased labour demand. A nominal degree of overall money inflation therefore solves this problem. Employees who get a below-inflation wage increase are actually getting a wage cut. Supply and demand must be matched and some inflation is the inevitable consequence of this.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f791ea47391e980f4185fbb60046f1e9",
"text": "Assuming constant velocity, inflation is caused by the difference between the growth in the money supply and growth in real output. In other words, this means that the money supply growing faster than output is expanding causes inflation to arise.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "12c8e47442cbc448841fe41ffb3cdb45",
"text": "In simple terms, inflation is a result of too much money chasing too few goods, i.e. there is an imbalance between demand and supply. The demand exceeds the supply. With all other things being constant it leads to increase in price, i.e. inflation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dfc8159b5632cc4cc11c53b4744a9d71",
"text": "I don't think this can be explained in too simple a manner, but I'll try to keep it simple, organized, and concise. We need to start with a basic understanding of inflation. Inflation is the devaluing of currency (in this context) over time. It is used to explain that a $1 today is worth more than a $1 tomorrow. Inflation is explained by straight forward Supply = Demand economics. The value of currency is set at the point where supply (M1 in currency speak) = demand (actual spending). Increasing the supply of currency without increasing the demand will create a surplus of currency and in turn weaken the currency as there is more than is needed (inflation). Now that we understand what inflation is we can understand how it is created. The US Central Bank has set a target of around 2% for inflation annually. Meaning they aim to introduce 2% of M1 into the economy per year. This is where the answer gets complicated. M1 (currency) has a far reaching effect on secondary M2+ (credit) currency that can increase or decrease inflation just as much as M1 can... For example, if you were given $100 (M1) in new money from the Fed you would then deposit that $100 in the bank. The bank would then store 10% (the reserve ratio) in the Fed and lend out $90 (M2) to me on via a personal loan. I would then take that loan and buy a new car. The car dealer will deposit the $90 from my car loan into the bank who would then deposit 10% with The Fed and his bank would lend out $81... And the cycle will repeat... Any change to the amount of liquid currency (be it M1 or M2+) can cause inflation to increase or decrease. So if a nation decides to reduce its US Dollar Reserves that can inject new currency into the market (although the currency has already been printed it wasn't in the market). The currency markets aim to profit on currency imbalances and in reality momentary inflation/deflation between currencies.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9aabe7143c93b50c64bded075fdfaca7",
"text": "Your question asks about the mechanism of money inflation - not price inflation. Money inflation occurs when new money is introduced into an economy. The value of money is subject to supply and demand like other items in the economy. The effects of new money can be difficult to predict. One of the results of additional money can be rising prices. These rising prices can be concentrated in one particular area - stocks, homes, food - or they can be spread out over many items. This is true regardless of the form of money being inflated - gold, silver, or paper money. There were times in history when large discoveries of gold and silver were found that caused prices to rise as a result. Of course, the large discoveries of gold and silver pale in comparison to the gigantic discoveries by central banks of new fiat currency.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "56a2c9dd60a135526a28f93fea2b388f",
"text": "An economy produces goods and services and people use money to pay for those goods and services. Money has value because people believe that they can buy and sell goods and services with it in that economy. How much the value of money is, is determined by how much money there is in comparison to goods and services (supply and demand). In most economies it is the job of the federal/national reserve bank to ensure that prices stay stable (ie the relationship of goods and services to how much money there is is stable); as this is necessary for a well running economy. The federal reserve bank does so by making more (printing, decreasing interest rates) or less (increasing interest rates) available to the economy. To determine how much money needs to be in the economy to keep prices stable is incredibly hard as many factors have an impact: If the reserve bank gets it wrong and there is more money compared to goods and services than previous, prices will rise to compensate; this is inflation If it's the other way round is deflation. Since it is commonly regarded that deflation is much more destabilizing to an economy than inflation the reserve banks tend to err on the side of inflation.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "b5118f81051f23c2de558ebb01684b73",
"text": "\"Inflation is an attempt to measure how much less money is worth. It is a weighted average of some bundle of goods and services price's increase. Money's value is in what you can exchange it for, so higher prices means money is worth less. Monthly inflation is quoted either as \"\"a year, ending on that month\"\" or \"\"since the previous month\"\". As the values differ by more than a factor of 10, you can usually tell which one is being referred to when they say \"\"inflation in August was 0.4%, a record high\"\" or \"\"inflation in August was 3.6%\"\". You do need some context of the state of the economy, and how surprised the people talking about the numbers are. Sometimes they refer to inflation since the last month, and then annualize it, which adds to the confusion. \"\"Consumer Inflation\"\"'s value depends on what the basket of goods is, and what you define as the same \"\"good\"\". Is a computer this year the same as the last? If the computer is 10x faster, do you ignore that, or factor it in? What basket do you use? The typical monthly consumables purchased by a middle class citizen? By a poor citizen? By a rich citizen? A mixture, and if so which mixture? More detailed inflation figures can focus on inflation facing each quntile of the population by household income, split durable goods from non-durable goods from services, split wage from non-wage inflation, ignore volatile things like food and energy, etc. Inflation doesn't directly cause prices to raise; instead it is a measure of how much raise in prices happened. It can easily be a self-fullfilling prophesy, as inflation expectations can lead to everyone automatically increasing the price they charge for everything (wages, goods, etc). Inflation can be viewed as a measurement of the \"\"cost of holding cash\"\". At 10% inflation per year, holding a million dollars in cash for a year costs you 100,000$ in buying power. At 1% inflation it costs 10,000$. At 0.1% inflation, 1000$. Inflation of 10% in one year, followed by 10% the next, adds up to 1.1*1.1-1 = 21% inflation over the two years. For low inflation numbers this acts a lot like adding; the further from 0% you get the more the lower-order terms make the result larger. 1% inflation for two years adds up to 2.01%, 10% over two years 21%, 100% over two years 300%, 1000% over two years 12000%, etc. (and yes, some places suffer 1000% inflation)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f573cc1a292826d1bce978f3d56e90e9",
"text": "\"Sensitive topic ;) Inflation is a consequence of the mismatch between supply and demand. In an ideal world the amount of goods available would exactly match the demand for those goods. We don't live in an ideal world. One example of oversupply is dollar stores where you can buy remainders from companies that misjudged demand. Most recently we've seen wheat prices rise as fires outside Moscow damaged the harvest and the Russian government banned exports. And that introduces the danger of inflation. Inflation is a signal, like the pain you feel after an injury. If you simply took a painkiller you may completely ignore a broken leg until gangrene took your life. Governments sometimes \"\"ban\"\" inflation by fixing prices. Both the Zimbabwean and Venezuelan governments have tried this recently. The consequence of that is goods become unavailable as producers refuse to create supply for less than the cost of production. As CrimonsX pointed out, governments do desperately want to avoid deflation as much as they want to avoid hyperinflation. There is a \"\"correct\"\" level and that has resulted in the monetary policy called \"\"Inflation targetting\"\" where central banks attempt to manage inflation into a target range (usually around 2% to 6%). The reason is simply that limited inflation drives investment and consumption. With a guaranteed return on investment people with cash will lend it to people with ideas. Consumers will buy goods today if they fear that the price will rise tomorrow. If prices fall (as they have done during the two decades of deflation in Japan) then the result is lower levels of investment and employment as companies cut production capacity. If prices rise to quickly (as in Zimbabwe and Venezuela) then people cannot save enough or earn enough and so their wealth is drained away. Add to this the continual process of innovation and you see how difficult it is to manage inflation at all. Innovation can result in increased efficiency which can reduce prices. It can also result in a new product which is sufficiently unique to allow predatory pricing (the Apple iPhone, new types of medicines, and so on). The best mechanism we have for figuring out where money should be invested and who is the best recipient of any good is the price mechanism. Inflation is the signal that investors need to learn how best to manage their efforts. We hide from it at our peril.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c0bac9a98e7ae3f01a8f47c2fd878128",
"text": "\"Krugman argues (and I agree with him on this one) that this is a telltale sign that the US is in a [liquidity trap](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidity_trap). Basically interest rates are near 0 and the banks are very risk adverse right now, so they sit on reserves instead of lending them out. In this scenario, the government \"\"printing\"\" money has no effect on inflation (or much of anything) because it just sits in bank reserves. A more right wing economist might spin a different story though.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3b43cf3295733598b990a5018066188",
"text": "I was being sarcastic in response to you saying that hyperinflation happens every 30-50 years in a finance subreddit.. where the second lesson (right after time value of money) is that past results in general tell us nothing about the future.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8c8e7acad35ce67b154a8450760f5891",
"text": "The fed has $2 trillion m0, and they loan out $1.9 trillion which then is eventually makes it way back to their banksagain, which they loan out another $1.8 trillion. The money goes to whoever they are loaning it to. The m0 is determined by the treasury directly printing 0's and 1s, and putting it into the Fed's bank which then they loan out. That's last part is what quantitative easing is. In short, the treasurys at the top, then the fed, then the branch banks, then corporations then the executives then the middle/lower class. Generally. When the treasury prints the money it trickles down. Problem is the higher up in the tree the more purchasing power you have, the lower the less. Comparing it to the spanish inquisition wouldn't be far off. Perhaps someday the government will let the people choose their own currency.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "53f31679e3888eada41157f5cbe307b5",
"text": "Inflation is theft! It is caused when banks lend money that someone deposited, but still has claim to - called fractional reserve banking. On top of that, the Federal Reserve Bank (in the US) or the Central Bank of the currency (i.e. Bank of Japan, European Central Bank, etc.) can increase the monetary base by writing checks out of thin air to purchase debt, such as US Treasury Bonds. Inflation is not a natural phenomenon, it is completely man-made, and is caused solely by the two methods above. Inflation causes the business cycle. Lower interest rates caused by inflation cause long-term investment, even while savings is actually low and consumption is high. This causes prices to rise rapidly (the boom), and eventually, when the realization is made that the savings is not there to consume the products of the investment, you get the bust. I would encourage you to read or listen to The Case Against the Fed by Murray N. Rothbard - Great book, free online or via iTunes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "46fc56b57f9a533b640a055c9c4e14ad",
"text": "It can take a while for inflation to seep into all aspects an economy and be felt by a consumer. Often, things that consumers use the most (like gasoline, wheat products, corn products, soy products, and sugar), are commodities spread across global markets with their own pricing which may be impacted by inflation in any given country. Also, inflation can be beneficial in some ways. A $500/month mortgage payment was a big deal 30 years ago, and now would be considered trivial. That's entirely because of inflation. Run-away inflation, where people are burning the currency to stay warm, is a different beast altogether. Be wary of people who conflate inflation, consumer pricing, and destructive currency devaluation, because they're not the same things.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eb5a410b9e36929b6216d4dcf618dd7e",
"text": "\"Disregarding the particular example and focusing on the actual questions: YES, definitely, the whole concept of \"\"pump and dump scheme\"\" refers to the many cases when this was intentionally done; Everything has a limit, but the limit can be quite high, especially if starting from a low value (a penny stock) and if the stock is low volume, then inflating ten or hundred times over a real value may be possible; and any value might be infinitely times overvalued for a company that turns out to have a value of zero. Yes, unless it's done very blatantly, you should expect that the \"\"inflator\"\" has much more experience in hiding the signs of inflation than the skill of average investor to notice them.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f5cb701b6cfca2174077ccca271b9fb1",
"text": "let's define inflation as an increase in m1 relative to the goods and services in the dollar economy. twist doesn't change m1 because it is sterilized. it does make tsys attractive since it supports their prices. that means de-risking flows are to the u.s. that means dollar goes up. that means gold goes down.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1c147ee4797cb064aa705248103a9bd3",
"text": "> *I fail to see how moderate inflation is a bad thing* The purchasing power of the currency slowly erodes, which means people's savings melt away. So people are forced to invest into something they don't really understand and something that is completely rigged, instead of just having their savings in a currency. [USD purchasing power](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-mAg6FMpNGpM/Ta9ICcEMonI/AAAAAAAABBM/UoQG8vxtBX0/s1600/U.S.%2BDollar%2BPurchasing%2BPower.jpg).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "685969de8f725ad8bdedd6839e4ee42c",
"text": "The general discussion of inflation centers on money as a medium of exchange and a store of value. It is impossible to discuss inflation without considering time, since it is a comparison between the balance between money and goods at two points in time. The whole point of using money, rather than bartering goods, is to have a medium of exchange. Having money, you are interested in the buying power of the money in general more than the relative price of a specific commodity. If some supply distortion causes a shortage of tobacco, or gasoline, or rental properties, the price of each will go up. However, if the amount of circulating money is doubled, the price of everything will be bid up because there is more money chasing the same amount of wealth. The persons who get to introduce the additional circulating money will win at the expense of those who already hold cash. Most of the public measures that are used to describe the economy are highly suspect. For example, during the 90s, the federal government ceased using a constant market basket when computing CPI, allowing substitutions. With this, it was no longer possible to make consistent comparisons over time. The so-called Core CPI is even worse, as it excludes food and energy, which is fine provided you don't eat anything or use any energy. Therefore, when discussing CPI, it is important to understand what exactly is being measured and how. Most published statistics understate inflation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc929fa4355c3dd27f4ca55f52c55e68",
"text": "\"And where does, say, Federal reserve, gets the money to buy those [2.5 trillions](https://www.thebalance.com/who-owns-the-u-s-national-debt-3306124)? As for \"\"inflationary pressure\"\" - we don't really know it. Those money circulate between various financial instruments - so it is a very big question whether or not they spill out to affect consumer prices.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "25acfc12627b8bc956a648b3eb673eb5",
"text": "So this method makes sense and is reasonable and possible. The money multiplier effect ends up capped by the fact that the bank can only lend a percent of its 'cash'. My issue understanding this is I've been told that banks actually don't hold 10% of the cash and lend the other 90% but instead hold the full 100% in cash and lend 900%. Is this accurate? The issue I see with it is that it becomes exponential growth that is uncapped. If the bank lends 900%, it has created this money from nothing, which by itself isn't different that the bank loaning 90% and keeping 10%. The issue comes because the next bank who gets that money deposited will treat that amount as cash as well, so they loan 900% of the 900%. And so on and so forth. How does the system prevent this from happening?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cf8c5a3d72f99e79d0eee15526e05b00",
"text": "This is similar to the overnight lending rate set by the US Federal Reserve Board. If money is more expensive to borrow (higher interest rate) then less will be borrowed. Commercial and consumer loan rates follow up or down via market pressures (though possibly to a lesser extent in China) to adjust to the new central bank rate. Money creation is driven in part by fractional reserve banking: banks are required to have but a small percentage of deposits on hand in cash, and the rest can be lent out, deposited in another bank that has the same fractional reserve requirement, and that money can be lent out, etc. Higher interest rates dampen this lending activity, so inflation is toned down.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ad570b519c3229f5443070b43fbbf39",
"text": "You need a blog, or a thread of your own. I want to learn about this, and you appear to be quite knowledgeable and thorough in your explanations. Would it be possible for you to make a thread, or reply, or pm explaining some of the pro's and cons of fiat money?",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b62880c0f4db34d02c91a572d7a02629
|
Is UK house price spiral connected to debt based monetary system?
|
[
{
"docid": "0e67c38e578f0f510810343ba2120b19",
"text": "\"There are a few factors at work here, supply and demand being the main one. The Office for National Statistics has some good information: http://visual.ons.gov.uk/uk-perspectives-housing-and-home-ownership-in-the-uk/ Supply has historically struggled to compete with demand in the UK and this situation has been exacerpated since the 1980s when Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister. She set up a variety of schemes to encourage people to own their own home, such as tax relief (MIRAS) and since then home ownership in the UK has increased dramatically. The then conservative government also set up the \"\"right to buy\"\" scheme (in 1980) that allowed council tenants to purchase their council houses at a discounted rate. The effect of this was to increase the number of home owners whilst reducing the amount of housing available for councils to rent to new tenants. Anecdotal evidence (I can't find a documented source to back this up) suggests that councils did not build sufficient new homes to replace those purchased by their ex-tenants. The population of the UK has also increased, by around 10 million since 1980 (around 20%) and this has pushed up demand for housing. House building in the UK has not kept pace with these factors that has led to a shortage of supply that has pushed up prices. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/pop-estimate/population-estimates-for-uk--england-and-wales--scotland-and-northern-ireland/2013/sty-population-changes.html There's another factor at play here as well. If you go back to the 1970s around 53% of women would go out to work but in 2013 this figure increased to 67% as it became more common for households to have double incomes. This extra supply of cash also pushed up house prices. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_328352.pdf Your question regards a debt based monetary system is not entirely clear, but there are limitations put onto how much money people can borrow that are potentially limiting how much house prices can rise by. Today most lenders are more conservative in how much they will lend but this wasn't the case in the mid 2000s when house prices rose very quickly. Lenders are more cautious today after the crash of the late 2000s, but things are begining to relax again and they are starting to lend more which could in turn lead to further house price rises in line with what was seen in the 2000s. Recessions have coincided with house prices falling back or at least being stable. In the 1980s house prices trebled from 1980 to 1988 but then fell back a little as the recession hit, before starting to rise again in 1997. This rise was sustained until 2008 during which time prices trebled again. Based on this you could assume prices will treble again as we come out of the recession, as long as this is sustained for 8 years or so. However, as the potential for more households to become double income is reduced (high female employment already) and wages are unlikely to raise that quickly, this may not be realistic, unless the mortgage lenders become extremely lax, to the point of reckless! To answer your other question, about the affordability of housing, this will be based on the level of wages in the UK and how strict or lax the lenders are, also taking into effect the availability of housing for purchase. If wages rise, house prices will rise, if lenders are willing to lend more money, house prices will rise and if demand continues to outrstip supply, prices will rise. None of the major UK political parties are likely to solve the problems of population growth and not enough houses being built so it is likely prices will rise but you could argue that they are not far off a peak based on current wages and lenders attitudes. If the UK economy continues to recover from the recession, it is possible they will fuel another housing boom by lending ever increasing salary multiples as happened in the 2000s, unless there is government intervention, ie regulation of the lenders.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "81df6a5235dad320c3fa1c7971100e9e",
"text": "\"No. Rural Scotland has exactly the same monetary system, and not the same bubble. Monaco (the other example given) doesn't even have its own monetary system but uses the Euro. Look instead to the common factor: a lot of demand for limited real estate. Turning towards the personal finance part of it, we know from experience that housing bubbles may \"\"burst\"\" and housing prices may drop suddenly by ~30%, sometimes more. This is a financial risk if you must sell. Yet on the other hand, the fundamental force that keeps prices in London higher than average isn't going away. The long-term risk often is manageable. A 30% drop isn't so bad if you own a house for 30 years.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "17b51bc610cbce0f58d07b01916d0533",
"text": "Not anytime soon, I suspect, but not necessarily for financial reasons. I found this interesting, including the link to the five tests, but I think that this topic is only partially judged through financial eyes, there's a lot of political issues around this with national identity/immigration issues already in the spot light as well as political aspirations. If there will be a call in the near future to join the Euro, how would that reflect on the financial industry in the UK from a PR perspective? and on the political leadership and how it managed the financial crisis? I believe that it is in the interest of all the people in the high positions to show the country getting back on track rather than making ground shaking moves. But what do I know....:-)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c07159e245303172793305c3a1d8a2be",
"text": "While debt increases the likelihood and magnitude of a crash, speculation, excess supply and other market factors can result in crashes without requiring excessive debt. A popular counter example of crashes due to speculation is 16th century Dutch Tulip Mania. The dot com bubble is a more recent example of a speculative crash. There were debt related issues for some companies and the run ups in stock prices were increased by leveraged traders, but the actual crash was the result of failures of start up companies to produce profits. While all tech stocks fell together, sound companies with products and profits survive today. As for recessions, they are simply periods of time with decreased economic activity. Recessions can be caused by financial crashes, decreased demand following a war, or supply shocks like the oil crisis in the 1970's. In summary, debt is simply a magnifier. It can increase profits just as easily as can increase losses. The real problems with crashes and recessions are often related to unfounded faith in increasing value and unexpected changes in demand.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ab90eea050860a8a0fd05acc26713a6",
"text": "\"To understand the Twist, you need to understand what the Yield Curve is. You must also understand that the price of debt is inverse to the interest rate. So when the price of bonds (or notes or bills) rises, that means the current price goes up, and the yield to maturity has gone down. Currently (Early 2012) the short term rate is low, close to zero. The tools the fed uses, setting short term rates for one, is exhausted, as their current target is basically zero for this debt. But, my mortgage is based on 10yr rates, not 1 yr, or 30 day money. The next step in the fed's effort is to try to pull longer term rates down. By buying back 10 year notes in this quantity, the fed impacts the yield at that point on the curve. Buying (remember supply/demand) pushes the price up, and for debt, a higher price equates to lower yield. To raise the money to do this, they will sell short term debt. These two transactions effectively try to \"\"twist\"\" the curve to pull long term rates lower and push the economy.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c64cffb9f5b04dd8da7726e4221e02f7",
"text": "Yes there is an inverse relationship but that's how it's meant to work. Debt creates money. Banks do lend out customers savings for return interest as the bank can make a profit rather than the cash just sitting there. The process of Lending pumps money into the economy that wouldn't be there otherwise so it creates money. The banks will either have a cash deficit or surplus at end of each day and either need to borrow from other banks to balance their books or if in surplus lend to other banks to make interest because that's more profitable than holding the cash surplus. The overnight cash rate then determines interest rates we pay. High private debt occurs when lots of people are investing & buying things so there is stimulation and growth in the economy. A lot more tax is being paid in these periods so government debt is lower because they are getting lots of tax money. Also To stimulate the economy into this growth period the government usually sells off large cash bonds (lowering their debt) to release cash into the economy, the more cash available the less banks have to borrow to cover deficits on overnight cash market and the lower interest rates will be. Lower interest rates = more borrowing and higher Private debt. The government can't let growth get out of control as they don't want high inflation so they do the opposite to slow down growth, I.e buy up cash bonds and take money out of economy causing higher interest rates and less borrowing = More debt for government less for private.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d705f9393e7eb4d9507c24e6edaa7e59",
"text": "\"I'm not intimately familiar with the situation in Australia, but in the US the powers that be have adopted an interventionist philosophy. The Federal Reserve (Central Bank) is \"\"buying back\"\" US Gov't debt to keep rates low, and the government is keeping mortgage rates low buy buying mortgages with the proceeds of the cheap bond sales. While this isn't directly related to Australia, it is relevant because the largest capital markets are in the US and influence the markets in Australia. In the US, the CPI is a survey of all urban consumers. If you're a younger, middle class consumer with income growth ahead of you, your costs are going to shift more rapidly than an elderly or poor person who already owns or is in subsidized housing, and doesn't spend as much on transportation. For example, my parents are in their early 60's and are living in the house that I grew up in, which they own free and clear. There are alot of people like them, and they aren't affected by the swing in housing prices that we've seen in the last decade.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "432f55ef513524ca36a935720a54e195",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecb.wp2073.en.pdf) reduced by 99%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Inflation Housing Demand + 0 + + 0 0 Mon Pol + + 0 0 Loans Supply Lend Rates 0 + 0 + A. Supply A. Demand + + + The first column lists the endogenous variables of the VAR, which react to the shocks reported in the first row: housing demand shocks, monetary policy innovations, shocks to the credit supply, aggregate supply and demand shocks. > The patterns used to distinguish aggregate demand and supply shocks are commonly used in the literature, we are able to discriminate house prices shocks from loans supply and lending rates shocks on the ground of economic theory. > In Spain, in the absence of other shocks, if the growth rates of real consumption had been driven exclusively by housing demand shocks, they would have been largest around 1995 and 2004, and lowest in 2012.18 The cumulative effect of housing demand shocks is rather muted in the remaining countries. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6gxbr4/ecb_house_prices_and_monetary_policy_in_the_euro/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~142717 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **shock**^#1 **price**^#2 **House**^#3 **housing**^#4 **policy**^#5\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4c05196cadb750e8859fb1537cd59459",
"text": "I don't know much about the convertible debt space, but it seems like this regulation may be a positive sign that the government is being proactive in preventing financial institutions from developing overly complex debt structures (at least on an on-going basis) that get the global economy back into trouble. Does anyone with a more informed opinion than my own have something to share?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "72219980609d159014b02d59a87983e8",
"text": "\"I don't know what angle you're trying to push or why, but are you also saying that Kenichi Ueda of the IMF and Beatrice Weder Di Mauro of the University of Mainz are similarly lacking the understanding of financial concepts when they published a [paper](http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2012/wp12128.pdf) \"\"Quantifying Structural Subsidy Values for Systemically Important Financial Institutions\"\"? Are you suggesting a similar \"\"entire shaker of salt\"\" when they \"\"estimate[d] the structural subsidy values by exploiting expectations of state support embedded in credit ratings and by using long-run average value of rating bonus\"\"? Should we really be so skeptical when they conclude: >Section III has provided estimates of the value of the subsidy to SIFIs in terms of the overall ratings. Using the range of our estimates, we can summarize that a one-unit increase in government support for banks in advanced economies has an impact equivalent to 0.55 to 0.9 notches on the overall long-term credit rating at the end-2007. And, this effect increased to 0.8 to 1.23 notches by the end-2009 (Summary Table 8). At the end-2009, the effect of the government support is almost identical between the group of advanced countries and developing countries. Before the crisis, governments in advanced economies played a smaller role in boosting banks’ long-term ratings. These results are robust to a number of sample selection tests, such as testing for differential effects across developing and advanced countries, for both listed and non-listed banks, and also correcting for bank parental support and alternative estimations of an individual bank’s strength. I ask because this article is founded on that study - linked to by Bloomberg which is then linked to in OP's Huffpo article. While you can certainly claim that Mark Gongloff \"\"shows a basic lack of understanding\"\" of whatever, why don't you put some skin in the game and demonstrate how he somehow misses the entire point of that study, or better yet really wow us by de-bunking that study.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d9319ff56e68d79176f284a1700fccb",
"text": "Yes, but only because the US had a huge crash. Other economies have, in the absence of any credible *real* growth strategy, continued pumping housing. I still think student debt will erode incomes further as it's simply pulling forward demand that will drag on incomes later. When nearly everyone has a degree then nearly everyone doesn't get paid much more for having one. By the same principle of supply and demand all the boomer downsizing vs impoverished 30-something lack of upsizing will mean prices will fall.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "799a9ee5e202bf0686256b32b8c4a361",
"text": "\"As Michael McGowan says, just because gold has gone up lots recently does not mean it will continue to go up by the same amount. This plot: shows that if your father had bought $20,000 in gold 30 years ago, then 10 years ago he would have slightly less than $20,000 to show for it. Compare that with the bubble in real estate in the US: Update: I was curious about JoeTaxpayer's question: how do US house prices track against US taxpayer's ability to borrow? To try to answer this, I used the house price data from here, the 30 year fixed mortgages here and the US salary information from here. To calculate the \"\"ability to borrow\"\" I took the US hourly salary information, multiplied by 2000/12 to get a monthly salary. I (completely arbitrarily) assumed that 25 per cent of the monthly salary would be used on mortgage payments. I then used Excel's \"\"PV\"\" (Present Value) function to calculate the present value of the thirty year fixed rate mortgage. The resulting graph is below. The correlation coefficient between the two plots is 0.93. There are so many caveats on what I've done in ~15 minutes, I don't want to list them... but it certainly \"\"gives one furiously to think\"\" !! Update 2: OK, so even just salary information correlates very well with the house price increases. And looking at the differences, we can see that perhaps there was a spike or bubble in house prices over and above what might be expected from salary-only or ability-to-borrow.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "50c7e3ea42c36ece76e0b2aa28f33a4d",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.cityfalcon.com/blog/investments/student-loan-debt-new-mortgage-crisis/?utm_campaign=ao_reddit) reduced by 94%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Costs of living, especially for those attending universities in cities like New York or London, also account for a nontrivial portion of the debt. > Is the student debt bubble in the United States the next mortgage crisis? > One major difference between the student debt problem and the mortgage crisis is the lack of CDOs and CDSs. The thread that connected banks, governments, individuals and economies were the CDO and CDS. With a complex system of mortgage securitization and insurance against those securities, the system effectively collapsed itself. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/79mt1s/student_loan_debt_the_new_mortgage_crisis_in_2018/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~237528 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **debt**^#1 **student**^#2 **education**^#3 **economy**^#4 **borrowed**^#5\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b68c9e7304d736d1aa6ba5855c8f9e52",
"text": "NB - I live in Surrey and bought my house in January 2014. If you don't have a very social life, it does pay to stay outside London. Places outside London are cheap and you will get a better deal in relation to houses or flats as compared to London. I feel very priced out of the market regarding London mortgages I will strongly question you logic behind this ? Why only London ? Why not live in the commuter belt outside London. Good places to reside, good schools, nice neighbourhood and away from the hustle and bustle of London. Many of my colleagues commute from Cambridge and Oxford daily into Central London and they laugh at people who want to buy a house in London, just for the sake of buying a house. It seems that the housing market is generally in a bubble due to being distorted by the finance market London house market is different from the rest of UK. People from overseas tend to invest in London property market, so it is always inflated. Even the property tax hasn't deterred many. I could look into buying somewhere and renting it out You are trying to join the same people, because of whom you have been put out of the housing market. I strictly question this logic unless your mortgage is less than the rent you pay and what rent you get. Buy a roof over your head first, then think of profiting from property.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e44e5d398d5efd28d6c1262b52e48099",
"text": "\"So I'm in Australia and we have our very own housing price/credit bubble right now (which is finally deflating) and I'll try explain it as I understand. I welcome anyone to chime in and correct me. The problem we faced (still face to a large degree) is the idea of rising asset prices and how this fuels a feedback loop into increasing personal debt, all based on the false assumption that house prices always go up. Now before I continue, house prices *do* always go up in the long run, but so does the cost of everything and we call that inflation, adjusting for this effect usually reveals that house prices are cyclical in the long term and never really 'grow'. So that aside we in Australia recently saw a long period of increasing house prices (as did the USA and Europe, and more recently China), the thing about house price is it is your 'equity', I'll try and explain: (all figures are made up to provide a simple example) if you borrow $200,000 to buy a house that costs $250,000 you owe the bank 80% of the equity (what your home is 'worth', and notionally this is value that you own) in your home and the bank will be happy, remembering that they make money on your interest payments, not your principal repayments. If your house then increases in value to $300,000 but you still owe $200,000 then you now owe only 66% of your equity. The bank sees you as a lower risk and encourages you to borrow more to get back up to that sweet spot they had before of 80% - this is a nice tradeoff between risk and reward for the bank. You, the consumer, have just been mailed a new credit card with a 50k limit (hypothetical) and theres a new iMac being released next week, and you really did want to trade in your 5yr old car (see where this is going yet?). Not only is this type of spending given a mighty boost but consumers feel like this house thing has done them very well and suddenly they have the ability to borrow lots more money, why not get a second house and do it all over again? The added demand for investment housing drives prices, throw in some generous government incentives (here and in the USA) and demand is pushed hard, prices grow more and the whole thing feeds back into itself. People feel richer, spend more from their credit cards, buy another house, etc. But what happens if your house 'value' then drops to $240k? The bank now sees you as a high risk, so do the bank's investors, you have negative equity, the bank demands the difference paid back to it or it might take your home. Somehow, nobody believed this would happen. Hopefully you start to see the picture? In Australia we are now facing a slow melt in housing prices which has not yet hurt en masse but it has dried up the credit cards, retails spending has collapsed and everyone is worried about the future. Now to realise where the USA got to you have to also understand that banks were not merely asking for a maximum of 80% owed on the asset, many of them let this figure go to 100%, since hey prices always go up, right? They then in some cases went further and neglected to look into your income and confirm you could even *repay* your loan. Sounds dodgey? This is just the setup. Remember I mentioned the bank's investors? Well banks/smart people basically figured out a clever way of 'dealing with' the risk of a few outliers with bad financial situations by collecting large numbers of home loans into a single entity and selling it on. Loans were graded according to risk and I believe they were even cut up into smaller pieces (10% of your high risk loan assigned to 10 different 'debt objects' with different risk profiles). These 'collateralised debt obligations' were traded from one bank/investment firm to another with everyone happily accepting the risk profiles until eventually nobody knew what risk was where. Think about it like \"\"I'll throw 10 high risk loans, 50 medium risk loans and 40 low risk loans into a pot, stir it up and sell the soup as 'pretty safe' \"\". This all seemed like a very good idea until it gradually became clear just how much of these loans were in the 'extremely stupid high risk' category. This is probably extremely confusing by now, but thats the point, investors could no longer judge how risky an investment in a bank or financial institute was, the market did not correct for any of this until it was all too late. The moral of the story is when people tell you an investment is guaranteed to make you money, you stay away from that investment. And to specifically answer your question you can't solely blame government incentives as you might be able to see, but they play a part in a giant orchestra, there are many factors that drive this sort of stupidity, stupidity being the primary one.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d6e5ae4073483fc8fe8353bc8a8c31ad",
"text": "The Shiller data is inflation adjusted. In effect, a flat line means that long term, housing rises with inflation, no more no less. There's no argument, just the underlying data to support his charts. This, among them. As much as I respect Nobel Prize winning Robert Shiller, his approach and analysis of the boom ignored interest rates. Say we look at a $50K earning couple. This is just below median income. At 9%, they qualify to borrow $145K. As rates fell to 4%, they qualify for $244K. Same fixed 30 term. Ignoring all other factors, the swing in rates will generate an oscillation around the long term trend. And my own data crunching suggests the equilibrium median home price will tend toward the price supported by the median income. A similar, but not identical question - Why can't house prices be out of tune with salaries? In response to Chan-Ho's comment - I'd imagine Shiller understood the interest impact. To clarify, the chart, as presented, ignores it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e8244db9b6d7cb8ae986c5b82432cdec",
"text": "Most people today (and maybe regardless of era) are irrational and don't properly valuate many of their purchases, nor are they emotionally equipped to do the math properly, including projection into the future and applying probabilities. This compounds. Imagine that each individual is bound to others by a rubber band and can stretch in a certain direction. The more your neighbors stretch, the more you are both motivated to stretch and able to stretch. These are crudely analogous to consumer wants as well as allowed consumer debt. The banks are also within this network of rubber bands and much of their balance sheet is based on how far they've stretched on the aggregate of all connected bands (counting others debts as their credit because it will presumably be repaid), and every so often enough people's feet slip that a lot of rubber bands snap back. This is a bubble bursting.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
cdfba79258de756c8f6deeacd21102ea
|
Why does it matter if a Central Bank has a negative rather than 0% interest rate?
|
[
{
"docid": "d43a765c37b5c6be67a1a8905054dabd",
"text": "That is kind of the point, one of the hopes is that it incentivizes banks to stop storing money and start injecting it into the economy themselves. Compared to the European Central Bank investing directly into the economy the way the US central bank has been doing. (The Federal Reserve buying mortgage backed securities) On a country level, individual European countries have tried this before in recent times with no noticeable effect.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1cf9c7613a8b1d0fd44de8be4f8b61b0",
"text": "Keep in mind there are a couple of points to ponder here: Rates are really low. With rates being so low, unless there is deflation, it is pretty easy to see even moderate inflation of 1-2% being enough to eat the yield completely which would be why the returns are negative. Inflation is still relatively contained. With inflation low, there is no reason for the central banks to raise rates which would give new bonds a better rate. Thus, this changes in CPI are still in the range where central banks want to be stimulative with their policy which means rates are low which if lower than inflation rates would give a negative real return which would be seen as a way to trigger more spending since putting the money into treasury debt will lose money to inflation in terms of purchasing power. A good question to ponder is has this happened before in the history of the world and what could we learn from that point in time. The idea for investors would be to find alternative holdings for their cash and bonds if they want to beat inflation though there are some inflation-indexed bonds that aren't likely appearing in the chart that could also be something to add to the picture here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "27f2ea3f06194bf4fdbfa53f7af8e376",
"text": "It's the rate of return on new opportunities. The rate on existing projects isn't relevant. If you buy a bond 10 years ago when market Interest rates were 8%, and you have cash to buy another bond today, it is today's interest rates that are relevant, not the rates 10 years ago.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a81fcec8b06a16d323ca49071561d6e7",
"text": "My first thought was that it must be due to inflation, which causes such differences in many cases since a creditor needs to make back more than the rate of inflation in order not to effectively lose money. But it seems that Paraguay currently has only a very modest rate of inflation, about 3%. Other possible reasons for different credit rates: The latter is most likely. It means that if debtors are generally poor and are often completely unable to pay back the loan, or if there is no effective way to force uncooperative debtors to pay (e.g. when there are weak laws or overworked courts), then creditors will lose a lot of money to defaults and have to raise rates to compensate for this.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "34665581461e0a8d5d33457ae25d7895",
"text": "The question in my view is going into Opinion and economics. Why would I buy a bond with a negative yield? I guess you have answered yourself; Although the second point is more relevant for high net worth individual or large financial institutions / Governments where preserving cash is an important consideration. Currently quite a few Govt Bonds are in negative as most Govt want to encourage spending in an effort to revive economy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "48c01e8025f37a2255ffd3c048d8b06a",
"text": "Perhaps something else comes with the bond so it is a convertible security. Buffett's Negative-Interest Issues Sell Well from 2002 would be an example from more than a decade ago: Warren E. Buffett's new negative-interest bonds sold rapidly yesterday, even after the size of the offering was increased to $400 million from $250 million, with a possible offering of another $100 million to cover overallotments. The new Berkshire Hathaway securities, which were underwritten by Goldman, Sachs at the suggestion of Mr. Buffett, Berkshire's chairman and chief executive, pay 3 percent annual interest. But they are coupled with five-year warrants to buy Berkshire stock at $89,585, a 15 percent premium to Berkshire's stock price Tuesday of $77,900. To maintain the warrant, an investor is required to pay 3.75 percent each year. That provides a net negative rate of 0.75 percent.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "48f0b8daf92c94325fe3993451500c40",
"text": "The United States Federal Reserve has decided that interest rates should be low. (They think it may help the economy. The details matter little here though.) It will enforce this low rate by buying Treasury bonds at this very low interest rate. (Bonds are future money, so this means they pay a lot of money up front, for very little interest in the future. The Fed will pay more than anyone who offers less money up front, so they can set the price as long as they're willing to buy.) At the end of the day, Treasury bonds pay nearly no interest. Since there's little money to be made with Treasuries, people who want better-than-zero returns will bid up the current-price of any other bonds or similar loan-like instruments to get what whatever rate of return that they can. There's really no more than one price for money; you can think of the price of those bonds as basically (Treasury rate + some modifier based on the risk) percent. I realize thinking about bond prices is weird and different than other prices (you're measuring future-money using present-money and it's easy to be confused) and assure you it ultimately makes sense :) Anyway. Your savings account money has to compete with everyone else willing to lend money to banks. Everyone-else lends money for peanuts, so you get peanuts on your savings account too. Your banking is probably worth more to your bank on account of your check-card payment processing fees (collected from the merchant) than from the money they make lending out your savings (notice how many places have promotional rates if you make your direct deposits or use your check card to make a purchase N times a month). In Europe, it's similar, except you've got a different central bank. If Europe's bank operated radically differently for an extended period of time, you'd expect to see a difference in the exchange rates which would ultimately make the returns from investing in those currencies pretty similar as well. Such a change may show up domestically as inflation in the country with the loose-money policy, and internationally as weakness against other currencies. There's really only one price for money around the entire world. Any difference boils down to a difference in (perceived) risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2ffea0fcea377ecbb6358b9406c20f42",
"text": "\"Yet another \"\"If X, then EUROFAIL!!\"\" It's really fucking tedious even without the screamingly, mind-numbingly wrong \"\"logic\"\" of this one. If you're lending money to Germany at 0% and still expect to make a profit, it's because the Euro *will be HIGHER* than your currency at the end of the loan period. This one doesn't look like stupidity so much as a really ham-fisted manipulation attempt to engineer a short-term euro drop for a nicer buy-in.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7a66ffd467cfa8743dc1cf6724f238af",
"text": "You understand that the Fed is *supposed* to make overnight loans to banks, that one of its primary jobs is to be a lender of last resort? And yes, some were foreign banks; foreign subsidies of US banks or counter-parties to large US banks. Near-zero, yes for course we're talking about *overnight* loans. The current commercial rate for overnight euro LIBOR is 0.26179%, in other words, 0.0026, near zero OMG conspiracy!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f1c8eb4c1f7b0575154056ff28ed2dd9",
"text": "\"Long answer: [Interest Rates and Fiscal Sustainability](http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722986) Short(er) answer: The issuer of the currency isn't revenue-constrained in its own currency. So the \"\"debt situation\"\" isn't bad at all, it's just a record of net issuance. On interest payments, two considerations. First is that when the interest rate is less than the growth rate, debt:GDP levels off. Second is that the interest rate is a price set by the issuer. So interest payments aren't a problem either. Does that mean the government can just spend without limit or consequence? No. A thousand times, no. What it does mean though is that those limits and consequences are properly described in terms of what the economy needs and not in terms of budget constraints. Or to put it another way, they're balancing an economy, not a budget.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "23b6f3349410a9cd46532acb781c86ea",
"text": "The point of what you heard is likely that gold is thought by some to hold its value well, when the money market would provide negative interest rates. These negative interest rates are a sign of deflation, where cash money is worth more in the future than it is today. Normally, under inflation, cash money is worth less in the future than it is today. Under 'normal' circumstances where inflation exists, interest paid by the bank on money held there generally keeps up with inflation + a little bit extra. Now, we are seeing many banks offering interest rates in the negatives, which is an acknowledgement of the fact that money will be worth more in the future than it is today. So in that sense, holding physical gold 'fights' deflation [or, negative interest rates], in the same way that holding physical cash does [because if you hold onto a $10k bundle of bills, in 10 years you can walk into a bank and it will be worth $10k in future dollars - which in a deflationary market would be more than it is worth today]. Some view gold as being better at doing this than just holding cash, but that discussion gets into an analysis of the value of paper money as a currency, which is outside the scope of this answer. Suffice to say, I do not personally like the idea of buying gold as an investment, but some do, and partly for this reason.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f7f27dfffa398fe03986c118eb595efc",
"text": "The Fed controls the base interest rate for lending to banks. It raises this rate when the economy is doing well to limit inflation, and lowers this rate when the economy is doing poorly to encourage lending. Raising the interest rate signals that the Fed believes the economy is strong/strengthening. Obviously it's more complicated than that but that's the basic idea.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "db60352c2a3f024fb17f6eb2c3c446e8",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/private-bankers_patience-wearing-thin-for-negative-interest-rates/43174886) reduced by 77%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Negative interest rates are the bane of the financial sector - and the longer they remain, the louder bankers cry foul. > He noted that "The voices criticising negative interest rates have become louder and more numerous. We no longer feel alone." He added that he hoped future conditions might allow "Our central bank to loosen its stranglehold" on interest rates. > The Private Banking Day organisers even invited along German economist Hans-Werner Sinn to help them ram home the point that negative interest rates are bad. Sinn warned that the countries most likely to suffer from such monetary policy are those where house prices have risen rapidly in recent years - Switzerland, Germany and Austria. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6ejahv/patience_wearing_thin_for_negative_interest_rates/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~133488 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Theory](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31bfht/theory_autotldr_concept/) | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **bank**^#1 **interest**^#2 **rate**^#3 **Swiss**^#4 **Negative**^#5\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aefe743b20c09ba211183e7b92a884ed",
"text": "Increasing rates from .75% to 1% is an attempt to control debt. The new 1% rate drives down demand for bonds based on the old .75% rate and drives down demand for stocks who have decrease profit because they pay more interest on debt. This is the federal reserves primary tool controling inflation. 1% is what the banks pay to borrow money, they base their lending rates on this 1% figure. If a person can guarantee a .75% return on money borrowed at 1%, they will opt to save and instead lend their money out at 1%.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "174d0dde5a33952ccf7e1b619bfc6b38",
"text": "When the inflation rate increases, this tends to push up interest rates because of supply and demand: If the interest rate is less than the inflation rate, then putting your money in the bank means that you are losing value every day that it is there. So there's an incentive to withdraw your money and spend it now. If, say, I'm planning to buy a car, and my savings are declining in real value, then if I buy a car today I can get a better car than if I wait until tomorrow. When interest rates are high compared to inflation, the reverse is true. My savings are increasing in value, so the longer I leave my money in the bank the more it's worth. If I wait until tomorrow to buy a car I can get a better car than I would be able to buy today. Also, people find alternative places to keep their savings. If a savings account will result in me losing value every day my money is there, then maybe I'll put the money in the stock market or buy gold or whatever. So for the banks to continue to get enough money to make loans, they have to increase the interest rates they pay to lure customers back to the bank. There is no reason per se for rising interest rates to consumers to directly cause an increase in the inflation rate. Inflation is caused by the money supply growing faster than the amount of goods and services produced. Interest rates are a cost. If interest rates go up, people will borrow less money and spend it on other things, but that has no direct effect on the total money supply. Except ... you may note I put a bunch of qualifiers in that paragraph. In the United States, the Federal Reserve loans money to banks. It creates this money out of thin air. So when the interest that the Federal Reserve charges to the banks is low, the banks will borrow more from the Feds. As this money is created on the spot, this adds to the money supply, and thus contributes to inflation. So if interest rates to consumers are low, this encourages people to borrow more money from the banks, which encourages the banks to borrow more from the Feds, which increases the money supply, which increases inflation. I don't know much about how it works in other countries, but I think it's similar in most nations.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fa68f3257bac3f78679bdf8b096022c3",
"text": "The Central Banks sets various rate for lending to Banks and Paying interest to Banks on excess funds. Apart from these the Central Banks also sets various other ratios that either create more liquidity or remove liquidity from Market. The CPI is just one input to the Central Bank to determine rate, is not the only deciding criteria. The CPI does not take into account the house price or the cost of renting in the basket of goods. One of the reasons could be that CPI contains basic essentials and also the fact that it should be easily mesurable over the period of time. For example Retail Price of a particular item is easily mesurable. The rent is not easily mesurable.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
d4d0e5282c650ae01d56e15fcd6b8fbb
|
Is it sensible to keep savings in a foreign currency?
|
[
{
"docid": "c22ddc6666d604975f4b2b01bdbd3979",
"text": "Given that we live in a world rife with geopolitical risks such as Brexit and potential EU breakup, would you say it's advisable to keep some of cash savings in a foreign currency? Probably not. Primarily because you don't know what will happen in the fallout of these sorts of political shifts. You don't know what will happen to banking treaties between the various countries involved. If you can manage to place funds on deposit in a foreign bank/country in a currency other than your home currency and maintain the deposit insurance in that country and not spend too much exchanging your currency then there probably isn't a downside other than liquidity loss. If you're thinking I'll just wire some whatever currency to some bank in some foreign country in which you have no residency or citizenship consideration without considering deposit insurance just so you might protect some of your money from a possible future event I think you should stay away.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c5e0d911af62091f18a6573283d3b230",
"text": "would you say it's advisable to keep some of cash savings in a foreign currency? This is primarily opinion based. Given that we live in a world rife with geopolitical risks such as Brexit and potential EU breakup There is no way to predict what will happen in such large events. For example if one keeps funds outside on UK in say Germany in Euro's. The UK may bring in a regulation and clamp down all funds held outside of UK as belonging to Government or tax these at 90% or anything absurd that negates the purpose of keeping funds outside. There are example of developing / under developed economics putting absurd capital controls. Whether UK will do or not is a speculation. If you are going to spend your live in a country, it is best to invest in country. As normal diversification, you can look at keep a small amount invested outside of country.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bce16a459992b5cfe97275296a8ea3e4",
"text": "I don't think that it's a good idea to have cash savings in different currencies, unless you know which will be the direction of the wind for that currency. You can suffer a lot of volatility and losses if you just convert your savings to another currency without knowing anything about which direction that pair will take. Today we can see Brexit, but this is a fact that has been discounted by the market, so the currencies are already adjusted to that fact, but we don't know what will happen in the future, maybe Trump will collapse the US economy, or some other economies in Asia will raise to gain more leadership. If you want to invest in an economy, I think that it's a best idea to invest on companies that are working in that country. This is a way of moving your money to other currencies, and at least you can see how is the company performing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c5be96ed7dcb380a9559e44f5d69c2bf",
"text": "Is it sensible to keep savings in a foreign currency? The answer varies from one country to the next, but in the UK (or any other mature economy), I would advise against it. There are better ways to hedge against currency risks with the funds readily available to you through your ISA. You can keep your money relatively safe and liquid without ever paying a currency exchange fee.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "233fefaa0be88b6404682ad147c28974",
"text": "If you want to use that money and maybe don't have the time to wait a few years if things should go bad, than you will definitely want to hold a good bunch of your money in the currency you buy most stuff with (so in most cases the currency of the country you live in) even if it is more volatile.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc6e266b59ecc292bde5266b4226db53",
"text": "\"The solution I've come up with is to keep income in CAD, and Accounts Receivable in USD. Every time I post an invoice it prompts for the exchange rate. I don't know if this is \"\"correct\"\" but it seems to be preserving all of the information about the transactions and it makes sense to me. I'm a programmer, not an accountant though so I'd still appreciate an answer from someone more familiar with this topic.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ec199cf207762c464059adad4d27fd60",
"text": "Withdraw your savings as cash and stuff them into your mattress? Less flippantly, would the fees for a safe deposit box at a bank big enough to hold CHF 250'000 be less than the negative interest rate that you'd be penalized with if you kept your money in a normal account?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "df91c47eafc6397732ede7d8f2fe2602",
"text": "\"You are mixing issues here. And it's tough for members to answer without more detail, the current mortgage rate in your country, for one. It's also interesting to parse out your question. \"\"I wish to safely invest money. Should I invest in real estate.\"\" But then the text offers that it's not an investment, it's a home to live in. This is where the trouble is. And it effectively creates 2 questions to address. The real question - Buy vs Rent. I know you mentioned Euros. Fortunately, mortgages aren't going to be too different, lower/higher, and tax consequence, but all can be adjusted. The New York Times offered a beautiful infographing calculator Is It Better to Rent or Buy? For those not interested in viewing it, they run the math, and the simple punchline is this - The home/rent ratio can have an incredibly wide range. I've read real estate blogs that say the rent should be 2% of the home value. That's a 4 to 1 home/rent (per year). A neighbor rented his higher end home, and the ratio was over 25 to 1. i.e. the rent for the year was about 4% the value of the home. It's this range that makes the choice less than obvious. The second part of your question is how to stay safely invested if you fear your own currency will collapse. That quickly morphs into too speculative a question. Some will quickly say \"\"gold\"\" and others would point out that a stockpile of weapons, ammo, and food would be the best choice to survive that.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e6eb756cc10517e78138928fe576fa8",
"text": "\"Depositum irregulare is a Latin phrase that simply means \"\"irregular deposit.\"\" It's a concept from ancient Roman contract law that has a very narrow scope and doesn't actually apply to your example. There are two distinct parts to this concept, one dealing with the notion of a deposit and the other with the notion of irregularity. I'll address them both in turn since they're both relevant to the tax issue. I also think that this is an example of the XY problem, since your proposed solution (\"\"give my money to a friend for safekeeping\"\") isn't the right solution to your actual problem (\"\"how can I keep my money safe\"\"). The currency issue is a complication, but it doesn't change the fact that what you're proposing probably isn't a good solution. The key word in my definition of depositum irregulare is \"\"contract\"\". You don't mention a legally binding contract between you and your friend; an oral contract doesn't qualify because in the event of a breach, it's difficult to enforce the agreement. Legally, there isn't any proof of an oral agreement, and emotionally, taking your friend to court might cost you your friendship. I'm not a lawyer, but I would guess that the absence of a contract implies that even though in the eyes of you and your friend, you're giving him the money for \"\"safekeeping,\"\" in the eyes of the law, you're simply giving it to him. In the US, you would owe gift taxes on these funds if they're higher than a certain amount. In other words, this isn't really a deposit. It's not like a security deposit, in which the money may be held as collateral in exchange for a service, e.g. not trashing your apartment, or a financial deposit, where the money is held in a regulated financial institution like a bank. This isn't a solution to the problem of keeping your money safe because the lack of a contract means you incur additional risk in the form of legal risk that isn't present in the context of actual deposits. Also, if you don't have an account in the right currency, but your friend does, how are you planning for him to store the money anyway? If you convert your money into his currency, you take on exchange rate risk (unless you hedge, which is another complication). If you don't convert it and simply leave it in his safe, house, car boot, etc. you're still taking on risk because the funds aren't insured in the event of loss. Furthermore, the money isn't necessarily \"\"safe\"\" with your friend even if you ignore all the risks above. Without a written contract, you have little recourse if a) your friend decides to spend the money and not return it, b) your friend runs into financial trouble and creditors make claim to his assets, or c) you get into financial trouble and creditors make claims to your assets. The idea of giving money to another individual for safekeeping during bankruptcy has been tested in US courts and ruled invalid. If you do decide to go ahead with a contract and you do want your money back from your friend eventually, you're in essence loaning him money, and this is a different situation with its own complications. Look at this question and this question before loaning money to a friend. Although this does apply to your situation, it's mostly irrelevant because the \"\"irregular\"\" part of the concept of \"\"irregular deposit\"\" is a standard feature of currencies and other legal tender. It's part of the fungibility of modern currencies and doesn't have anything to do with taxes if you're only giving your friend physical currency. If you're giving him property, other assets, etc. for \"\"safekeeping\"\" it's a different issue entirely, but it's still probably going to be considered a gift or a loan. You're basically correct about what depositum irregulare means, but I think you're overestimating its reach in modern law. In Roman times, it simply refers to a contract in which two parties made an agreement for the depositor to deposit money or goods with the depositee and \"\"withdraw\"\" equivalent money or goods sometime in the future. Although this is a feature of the modern deposit banking system, it's one small part alongside contract law, deposit insurance, etc. These other parts add complexity, but they also add security and risk mitigation. Your arrangement with your friend is much simpler, but also much riskier. And yes, there probably are taxes on what you're proposing because you're basically giving or loaning the money to your friend. Even if you say it's not a loan or a gift, the law may still see it that way. The absence of a contract makes this especially important, because you don't have anything speaking in your favor in the event of a legal dispute besides \"\"what you meant the money to be.\"\" Furthermore, the money isn't necessarily safe with your friend, and the absence of a contract exacerbates this issue. If you want to keep your money safe, keep it in an account that's covered by deposit insurance. If you don't have an account in that currency, either a) talk to a lawyer who specializes in situation like this and work out a contract, or b) open an account with that currency. As I've stated, I'm not a lawyer, so none of the above should be interpreted as legal advice. That being said, I'll reiterate again that the concept of depositum irregulare is a concept from ancient Roman law. Trying to apply it within a modern legal system without a contract is a potential recipe for disaster. If you need a legal solution to this problem (not that you do; I think what you're looking for is a bank), talk to a lawyer who understands modern law, since ancient Roman law isn't applicable to and won't pass muster in a modern-day court.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f321b5f5dcf5df983195cc9e9609e344",
"text": "Firstly, I think you need to separate your question into two parts: If you are Chinese, live in China and intend to stay in China for most of your life then the default answer to question 1 should be Renminbi. Question 2 is not as important, you can hold USD in almost any country in the world. Any investment you hold has risk, which may include market risk, credit risk, liquidity risk, inflation risk etc. Holding USD will expose you to exchange rate fluctuations as well. If the Renminbi rises in value against the dollar your returns in USD will be reduced by the same amount (remember that for currency fluctuations you have to multiply the percentages, see here for a good explanation). The first thing you probably want to do is find out exactly what the assets are in the 理财 you have invested in. The fact that there is a 'risk level' (even if it is only 2) would suggest to me that the fund is investing in some combination of bonds and stocks which means that your returns are not guaranteed and could make a loss. Interest rates on deposit accounts are mandated by the government in China, and the current 12 month deposit rate on RMB is 3%. To earn over 3%, GEB must be investing your assets in something else (I'm guessing bonds). Bear in mind that 1.5 years is a very short amount of time in investments, so don't assume this return will continue! I'm afraid I've only been studying Chinese for a year, so I can't really help you much with the link you've sent through - you may want to check if there is any guaranteed minimum return, which can be the case in more complex structured products. Ultimately you will need to pick an investment which you feel gives you the best combination of risk and return for your situation, there are a huge amount of options to choose between. The 4-5% you are earning right now is not a huge risk premium on the 3% you could earn in China from a time deposit, but in the current environment you may struggle to beat it without taking on more risk. Before considering that though - understand how much risk you already have with GEB.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "59b7de70d9d48f378b7a777c2b5420ae",
"text": "\"I would keep some money in the U.S. and some money in India. That way, in case \"\"something bad\"\" happens in one country, you will still have money in the other.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "72b452624646db70ff1533aa27000710",
"text": "I haven't seen this answer, and I do not know the legality of it, as it could raise red flags as to money laundering, but about the only way to get around the exchange rate spreads and fees is to enter into transactions with a private acquaintance who has Euros and needs Dollars. The problem here is that you are taking on the settlement risk in the sense that you have to trust that they will deposit the euros into your French account when you deposit dollars into their US account. If you work this out with a relative or very close friend, then the risk should be minimal, however a more casual acquaintance may be more apt to walk away from the transaction and disappear with your Euros and your Dollars. Really the only other option would be to be compensated for services rendered in Euros, but that would have tax implications and the fees of an international tax attorney would probably outstrip any savings from Forex spreads and fees not paid.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "81736205bbbb2bef19b6b96f71dcb2db",
"text": "\"You might convert all your money in local currency but you need take care of following tips while studying abroad.Here are some money tips that can be useful during a trip abroad. Know about fees :- When you use a debit card or credit card in a foreign country, there are generally two types of transaction fees that may apply: Understand exchange rates :- The exchange rate lets you know the amount of nearby money you can get for each U.S. dollar, missing any expenses. There are \"\"sell\"\" rates for individuals who are trading U.S. dollars for foreign currency, and, the other way around, \"\"purchase\"\" rates. It's a smart thought to recognize what the neighborhood money is worth in dollars so you can comprehend the estimation of your buys abroad. Sites like X-Rates offer a currency converter that gives the current exchange rate, so you can make speedy comparisons. You can utilize it to get a feel for how much certain amount (say $1, $10, $25, $50, $100) are worth in local currency. Remember that rates fluctuate, so you will be unable to suspect precisely the amount of a buy made in a foreign currency will cost you in U.S. dollars. To get cash, check for buddy banks abroad:- If you already have an account with a large bank or credit union in the U.S., you may have an advantage. Being a client of a big financial institution with a large ATM system may make it easier to find a subsidiary cash machine and stay away from an out-of-system charge. Bank of America, for example, is a part of the Global ATM Alliance, which lets clients of taking an interest banks use their debit cards to withdraw money at any Alliance ATM without paying the machine's operator an access fee, in spite of the fact that you may at present be charged for converting dollars into local currency used for purchases. Citibank is another well known bank for travelers because it has 45,000 ATMs in more than 30 countries, including popular study-abroad destinations such as the U.K., Italy and Spain. ATMs in a foreign country may allow withdrawals just from a financial records, and not from savings so make sure to keep an adequate checking balance. Also, ATM withdrawal limits will apply just as they do in the U.S., but the amount may vary based on the local currency and exchange rates. Weigh the benefits of other banks :- For general needs, online banks and even foreign banks can also be good options. With online banks, you don’t have to visit physical branches, and these institutions typically have lower fees. Use our checking account tool to find one that’s a good fit. Foreign banks:- Many American debit cards may not work in Europe, Asia and Latin America, especially those that don’t have an EMV chip that help prevent fraud. Or some cards may work at one ATM, but not another. One option for students who expect a more extended stay in a foreign country is to open a new account at a local bank. This will let you have better access to ATMs, and to make purchases more easily and without as many fees. See our chart below for the names of the largest banks in several countries. Guard against fraud and identity theft:- One of the most important things you can do as you plan your trip is to let your bank know that you’ll be abroad. Include exact countries and dates, when possible, to avoid having your card flagged for fraud. Unfortunately, incidents may still arise despite providing ample warning to your bank. Bring a backup credit card or debit card so you can still access some sort of money in case one is canceled. Passports are also critical — not just for traveling from place to place, but also as identification to open a bank account and for everyday purposes. You’ll want to make two photocopies and give one to a friend or family member to keep at home and put the other in a separate, secure location, just in case your actual passport is lost or stolen.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e92a5e3cfe7db5a782b9931710ff389d",
"text": "\"You might find some of the answers here helpful; the question is different, but has some similar concerns, such as a changing economic environment. What approach should I take to best protect my wealth against currency devaluation & poor growth prospects. I want to avoid selling off any more of my local index funds in a panic as I want to hold long term. Does my portfolio balance make sense? Good question; I can't even get US banks to answer questions like this, such as \"\"What happens if they try to nationalize all bank accounts like in the Soviet Union?\"\" Response: it'll never happen. The question was what if! I think that your portfolio carries a lot of risk, but also offsets what you're worried about. Outside of government confiscation of foreign accounts (if your foreign investments are held through a local brokerage), you should be good. What to do about government confiscation? Even the US government (in 1933) confiscated physical gold (and they made it illegal to own) - so even physical resources can be confiscated during hard times. Quite a large portion of my foreign investments have been bought at an expensive time when our currency is already around historic lows, which does concern me in the event that it strengthens in future. What strategy should I take in the future if/when my local currency starts the strengthen...do I hold my foreign investments through it and just trust in cost averaging long term, or try sell them off to avoid the devaluation? Are these foreign investments a hedge? If so, then you shouldn't worry if your currency does strengthen; they serve the purpose of hedging the local environment. If these investments are not a hedge, then timing will matter and you'll want to sell and buy your currency before it does strengthen. The risk on this latter point is that your timing will be wrong.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aaf385e8e4cec04116c0701d991180b7",
"text": "I think your approach of looking exclusively at USD deposits is a prudent one. Here are my responses to your questions. 1) It is highly unlikely that a USD deposit abroad be converted to local currency upon withdrawal. The reason for offering a deposit in a particular currency in the first place is that the bank wants to attract funds in this currency. 2) Interest rate is a function of various risks mostly supply and demand, central bank policy, perceived risk etc. In recent years low-interest rate policy as led by U.S., European and Japanese central banks has led particularly low yields in certain countries disregarding their level of risk, which can vary substantially (thus e.g. Eastern Europe has very low yields at the moment in spite of its perceived higher risk). Some countries offer depository insurance. 3) I would focus on banks which are among the largest in the country and boast good corporate governance i.e. their ownership is clean and transparent and they are true to their business purpose. Thus, ownership is key, then come financials. Country depository insurance, low external threat (low war risk) is also important. Most banks require a personal visit in order to open the account, thus I wouldn't split much further than 2-3 banks, assuming these are good quality.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "041245ddb1f9ce5576e6d63afde087e8",
"text": "\"The danger to your savings depends on how much sovereign debt your bank is holding. If the government defaults then the bank - if it is holding a lot of sovereign debt - could be short funds and not able to meet its obligations. I believe default is the best option for the Euro long term but it will be painful in the short term. Yes, historically governments have shut down banks to prevent people from withdrawing their money in times of crisis. See Argentina circa 2001 or US during Great Depression. The government prevented people from withdrawing their money and people could do nothing while their money rapidly lost value. (See the emergency banking act where Title I, Section 4 authorizes the US president:\"\"To make it illegal for a bank to do business during a national emergency (per section 2) without the approval of the President.\"\" FDR declared a banking holiday four days before the act was approved by Congress. This documentary on the crisis in Argentina follows a woman as she tries to withdraw her savings from her bank but the government has prevented her from withdrawing her money.) If the printing press is chosen to avoid default then this will allow banks and governments to meet their obligations. This, however, comes at the cost of a seriously debased euro (i.e. higher prices). The euro could then soon become a hot potato as everyone tries to get rid of them before the ECB prints more. The US dollar could meet the same fate. What can you do to avert these risks? Yes, you could exchange into another currency. Unfortunately the printing presses of most of the major central banks today are in overdrive. This may preserve your savings temporarily. I would purchase some gold or silver coins and keep them in your possession. This isolates you from the banking system and gold and silver have value anywhere you go. The coins are also portable in case things really start to get interesting. Attempt to purchase the coins with cash so there is no record of the purchase. This may not be possible.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "332c7311f705acec1dd28a25e372bdce",
"text": "I'd have anything you would need for maybe 3-6 months stored up: food, fuel, toiletries, other incidentals. What might replace the currency after the Euro collapses will be the least of your concerns when it does collapse.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b0c5d572daf63971196fc6cffc133484",
"text": "If your savings are in USD and will be making purchases using USD, then it will no longer go as far as it used to. I assume most Americans currently have their savings accounts in USD, so the value of those accounts will decrease. If you have investments in stocks or foreign currencies, your exposure may be less, but it depends. For example, stocks in companies that hold a lot of USD will also be hit hard, as will be currencies of nations that are still holding a lot of USD if the value of the USD is crashing. If you have a lot of debt measured in USD, while have a lot of assets that have nothing to do with USD, then you might make out like a bandit, since if you assume the value of the USD is falling, then it would become easier to sell off your other assets to pay off the debt.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "13ee4ee6cbf862faced136bfe3156ba8",
"text": "\"Hi I'm the writer thanks for the read and the comment. With the statement you quoted, I'm trying to dispute the claim that \"\"people these days can't afford a house because they would have to pay their entire salary just to afford the mortgage,\"\" which I think is quite common in some circles. The data makes no statement as to whether home ownership is more affordable or not, but simply shows that those buying property are using around the same percentage of their income to pay for it, which the data clearly shows to be true. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N As it turns out, home ownership levels have remained within ~5% of their 1980 levels based on percentage of the total population. I think there is an major classification flaw when comparing only sales because a great deal of people inherit property with no sale ever being made.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
fd491c397954a4074b590ebeee195656
|
Why do 10 year Treasury bond yields affect mortgage interest rates?
|
[
{
"docid": "ebe6ac0b79f9cec2027e75b7e1e713e5",
"text": "You’ve really got three or four questions going here… and it’s clear that a gap in understanding one component of how bonds work (pricing) is having a ripple effect across the other facets of your question. The reality is that everybody’s answers so far touch on various pieces of your general question, but maybe I can help by integrating. So, let’s start by nailing down what your actual questions are: 1. Why do mortgage rates (tend to) increase when the published treasury bond rate increases? I’m going to come back to this, because it requires a lot of building blocks. 2. What’s the math behind a bond yield increasing (price falling?) This gets complicated, fast. Especially when you start talking about selling the bond in the middle of its time period. Many people that trade in bonds use financial calculators, Excel, or pre-calculated tables to simplify or even just approximate the value of a bond. But here’s a simple example that shows the math. Let’s say we’ve got a bond that is issued by… Dell for $10,000. The company will pay it back in 5 years, and it is offering an 8% rate. Interest payments will only be paid annually. Remember that the amount Dell has promised to pay in interest is fixed for the life of the bond, and is called the ‘coupon’ rate. We can think about the way the payouts will be paid in the following table: As I’m sure you know, the value of a bond (its yield) comes from two sources: the interest payments, and the return of the principal. But, if you as an investor paid $14,000 for this bond, you would usually be wrong. You need to ‘discount’ those amounts to take into account the ‘time value of money’. This is why when you are dealing in bonds it is important to know the ‘coupon rate’ (what is Dell paying each period?). But it is also important to know your sellers’/buyers’ own personal discount rates. This will vary from person to person and institution to institution, but it is what actually sets the PRICE you would buy this bond for. There are three general cases for the discount rate (or the MARKET rate). First, where the market rate == the coupon rate. This is known as “par” in bond parlance. Second, where the market rate < the coupon rate. This is known as “premium” in bond parlance. Third, where the market rate > coupon rate. This is known as a ‘discount’ bond. But before we get into those in too much depth, how does discounting work? The idea behind discounting is that you need to account for the idea that a dollar today is not worth the same as a dollar tomorrow. (It’s usually worth ‘more’ tomorrow.) You discount a lump sum, like the return of the principal, differently than you do a series of equal cash flows, like the stream of $800 interest payments. The formula for discounting a lump sum is: Present Value=Future Value* (1/(1+interest rate))^((# of periods)) The formula for discounting a stream of equal payments is: Present Value=(Single Payment)* (〖1-(1+i)〗^((-n))/i) (i = interest rate and n = number of periods) **cite investopedia So let’s look at how this would look in pricing the pretend Dell bond as a par bond. First, we discount the return of the $10,000 principal as (10,000 * (1 / 1.08)^5). That equals $6,807.82. Next we discount the 5 equal payments of $800 as (800* (3.9902)). I just plugged and chugged but you can do that yourself. That equals $3,192.18. You may get slightly different numbers with rounding. So you add the two together, and it says that you would be willing to pay ($6,807.82 + $3,192.18) = $10,000. Surprise! When the bond is a par bond you’re basically being compensated for the time value of money with the interest payments. You purchase the bond at the ‘face value’, which is the principal that will be returned at the end. If you worked through the math for a 6% discount rate on an 8% coupon bond, you would see that it’s “premium”, because you would pay more than the principal that is returned to obtain the bond [10,842.87 vs 10,000]. Similarly, if you work through the math for a 10% discount rate on an 8% coupon bond, it’s a ‘discount’ bond because you will pay less than the principal that is returned for the bond [9,241.84 vs 10,000]. It’s easy to see how an investor could hold our imaginary Dell bond for one year, collect the first interest payment, and then sell the bond on to another investor. The mechanics of the calculations are the same, except that one less interest payment is available, and the principal will be returned one year sooner… so N=4 in both formulae. Still with me? Now that we’re on the same page about how a bond is priced, we can talk about “Yield To Maturity”, which is at the heart of your main question. Bond “yields” like the ones you can access on CNBC or Yahoo!Finance or wherever you may be looking are actually taking the reverse approach to this. In these cases the prices are ‘fixed’ in that the sellers have listed the bonds for sale, and specified the price. Since the coupon values are fixed already by whatever organization issued the bond, the rate of return can be imputed from those values. To do that, you just do a bit of algebra and swap “present value” and “future value” in our two equations. Let’s say that Dell has gone private, had an awesome year, and figured out how to make robot unicorns that do wonderful things for all mankind. You decide that now would be a great time to sell your bond after holding it for one year… and collecting that $800 interest payment. You think you’d like to sell it for $10,500. (Since the principal return is fixed (+10,000); the number of periods is fixed (4); and the interest payments are fixed ($800); but you’ve changed the price... something else has to adjust and that is the discount rate.) It’s kind of tricky to actually use those equations to solve for this by hand… you end up with two equations… one unknown, and set them equal. So, the easiest way to solve for this rate is actually in Excel, using the function =RATE(NPER, PMT, PV, FV). NPER = 4, PMT = 800, PV=-10500, and FV=10000. Hint to make sure that you catch the minus sign in front of the present value… buyer pays now for the positive return of 10,000 in the future. That shows 6.54% as the effective discount rate (or rate of return) for the investor. That is the same thing as the yield to maturity. It specifies the return that a bond investor would see if he or she purchased the bond today and held it to maturity. 3. What factors (in terms of supply and demand) drive changes in the bond market? I hope it’s clear now how the tradeoff works between yields going UP when prices go DOWN, and vice versa. It happens because the COUPON rate, the number of periods, and the return of principal for a bond are fixed. So when someone sells a bond in the middle of its term, the only things that can change are the price and corresponding yield/discount rate. Other commenters… including you… have touched on some of the reasons why the prices go up and down. Generally speaking, it’s because of the basics of supply and demand… higher level of bonds for sale to be purchased by same level of demand will mean prices go down. But it’s not ‘just because interest rates are going up and down’. It has a lot more to do with the expectations for 1) risk, 2) return and 3) future inflation. Sometimes it is action by the Fed, as Joe Taxpayer has pointed out. If they sell a lot of bonds, then the basics of higher supply for a set level of demand imply that the prices should go down. Prices going down on a bond imply that yields will go up. (I really hope that’s clear by now). This is a common monetary lever that the government uses to ‘remove money’ from the system, in that they receive payments from an investor up front when the investor buys the bond from the Fed, and then the Fed gradually return that cash back into the system over time. Sometimes it is due to uncertainty about the future. If investors at large believe that inflation is coming, then bonds become a less attractive investment, as the dollars received for future payments will be less valuable. This could lead to a sell-off in the bond markets, because investors want to cash out their bonds and transfer that capital to something that will preserve their value under inflation. Here again an increase in supply of bonds for sale will lead to decreased prices and higher yields. At the end of the day it is really hard to predict exactly which direction bond markets will be moving, and more importantly WHY. If you figure it out, move to New York or Chicago or London and work as a trader in the bond markets. You’ll make a killing, and if you’d like I will be glad to drive your cars for you. 4. How does the availability of money supply for banks drive changes in other lending rates? When any investment organization forms, it builds its portfolio to try to deliver a set return at the lowest risk possible. As a corollary to that, it tries to deliver the maximum return possible for a given level of risk. When we’re talking about a bank, DumbCoder’s answer is dead on. Banks have various options to choose from, and a 10-year T-bond is broadly seen as one of the least risky investments. Thus, it is a benchmark for other investments. 5. So… now, why do mortgage rates tend to increase when the published treasury bond yield rate increases? The traditional, residential 30-year mortgage is VERY similar to a bond investment. There is a long-term investment horizon, with fixed cash payments over the term of the note. But the principal is returned incrementally during the life of the loan. So, since mortgages are ‘more risky’ than the 10-year treasury bond, they will carry a certain premium that is tied to how much more risky an individual is as a borrower than the US government. And here it is… no one actually directly changes the interest rate on 10-year treasuries. Not even the Fed. The Fed sets a price constraint that it will sell bonds at during its periodic auctions. Buyers bid for those, and the resulting prices imply the yield rate. If the yield rate for current 10-year bonds increases, then banks take it as a sign that everyone in the investment community sees some sign of increased risk in the future. This might be from inflation. This might be from uncertain economic performance. But whatever it is, they operate with some rule of thumb that their 30-year mortgage rate for excellent credit borrowers will be the 10-year plus 1.5% or something. And they publish their rates.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "34355b7409a90fc5e25f780b12d07c66",
"text": "The yield on treasury bond indicates the amount of money anyone at can make at virtually zero risk. So lets say banks have X [say 100] amount of money. They can either invest this in treasury bonds and get Y% [say 1%] interest that is very safe, or invest into mortgage loans [i.e. lend it to people] at Y+Z% [say at 3%]. The extra Z% is to cover the servicing cost and the associated risk. (Put another way, if you wanted only Y%, why not invest into treasury bonds, rather than take the risk and hassle of getting the same Y% by lending to individuals?) In short, treasury bond rates drive the rate at which banks can invest surplus money in the market or borrow from the market. This indirectly translates into the savings & lending rates to the banks' customers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "15e8bee2da522fc40bf064208134acbd",
"text": "yield on a Treasury bond increases This primarily happens when the government increases interest rates or there is too much money floating around and the government wants to suck out money from the economy, this is the first step not the other way around. The most recent case was Fed buying up bonds and hence releasing money in to the economy so companies and people start investing to push the economy on the growth path. Banks normally base their interest rates on the Treasury bonds, which they use as a reference rate because of the probability of 0 default. As mortgage is a long term investment, so they follow the long duration bonds issued by the Fed. They than put a premium on the money lent out for taking that extra risk. So when the governments are trying to suck out money, there is a dearth of free flowing money and hence you pay more premium to borrow because supply is less demand is more, demand will eventually decrease but not in the short run. Why do banks increase the rates they loan money at when people sell bonds? Not people per se, but primarily the central bank in a country i.e. Fed in US.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fda38f2836f6ffc43aba5c23742f35a5",
"text": "\"The simple answer is that, even though mortgages can go for 10, 15, 20 and 30 year terms in the U.S., they're typically backed by bonds sold to investors that mature in 10 years, which is the standard term for most bonds. These bonds, in the open market, are compared by investors with the 10-year Treasury note, which is the gold standard for low-risk investment; the U.S. Government has a solid history of always paying its bills (though this reputation is being tested in recent years with fights over the debt ceiling and government budgets). The savvy investor, therefore, knows that he or she can make at least the yield from the 10-year T-note in that time frame, with virtually zero risk. Anything else on the market is seen as being a higher risk, and so investors demand higher yields (by making lower bids, forcing the issuer to issue more bonds to get the money it needs up front). Mortgage-backed securities are usually in the next tier above T-debt in terms of risk; when backed by prime-rate mortgages they're typically AAA-rated, making them available to \"\"institutional investors\"\" like banks, mutual funds, etc. This forms a balancing act; mortgage-backed securities issuers typically can't get the yield of a T-note, because no matter how low their risk, T-debt is lower (because one bank doesn't have the power to tax the entire U.S. population). But, they're almost as good because they're still very stable, low-risk debt. This bond price, and the resulting yield, is in turn the baseline for a long-term loan by the bank to an individual. The bank, watching the market and its other bond packages, knows what it can get for a package of bonds backed by your mortgage (and others with similar credit scores). It will therefore take this number, add a couple of percentage points to make some money for itself and its stockholders (how much the bank can add is tacitly controlled by other market forces; you're allowed to shop around for the lowest rate you can get, which limits any one bank's ability to jack up rates), and this is the rate you see advertised and - hopefully - what shows up on your paperwork after you apply.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c26765078c78e8b309ff703f65207fe4",
"text": "Different bonds (and securitized mortgages are bonds) that have similar average lives tend to have similar yields (or at least trade at predictable yield spreads from one another). So, why does a 30 year mortgage not trade in lock-step with 30-year Treasuries? First a little introduction: Mortgages are pooled together into bundles and securitized by the Federal Agencies: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae. Investors make assumptions about the prepayments expected for the mortgages in those pools. As explained below: those assumptions show that mortgages tend to have an average life similar to 10-year Treasury Notes. 100% PSA, a so-called average rate of prepayment, means that the prepayment increases linearly from 0% to 6% over the first 30 months of the mortgage. After the first 30 months, mortgages are assumed to prepay at 6% per year. This assumption comes from the fact that people are relatively unlikely to prepay their mortgage in the first 2 1/2 years of the mortgage's life. See the graph below. The faster the repayments the shorter the average life of the mortgage. With 150% PSA a mortgage has an average life of nine years. On average your investment will be returned within 9 years. Some of it will be returned earlier, and some of it later. This return of interest and principal is shown in the graph below: The typical investor in a mortgage receives 100% of this investment back within approximately 10 years, therefore mortgages trade in step with 10 year Treasury Notes. Average life is defined here: The length of time the principal of a debt issue is expected to be outstanding. Average life is an average period before a debt is repaid through amortization or sinking fund payments. To calculate the average life, multiply the date of each payment (expressed as a fraction of years or months) by the percentage of total principal that has been paid by that date, summing the results and dividing by the total issue size.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "8071a6472c0484cb470020ad36178cfc",
"text": "All else constant, yes. It's one more reason rates aren't being raised quickly. The housing market is very delicate. Before the crash, a lot of homes in my area were 25% cheaper than after the rates dropped to historic lows. My area wasn't heavily affected by the recession, but homeowners still greatly benefitted from the increase in housing values which led to a lot more investment, though the houses aren't actually worth anything more. To raise rates dramatically now would be to trap a lot of homebuyers in homes that aren't worth what they owe.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e768a08c0ab799ca0b2022ed60642360",
"text": "But it also can't be 1.46%, because that would imply that a 30Y US Treasury bond only yields 2.78%, which is nonsensically low. The rates are displayed as of Today. As the footnote suggests these are to be read with Maturities. A Treasury with 1 year Maturity is at 1.162% and a Treasury with 30Y Maturity is at 2.78%. Generally Bonds with longer maturity terms give better yields than bonds of shorter duration. This indicates the belief that in long term the outlook is positive.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "39d088a91a2089dc380ac875eee0e4b4",
"text": "The Fed sets the overnight borrowing costs by setting its overnight target rate. The markets determine the rates at which the treasury can borrow through the issuance of bonds. The Fed's actions will certainly influence the price of very short term bonds, but the Fed's influence on anything other than very short term bonds in the current environment is very muted. Currently, the most influential factor keeping bond prices high and yields low is the high demand for US treasuries coming from overseas governments and institutions. This is being caused by two factors : sluggish growth in overseas economies and the ongoing strength of the US dollar. With many European government bonds offering negative redemption yields, income investors see US yields as relatively attractive. Those non-US economies which do not have negative bond yields either have near zero yields or large currency risks or both. Political issues such as the survival of the Euro also weigh heavily on market perceptions of the current attractiveness of the US dollar. Italian banks may be about to deliver a shock to the Eurozone, and the Spanish and French banks may not be far behind. Another factor is the continued threat of deflation. Growth is slowing around the world which negatively effects demand. Commodity prices remain depressed. Low growth and recession outside of the US translate into a prolonged period of near zero interest rates elsewhere together with renewed QE programmes in Europe, Japan, and possibly elsewhere. This makes the US look relatively attractive and so there is huge demand for US dollars and bonds. Any significant move in US interest rates risks driving to dollar ever higher which would be very negative for the future earning of US companies which rely on exports and foreign income. All of this makes the market believe that the Fed's hands are tied and low bond yields are here for the foreseeable future. Of course, even in the US growth is relatively slow and vulnerable to a loss of steam following a move in interest rates.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5fc1b6f50dab7b6be9ad8ae72e29381d",
"text": "\"My answer is specific to the US because you mentioned the Federal Reserve, but a similar system is in place in most countries. Do interest rates increase based on what the market is doing, or do they solely increase based on what the Federal Reserve sets them at? There are actually two rates in question here; the Wikipedia article on the federal funds rate has a nice description that I'll summarize here. The interest rate that's usually referred to is the federal funds rate, and it's the rate at which banks can lend money to each other through the Federal Reserve. The nominal federal funds rate - this is a target set by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve at each meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). When you hear in the media that the Fed is changing interest rates, this is almost always what they're referring to. The actual federal funds rate - through the trading desk of the New York Federal Reserve, the FOMC conducts open market operations to enforce the federal funds rate, thus leading to the actual rate, which is the rate determined by market forces as a result of the Fed's operations. Open market operations involve buying and selling short-term securities in order to influence the rate. As an example, the current nominal federal funds rate is 0% (in economic parlance, this is known as the Zero Lower Bound (ZLB)), while the actual rate is approximately 25 basis points, or 0.25%. Why is it assumed that interest rates are going to increase when the Federal Reserve ends QE3? I don't understand why interest rates are going to increase. In the United States, quantitative easing is actually a little different from the usual open market operations the Fed conducts. Open market operations usually involve the buying and selling of short-term Treasury securities; in QE, however (especially the latest and ongoing round, QE3), the Fed has been purchasing longer-term Treasury securities and mortgage-backed securities (MBS). By purchasing MBS, the Fed is trying to reduce the overall risk of the commercial housing debt market. Furthermore, the demand created by these purchases drives up prices on the debt, which drives down interest rates in the commercial housing market. To clarify: the debt market I'm referring to is the market for mortgage-backed securities and other debt derivatives (CDO's, for instance). I'll use MBS as an example. The actual mortgages are sold to companies that securitize them by pooling them and issuing securities based on the value of the pool. This process may happen numerous times, since derivatives can be created based on the value of the MBS themselves, which in turn are based on housing debt. In other words, MBS aren't exactly the same thing as housing debt, but they're based on housing debt. It's these packaged securities the Fed is purchasing, not the mortgages themselves. Once the Fed draws down QE3, however, this demand will probably decrease. As the Fed unloads its balance sheet over several years, and demand decreases throughout the market, prices will fall and interest rates in the commercial housing market will fall. Ideally, the Fed will wait until the economy is healthy enough to absorb the unloading of these securities. Just to be clear, the interest rates that QE3 are targeting are different from the interest rates you usually hear about. It's possible for the Fed to unwind QE3, while still keeping the \"\"interest rate\"\", i.e. the federal funds rate, near zero. although this is considered unlikely. Also, the Fed can target long-term vs. short-term interest rates as well, which is once again slightly different from what I talked about above. This was the goal of the Operation Twist program in 2011 (and in the 1960's). Kirill Fuchs gave a great description of the program in this answer, but basically, the Fed purchased long-term securities and sold short-term securities, with the goal of twisting the yield curve to lower long-term interest rates relative to short-term rates. The goal is to encourage people and businesses to take on long-term debt, e.g. mortgages, capital investments, etc. My main question that I'm trying to understand is why interest rates are what they are. Is it more of an arbitrary number set by central banks or is it due to market activity? Hopefully I addressed much of this above, but I'll give a quick summary. There are many \"\"interest rates\"\" in numerous different financial markets. The rate most commonly talked about is the nominal federal funds rate that I mentioned above; although it's a target set by the Board of Governors, it's not arbitrary. There's a reason the Federal Reserve hires hundreds of research economists. No central bank arbitrarily sets the interest rate; it's determined as part of an effort to reach certain economic benchmarks for the foreseeable future, whatever those may be. In the US, current Fed policy maintains that the federal funds rate should be approximately zero until the economy surpasses the unemployment and inflation benchmarks set forth by the Evans Rule (named after Charles Evans, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, who pushed for the rule). The effective federal funds rate, as well as other rates the Fed has targeted like interest rates on commercial housing debt, long-term rates on Treasury securities, etc. are market driven. The Fed may enter the market, but the same forces of supply and demand are still at work. Although the Fed's actions are controversial, the effects of their actions are still bound by market forces, so the policies and their effects are anything but arbitrary.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5983c003ade5140773b9f348f02fc90",
"text": "I'll get to my answer in a moment, but first need to put focus on the two key components of bond prices: interest rates and credit risk. Suppose that the 10-year treasury has a coupon of 2% per year (it would be paid as 1% twice per year, in reality). If you own one contract of the bond which we suppose has a so-called face-value of $100, then this contract will over the ten years pay you a total of $20 in coupons, then $100 at redemption. So $120 in total. Would you therefore buy this 10-year treasury bond for $120, or more, or less? Well, if there were bank accounts around which were offering you an interest rate of 2% per year fixed for the next 10 years, then you could alternatively generate $120 from just $100 deposited now (if we assume that the interest paid is not put back in the account to earn 2% per year). Consequently, a price of $100 for the treasury would seem about right. However, suppose that you are not very confident that the banks that offer these accounts will even be around in 10 years time, maybe they will fail before that and you'll never get your money back. Then you might say to yourself that the above calculation is mathematically right, but not really a full representation of the different risks. And you conclude that maybe treasuries should be a bit more expensive, because they offer better credit risk than bank deposits. All of this just to show that the price of bonds is a comparative valuation of rates and credit: you need to know the general level of interest rates available in other investment products (even in stocks, I'd say), you need to have a feel for how much credit risk there is in the different investment products. Most people think that 'normally' interest rates are positive, because we are so familiar with the basic principle that: if I lend you some money then you need to pay me some interest. But in a world where everyone is worried about bank failures, people might prefer to effectively 'deposit' our savings with the US treasury (by buying their bonds) than to deposit their savings in the local bank. The US treasury will see this extra demand and put up the prices of their bonds (they are not stupid at the US treasury, you know!), so maybe the price of the 10-year treasury will go above $120. It could, right? In this scenario, the implied yield on the 10-year treasury is negative. There you go, yields have gone negative because of credit risk concerns.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f057ba558284c21dbce37c95a845abb6",
"text": "Sheegan has a great explanation of how the TBA market contributes to mortgage rates. The 30 Year Mortgage rates are closely tied to the 10-Year Treasury. One can track this rate at many stock quoting sites using symbol TNX.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2967b77ae227b3ece809a193dbd635fa",
"text": "\"The most fundamental observation of bond pricing is this: Bond price is inversely proportional to bond yields When bond yields rise, the price of the bond falls. When bond yields fall, the price of the bond rises. Higher rates are \"\"bad\"\" for bonds. If a selloff occurs in the Russian government bond space (i.e. prices are going down), the yield on that bond is going to increase as a consequence.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4ab0b024ef52c5ac19a6f78b16f7b899",
"text": "Compound growth isn't a myth, it just takes patience to experience. A 10% annual return will double the investment not in 10 years, but just over 7. Even though a mortgage claims to use simple interest, if your loan is 5% and there's 14 years to go, $100 extra principal will knock off $200 from the final payment. The same laws of compounding and Rule of 72 are at play.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "60c7a63fe5895530895d65fd191b7bab",
"text": "The 10yr bond pays coupons semi annually. The yield % is what you would get annually if you hold the bond to full term. The coupon payment won't be exactly 1.65%/2 because of how bond pricing and yields work. The yield commonly quoted does not tell you how much each interest payment is. You have to look at the price and coupon of a specific individual bond. The rate you see is the market equilibrium yield at the present. Example, I offer two different people two different bonds. Joe buys a 10yr bond paying 5% coupons semi annually at a par value of $1000. I charge him $1000. Bob wants to buy a 10yr bond paying 10% coupons semi annually at a par value of $1000. I charge him $1500 for this. The yield is similar between the two (not equal due to math details but lets assume). So at the end of 10 yrs, the two have roughly the same total amount of $. Bob's paid more each year but he paid more up front. This is why the federal govt can issue bonds with diff coupons and the market prices them so the yield rises/falls to the market clearing yield.",
"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": "9f6eb9bab6cfd828e5f156662dbcbb2a",
"text": "Imagine that the existing interest rate is 5%. So on a bond with face value of 100, you would be getting a $5 coupon implying a 5% yield. Now, if let's say the interest rates go up to 10%, then a new bond issued with a face value of 100 will give you a coupon of $10 implying a 10% yield. If someone in the bond market buys your bond after interest price adjustment, in order to make the 10% yield (which means that an investor typically targets at least the risk-free rate on his investments) he needs to buy your bond at $50 so that a $5 coupon can give a 10% yield. The reverse happens when interest rates go down. I hope this somewhat clears the picture. Yield = Coupon/Investment Amount Update: Since the interest rate of the bond does not change after its issuance, the arbitrage in the interest rate is reflected in the market price of the bond. This helps in bringing back the yields of old bonds in-line with the freshly issued bonds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d7f0dab1da044ee38655d1d3c8a4adb",
"text": "Leverage increase returns, but also risks, ie, the least you can pay, the greater the opportunity to profit, but also the greater the chance you will be underwater. Leverage is given by the value of your asset (the house) over the equity you put down. So, for example, if the house is worth 100k and you put down 20k, then the leverage is 5 (another way to look at it is to see that the leverage is the inverse of the margin - or percentage down payment - so 1/0.20 = 5). The return on your investment will be magnified by the amount of your leverage. Suppose the value of your house goes up by 10%. Had you paid your house in full, your return would be 10%, or 10k/100k. However, if you had borrowed 80 dollars and your leverage was 5, as above, a 10% increase in the value of your house means you made a profit of 10k on a 20k investment, a return of 50%, or 10k/20k*100. As I said, your return was magnified by the amount of your leverage, that is, 10% return on the asset times your leverage of 5 = 50%. This is because all the profit of the house price appreciation goes to you, as the value of your debt does not depend on the value of the house. What you borrowed from the bank remains the same, regardless of whether the price of the house changed. The problem is that the amplification mechanism also works in reverse. If the price of the house falls by 10%, it means now you only have 10k equity. If the price falls enough your equity is wiped out and you are underwater, giving you an incentive to default on your loan. In summary, borrowing tends to be a really good deal: heads you win, tails the bank loses (or as happened in the US, the taxpayer loses).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "238acb579177dbbd1370975042f0620f",
"text": "Usually Bonds are used to raised capital when a lender doesn't want to take on sole risk of lending. If you are looking at raising anything below 10m bonds are not a option because the bank will just extend you a line of credit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd32495b2fc65a7b03e82757110cf866",
"text": "\"The CBOE states, in an investor's guide to Interest Rate Options: The Options’ Underlying Values Underlying values for the option contracts are 10 times the underlying Treasury yields (rates)— 13-week T-bill yield (for IRX), 5-year T-note yield (for FVX), 10-year T-note yield (for TNX) and 30-year T-bond yield (for TYX). The Yahoo! rate listed is the actual Treasury yield; the Google Finance and CBOE rates reflect the 10 times value. I don't think there's a specific advantage to \"\"being contrary\"\", more likely it's a mistake, or just different.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f75c0771b06c01b4141fee10ae68e63",
"text": "I think your comment sounded a lot more reasonable and aware of how it goes than the writer; and yes it does makes sense that for little investors like retailers, there is not really a point to consider it, as you said. I don't think it redeems the article at all.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
2796134b12c63ce7018b54c9a6814dbb
|
Emerging markets index fund (VDMIX) for an inexperienced investor
|
[
{
"docid": "ecaf5b8798b632c7f3dde298577f22c5",
"text": "\"In this environment, I don't think that it is advisable to buy a broad emerging market fund. Why? \"\"Emerging market\"\" is too broad... Look at the top 10 holdings of the fund... You're exposed to Russia & Brazil (oil driven), Chinese and Latin American banks and Asian electronics manufacturing. Those are sectors that don't correlate, in economies that are unstable -- a recipie for trouble unless you think that the global economy is heading way up. I would recommend focusing on the sectors that you are interested in (ie oil, electronics, etc) via a low cost vehicle like an index ETF or invest using a actively managed emerging markets fund with a strategy that you understand. Don't invest a dime unless you understand what you are getting into. An index fund is just sorting companies by market cap. But... What does market cap mean when you are buying a Chinese bank?\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "83019dc6c425172c79135e3a453e0f56",
"text": "\"I recommend avoiding trading directly in commodities futures and options. If you're not prepared to learn a lot about how futures markets and trading works, it will be an experience fraught with pitfalls and lost money – and I am speaking from experience. Looking at stock-exchange listed products is a reasonable approach for an individual investor desiring added diversification for their portfolio. Still, exercise caution and know what you're buying. It's easy to access many commodity-based exchange-traded funds (ETFs) on North American stock exchanges. If you already have low-cost access to U.S. markets, consider this option – but be mindful of currency conversion costs, etc. Yet, there is also a European-based company, ETF Securities, headquartered in Jersey, Channel Islands, which offers many exchange-traded funds on European exchanges such as London and Frankfurt. ETF Securities started in 2003 by first offering a gold commodity exchange-traded fund. I also found the following: London Stock Exchange: Frequently Asked Questions about ETCs. The LSE ETC FAQ specifically mentions \"\"ETF Securities\"\" by name, and addresses questions such as how/where they are regulated, what happens to investments if \"\"ETF Securities\"\" were to go bankrupt, etc. I hope this helps, but please, do your own due diligence.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2b6cde81fdb549260eac7262ff180761",
"text": "The idea of an index is that it is representative of the market (or a specific market segment) as a whole, so it will move as the market does. Thus, past performance is not really relevant, unless you want to bank on relative differences between different countries' economies. But that's not the point. By far the most important aspect when choosing index funds is the ongoing cost, usually expressed as Total Expense Ratio (TER), which tells you how much of your investment will be eaten up by trading fees and to pay the funds' operating costs (and profits). This is where index funds beat traditional actively managed funds - it should be below 0.5% The next question is how buying and selling the funds works and what costs it incurs. Do you have to open a dedicated account or can you use a brokerage account at your bank? Is there an account management fee? Do you have to buy the funds at a markup (can you get a discount on it)? Are there flat trading fees? Is there a minimum investment? What lot sizes are possible? Can you set up a monthly payment plan? Can you automatically reinvest dividends/coupons? Then of course you have to decide which index, i.e. which market you want to buy into. My answer in the other question apparently didn't make it clear, but I was talking only about stock indices. You should generally stick to broad, established indices like the MSCI World, S&P 500, Euro Stoxx, or in Australia the All Ordinaries. Among those, it makes some sense to just choose your home country's main index, because that eliminates currency risk and is also often cheaper. Alternatively, you might want to use the opportunity to diversify internationally so that if your country's economy tanks, you won't lose your job and see your investment take a dive. Finally, you should of course choose a well-established, reputable issuer. But this isn't really a business for startups (neither shady nor disruptively consumer-friendly) anyway.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "663374eb1366efd15357a239d1becb56",
"text": "Thanks for the advice. I will look into index funds. The only reason I was interested in this stock in particular is that I used to work for the company, and always kept an eye on the stock price. I saw that their stock prices recently went down by quite a bit but I feel like I've seen this happen to them a few times over the past few years and I think they have a strong catalogue of products coming out soon that will cause their stock to rise over the next few years. After not being able to really understand the steps needed to purchase it though, I think I've learned that I really don't know enough about the stock system in general to make any kind of informed decisions about it and should probably stick to something lower-risk or at least do some research before making any ill-informed decisions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1649515073aaa06f4dd5ac3ab440d8f9",
"text": "You can trade VXX, but VIX is only an index. http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/VXX?CountryCode=US",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "63c887e3ce5fcbdc3b4a2d62eecfd837",
"text": "Let's say that you want to invest in the stock market. Choosing and investing in only one stock is risky. You can lower your risk by diversifying, or investing in lots of different stocks. However, you have some problems with this: When you buy stocks directly, you have to buy whole shares, and you don't have enough money to buy even one whole share of all the stocks you want to invest in. You aren't even sure which stocks you should buy. A mutual fund solves both of these problems. You get together with other investors and pool your money together to buy a group of stocks. That way, your investment is diversified in lots of different stocks without having to have enough money to buy whole shares of each one. And the mutual fund has a manager that chooses which stocks the fund will invest in, so you don't have to pick. There are lots of mutual funds to choose from, with as many different objectives as you can imagine. Some invest in large companies, others small; some invest in a certain sector of companies (utilities or health care, for example), some invest in stocks that pay a dividend, others are focused on growth. Some funds don't invest in stocks at all; they might invest in bonds, real estate, or precious metals. Some funds are actively managed, where the manager actively buys and sells different stocks in the fund continuously (and takes a fee for his services), and others simply invest in a list of stocks and rarely buy or sell (these are called index funds). To answer your question, yes, the JPMorgan Emerging Markets Equity Fund is a mutual fund. It is an actively-managed stock mutual fund that attempts to invest in growing companies that do business in countries with rapidly developing economies.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b9e1b14c98aa0813d39fed38251fb95",
"text": "\"My advice would be to invest that 50k in 25% batches across 4 different money markets. Batch 1: Lend using a peer-to-peer account - 12.5k The interest rates offered by banks aren't that appealing to investors anymore, at least in the UK. Peer to peer lending brokers such as ZOPA provide 5% to 6% annual returns if you're willing to hold on to your investment for a couple of years. Despite your pre-conceptions, these investments are relatively safe (although not guaranteed - I must stress this). Zopa state on their website that they haven't lost any money provided from their investors since the company's inception 10 years ago, and have a Safeguard trust that will be used to pay out investors if a large number of borrowers defaulted. I'm not sure if this service is available in Australia but aim for an interest rate of 5-6% with a trusted peer-to-peer lender that has a strong track record. Batch 2: The stock market - 12.5k An obvious choice. This is by far the most exciting way to grow your money. The next question arising from this will likely be \"\"how do I pick stocks?\"\". This 12.5k needs to be further divided into 5 or so different stocks. My strategy for picking stock at the current time will be to have 20% of your holdings in blue-chip companies with a strong track record of performance, and ideally, a dividend that is paid bi-anually/quarterly. Another type of stock that you should invest in should be companies that are relatively newly listed on the stock market, but have monopolistic qualities - that is - that they are the biggest, best, and only provider of their new and unique service. Examples of this would be Tesla, Worldpay, and Just-eat. Moreover, I'd advise another type of stock you should purchase be a 'sin stock' to hedge against bad economic times (if they arise). A sin stock is one associated with sin, i.e. cigarette manufacturers, alcohol suppliers, providers of gambling products. These often perform good while the economy is doing well, but even better when the economy experiences a 2007-2008, and 2001-dotcom type of meltdown. Finally, another category I'd advise would be large-cap energy provider companies such as Exxon Mobil, BP, Duke Energy - primarily because these are currently cheaper than they were a few months ago - and the demand for energy is likely to grow with the population (which is definitely growing rapidly). Batch 3: Funds - 12.5k Having some of your money in Funds is really a no-brainer. A managed fund is traditionally a collection of stocks that have been selected within a particular market. At this time, I'd advise at least 20% of the 12.5k in Emerging market funds (as the prices are ridiculously low having fallen about 60% - unless China/Brazil/India just self destruct or get nuked they will slowly grow again within the next 5 years - I imagine quite high returns can be had in this type of funds). The rest of your funds should be high dividend payers - but I'll let you do your own research. Batch 4: Property - 12.5k The property market is too good to not get into, but let's be honest you're not going to be able to buy a flat/house/apartment for 12.5k. The idea therefore would be to find a crowd-funding platform that allows you to own a part of a property (alongside other owners). The UK has platforms such as Property Partner that are great for this and I'm sure Australia also has some such platforms. Invest in the capital city in areas as close to the city's center as possible, as that's unlikely to change - barring some kind of economic collapse or an asteroid strike. I think the above methods of investing provide the following: 1) Diversified portfolio of investments 2) Hedging against difficult economic times should they occur And the only way you'll lose out with diversification such as this is if the whole economic system collapses or all-out nuclear war (although I think your investments will be the least of your worries in a nuclear war). Anyway, this is the method of investing I've chosen for myself and you can see my reasoning above. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b37971b421af08c8675b6b64c044e31f",
"text": "One thing to be aware of when choosing mutual funds and index ETFs is the total fees and costs. The TD Ameritrade site almost certainly had links that would let you see the total fees (as an annual percentage) for each of the funds. Within a category, the lowest fees percentage is best, since that is directly subtracted from your performance. As an aside, your allocation seems overly conservative to me for someone that is 25 years old. You will likely work for 40 or so years and the average stock market cycle is about 7 years. So you will likely see 5 or so complete cycles. Worrying about stability of principal too young will really cut into your returns. My daughter is your age and I have advised her to be 100% in equities and then to start dialing that back in about 25 years or so.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9d53eb6e97cd4e36144f3f6406937ca0",
"text": "Thanks for the huge insight. I am still a student doing an intern and this was given as my first task, more of trying to give the IA another perspective looking at these funds rather than picking. I was not given the investors preference in terms of return and risk tolerances so it was really open-ended. However, thanks so much for the quick response. At least now I have a better idea of what I am going to deliver or at least try to show to the IA.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bffeaf61787f6b4ab0868de12b79540f",
"text": "\"I got started by reading the following two books: You could probably get by with just the first of those two. I haven't been a big fan of the \"\"for dummies\"\" series in the past, but I found both of these were quite good, particularly for people who have little understanding of investing. I also rather like the site, Canadian Couch Potato. That has a wealth of information on passive investing using mutual funds and ETFs. It's a good next step after reading one or the other of the books above. In your specific case, you are investing for the fairly short term and your tolerance for risk seems to be quite low. Gold is a high-risk investment, and in my opinion is ill-suited to your investment goals. I'd say you are looking at a money market account (very low risk, low return) such as e.g. the TD Canadian Money Market fund (TDB164). You may also want to take a look at e.g. the TD Canadian Bond Index (TDB909) which is only slightly higher risk. However, for someone just starting out and without a whack of knowledge, I rather like pointing people at the ING Direct Streetwise Funds. They offer three options, balancing risk vs reward. You can fill in their online fund selector and it'll point you in the right direction. You can pay less by buying individual stock and bond funds through your bank (following e.g. one of the Canadian Couch Potato's model portfolios), but ING Direct makes things nice and simple, and is a good option for people who don't care to spend a lot of time on this. Note that I am not a financial adviser, and I have only a limited understanding of your needs. You may want to consult one, though you'll want to be careful when doing so to avoid just talking to a salesperson. Also, note that I am biased toward passive index investing. Other people may recommend that you invest in gold or real estate or specific stocks. I think that's a bad idea and believe I have the science to back this up, but I may be wrong.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "084178e30a3bcf661ea87151e51bc5b7",
"text": "\"From Wikipedia A frontier market is a type of developing country which is more developed than the least developing countries, but too small to be generally considered an emerging market. The term is an economic term which was coined by International Finance Corporation’s Farida Khambata in 1992. The term is commonly used to describe the equity markets of the smaller and less accessible, but still \"\"investable\"\", countries of the developing world. The frontier, or pre-emerging equity markets are typically pursued by investors seeking high, long-run return potential as well as low correlations with other markets. Some frontier market countries were emerging markets in the past, but have regressed to frontier status. Investopedia has a good comparison on Emerging Vs Frontier While frontier market investments certainly come with some substantial risks, they also may post the kind of returns that emerging markets did during the 1990s and early 2000s. The frontier market contains anywhere from one-fifth to one-third of the world’s population and includes several exponentially growing economies. The other Question and are they a good option as well? This depends on risk appetite and your current investment profile. If you have already invested in domestic markets with a well diversified portfolio and have also invested in emerging markets, you can then think of expanding your portfolio into these.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "439efeb6b6ac2416f6b97b3d938e2ebb",
"text": "In your case I think you are doing just fine. Index funds, by their nature, have lower transaction costs and fewer taxable events than actively managed funds, good work. Index funds do not preclude the generation of dividends, and by their nature they probably generate slightly more than actively managed funds. You could take capital gain or dividend or both distributions, rather than reinvest them, if paying the taxes are a hardship. Otherwise look at the taxes you pay as your contributions to these funds. It stinks, but this is why 401K/IRA were rather revolutionary when they were formed. It was a really good deal to not have people's capital gains eaten by taxes when they occurred. Now its old hat, but it was pretty darn cool at the time. Should you prefer VTMSX rather than VFIAX? We can't really make the call on that one. Which one will perform better after taxes? Its anyone's guess. It is kind of a good problem to have.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a83c41e0a07b2235e9e033cc4f9bab3",
"text": "Go to fidelity.com and open a free brokerage account. Deposit money from your bank account into your fidelity account. (expect a minimum of $2500, FBIDX requires more I believe) Buy free to trade ETF Funds of your liking. I tend to prefer US Bonds to stocks, FBIDX is a decent intermediate US Bond etf, but the euro zone has added a little more volatile lately than I'd like. If you do really want to trade stocks, you may want to go with a large cap fund like FLCSX, but it is more risky especially in this economy. (but buy low sell high right?) I've put my savings into FBIDX and FGMNX (basically the same thing, intermediate bond ETF funds) and made $700 in interest and capitol gains last year. (started with zero initially, have 30k in there now)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fbb037d43fbddf31cc04e52bfcb39196",
"text": "\"An Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF) is a special type of mutual fund that is traded on the stock exchange like a stock. To invest, you buy it through a stock broker, just as you would if you were buying an individual stock. When looking at a mutual fund based in the U.S., the easiest way to tell whether or not it is an ETF is by looking at the ticker symbol. Traditional mutual funds have ticker symbols that end in \"\"X\"\", and ETFs have ticker symbols that do not end in \"\"X\"\". The JPMorgan Emerging Markets Equity Fund, with ticker symbol JFAMX, is a traditional mutual fund, not an ETF. JPMorgan does have ETFs; the JPMorgan Diversified Return Emerging Markets Equity ETF, with ticker symbol JPEM, is an example. This ETF invests in similar stocks as JFAMX; however, because it is an index-based fund instead of an actively managed fund, it has lower fees. If you aren't sure about the ticker symbol, the advertising/prospectus of any ETF should clearly state that it is an ETF. (In the example of JPEM above, they put \"\"ETF\"\" right in the fund name.) If you don't see ETF mentioned, it is most likely a traditional mutual fund. Another way to tell is by looking at the \"\"investment minimums\"\" of the fund. JFAMX has a minimum initial investment of $1000. ETFs, however, do not have an investment minimum listed; because it is traded like a stock, you simply buy whole shares at whatever the current share price is. So if you look at the \"\"Fees and Investment Minimums\"\" section of the JPEM page, you'll see the fees listed, but not any investment minimums.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f773014a6042d754ea2057697b5efa0f",
"text": "So, couple of things. Firstly, every international ETF includes risk disclosure language in the prospectus covering both market disruption events as well as geopolitical risk, so the sponsor would be pretty well insulated from direct liability for anything. If the Russian market were truly shut down there are true-up mechanisms in place but in the scenario you're describing the market is still open, it's just only a few participants can trade in it. First thing to do is shut down creates- that is, allow no new money to come into the fund. This at least prevents your problem from getting bigger. Second you're going to switch all redemptions to in kind only. MV itself can't trade in the underlying so they're kind of jammed here. An ETF sponsor can't really refuse your redemption request (can delay, but only for a short time), but they can control the form in which they respond to it. What theoretically should happen here is an AP not subject to sanctions will step in and handle redemptions. Issue is, they'll probably charge for this so you should expect the fund to start trading at a discount to NAV (you, as an investor, sell to them cheaply, they submit a redemption request, then sell the stocks locally). Someone else has pointed that market makers will start stat arbing the fund using correlated/substitute instruments, which totally will help keep things in line, but my guess is that you'd still see the name trading away from NAV regardless. Driver of this will be the amount of money desperate to get out - if investors are content to wait the sanctions out who knows.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3244cb5dd6f3993ed5ce0f950901c5ab",
"text": "Other than the possibility of minimal entry price being prohibitively high, there's no reason why you couldn't participate in any global trading whatsoever. Most ETFs, and indeed, stockbrokers allows both accounts opening, and trading via the Internet, without regard to physical location. With that said, I'd strongly advice you to do a proper research, and reality check both on your risk/reward profile, and on the vehicles to invest in. As Fools write, money you'll need in the next 6 months have no place on the stockmarket. Be prepared, that you can indeed loose all of your investment, regardless of the chosen vehicle.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
8a5252a3c36fc97ada7f740b87a56ced
|
Why would a central bank or country not want their currency to appreciate against other currencies?
|
[
{
"docid": "a83c8e47219effc49996c8f7f32aec0b",
"text": "I wrote about the dynamic of why either of a lower or higher exchange rate would be good for economies in Would dropping the value of its currency be good for an economy? A strong currency allows consumers to import goods cheaply from the rest of the world. A weak currency allows producers to export goods cheaply to the rest of the world. People are both consumers and producers. Clearly, there have to be trade-offs. Strong or weak mean relative to Purchasing Power Parity (i.e. you can buy more or less of an equivalent good with the same money). Governments worrying about unemployment will try and push their currencies weaker relative to others, no matter the cost. There will be an inflationary impact (imported inputs cost more as a currency weakens) but a country running a major surplus (like China) can afford to subsidise these costs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "836c45df6cea7cf6e1395f3d353619b6",
"text": "It would essentially make goods from other countries more cheaper than goods from US. And it would make imports from these countries to China more expensive. The below illustration is just with 2 major currencies and is more illustrative to show the effect. It does not actually mean the goods from these countries would be cheaper. 1 GBP = 1.60 USD 1 EUR = 1.40 USD 1 CNY = 0.15 USD Lets say the above are the rates for GBP, EUR, CNY. The cost of a particular goods (assume Pencils) in international market is 2 USD. This means for the cost of manufacturing this should be less than GBP 1.25 in UK, less than 1.43 in Euro Countires, less than 13.33 CNY in China. Only then export would make sense. If the real cost of manufacturing is say 1.4 GBP in UK, 1.5 EUR in Euro countires, clearly they cannot compete and would loose. Now lets say the USD has appreciated by 20% against other currencies. The CNY is at same rate. 1 GBP = 1.28 USD 1 EUR = 1.12 USD 1 CNY = 0.15 USD Now at this rate the cost of manufacturing should be less than GBP 1.56 GBP, less than 1.78 EUR in Euro Countires. In effect this is more than the cost of manufacturing. So in effect the goods from other countires have become cheaper/compatative and goods from China have become expensive. Similarly the imports from these countires to China would be more expensive.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6fbe5c263a53570193750b611429aaa0",
"text": "Because people trade currency in exchange for goods and services. They can easily prevent competition by violent means or by having control of the market through market share. Price can be controlled by the threat of super low prices in order to drive out competing businesses.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1a5261fd35e60a67b52827496240db6b",
"text": "\"Like Jeremy T said above, silver is a value store and is to be used as a hedge against sovereign currency revaluations. Since every single currency in the world right now is a free-floating fiat currency, you need silver (or some other firm, easily store-able, protect-able, transportable asset class; e.g. gold, platinum, ... whatever...) in order to protect yourself against government currency devaluations, since the metal will hold its value regardless of the valuation of the currency which you are denominating it in (Euro, in your case). Since the ECB has been hesitant to \"\"print\"\" large amounts of currency (which causes other problems unrelated to precious metals), the necessity of hedging against a plummeting currency exchange rate is less important and should accordingly take a lower percentage in your diversification strategy. However, if you were in.. say... Argentina, for example, you would want to have a much larger percentage of your assets in precious metals. The EU has a lot of issues, and depreciation of hard assets courtesy of a lack of fluid currency/capital (and overspending on a lot of EU governments' parts in the past), in my opinion, lessens the preservative value of holding precious metals. You want to diversify more heavily into precious metals just prior to government sovereign currency devaluations, whether by \"\"printing\"\" (by the ECB in your case) or by hot capital flows into/out of your country. Since Eurozone is not an emerging market, and the current trend seems to be capital flowing back into the developed economies, I think that diversifying away from silver (at least in overall % of your portfolio) is the order of the day. That said, do I have silver/gold in my retirement portfolio? Absolutely. Is it a huge percentage of my portfolio? Not right now. However, if the U.S. government fails to resolve the next budget crisis and forces the Federal Reserve to \"\"print\"\" money to creatively fund their expenses, then I will be trading out of soft assets classes and into precious metals in order to preserve the \"\"real value\"\" of my portfolio in the face of a depreciating USD. As for what to diversify into? Like the folks above say: ETFs(NOT precious metal ETFs and read all of the fine print, since a number of ETFs cheat), Indexes, Dividend-paying stocks (a favorite of mine, assuming they maintain the dividend), or bonds (after they raise the interest rates). Once you have your diversification percentages decided, then you just adjust that based on macro-economic trends, in order to avoid pitfalls. If you want to know more, look through: http://www.mauldineconomics.com/ < Austrian-type economist/investor http://pragcap.com/ < Neo-Keynsian economist/investor with huge focus on fiat currency effects\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ef80263b369e51a638758552741f4eed",
"text": "When economies are strong, it is particularly alluring to have a single currency as it makes trade and tourism simpler and helps reduce costs. The problem comes when individual member economies get into trouble. Because the Eurozone is a loose grouping of nations, there is no direct equivalent of the US Federal government to coordinate a response, there is instead an odd mixture of National and Central government that makes it harder to get a unified approach to the economy (OK, it's maybe not so different to the US in reality). This lack of flexibility means that some of the key levers of international finance are compromised, for example a weak economy can't float its currency to improve exports. Similarly individual country's interest rates can't be adjusted to balance spending. I suspect the main reason though is political and based on concepts of sovereignty and national pride. The UK does the majority of its trade with the Eurozone, so the pros would possibly outweigh the cons, but the UK as a whole (and some of our papers in particular) have always regarded Europe with suspicion. Most Brits only speak English and find France and Germany a strange and obtuse place. The (almost) common language makes it easier to relate to the US and Canada than our near neighbours. It seems the perception amongst the political establishment is that any attempt to join the Euro is political suicide, while that is the case it is unlikely to happen. Purely from a personal perspective, I'd welcome the Euro except it means a lot of the products I routinely buy would become a lot more expensive if price is 'harmonised'. For an example compare the price of the iPod Touch in the UK (£209.99) to France(€299). The French pay £262 at the current exchange rate, which is close to 25% more. Ouch. See also my question about Canada adopting the US Dollar",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "65f64df82912de866c806551dee668fe",
"text": "\"You are violating the Uncovered Interest Rate Parity. If Country A has interest rate of 4% and Country B has interest rate of 1%, Country B's expected exchange rate must appreciate by 3% compared to spot. The \"\"persistent pressure to further depreciate\"\" doesn't magically occur by decree of the supreme leader. If there is room for risk free profit, the entire Country B would deposit their money at Country A, since Country A has higher interest rate and \"\"appreciates\"\" as you said. The entire Country A will also borrow their money at Country B. The exception is Capital Control. Certain people are given the opportunity to get the risk free profit, and the others are prohibited from making those transactions, making UIP to not hold.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "621eb1ca846df96ea2ee6dd9bf8c66d0",
"text": "Firstly currency prices, like any asset, depend on supply and demand. Meaning how many people want to exchange a currency to another one vs. wanting to buy that currency using another currency. Secondly, it really depends on which country and economy you are talking about. In emerging economies, currencies are very often influenced by the politics of that country. In cases like the US, there are a myriad reasons. The USD is mostly governed by psychology (flight to safety) and asset purchases/sales. In theory, currencies balance, given the inflation of a country and its trade with other countries. e.g. Germany, which was always exporting more than it was importing, had the problem of a rising currency. (Which would make its exports more expensive on foreign markets. This is the balancing act.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "07da716d1d8347d82b6dc1b3a03cfbd2",
"text": "Some countries are considering stocking up on gold to shore up their notes. (Or so I heard) If this happens, gold will obviously become more rare. The price will then be valued not only by the buying and selling of it but also by the forced rarity of it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5f86975dd87e90730ed4af18e94a1174",
"text": "I think part of the confusion is due to the age of the term and how money has changed over time relative to being backed by precious metals vs using central banks etc. Historically: Because historically the coin itself was precious metal, if a change occurred between the 'face value' of the coin and value of the precious metal itself, the holder of the coin was less affected since they have the precious metal already in hand. They could always trade it based on the metal value instead of the face value. OTOH if you buy a note worth an the current price of ounce of gold, and the price of gold goes up, and then the holder wants to redeem the note, they end up with less than an ounce of gold. In the more modern age The main concern is the cost to borrow funds to put money into circulation, or the gain when it goes out of circulation. The big difference between the two is that bills tend stay in circulation until they wear out, have to be bought back and replaced. Coins on the other hand last longer, but have a tendency to drop out of circulation due to collectors (especially with 'collectible series' coins that the mint seems to love to issue lately). This means that bills issued tend to stay in circulation, while only a percentage of coins stays in circulation. So the net effect on the money supply is different for the two, and since modern 'seigniorage' is all about the cost to put money in circulation, it is different in the case of coins where some percentage will not remain circulating.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ece3f0159cfff20ed6af0c8782e52e25",
"text": "To make it simple, just use gold as the main benchmark. Gold price never moves, FIAT currencies move around the price of gold. So, when comparing US$ and Australian dollars to the gold, you know which currency is moving up and which down.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e8fb271efafbf0a477901f22bb9c94d3",
"text": "\"The answer from littleadv perfectly explains that the mere exchange ratio doesn't say anything. Still it might be worth adding why some currencies are \"\"weak\"\" and some \"\"strong\"\". Here's the reason: To buy goods of a certain country, you have to exchange your money for currency of that country, especially when you want to buy treasuries of stocks from that country. So, if you feel that, for example, Japanese stocks are going to pick up soon, you will exchange dollars for yen so you can buy Japanese stocks. By the laws of supply and demand, this drives up the price. In contrast, if investors lose faith in a country and withdraw their funds, they will seek their luck elsewhere and thus they increase the supply of that currency. This happened most dramatically in recent time with the Icelandic Krona.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d807445b9349bc0ed11734145071c16",
"text": "There are some out there making the argument that negative yields on the German Schatz (2-year note) are the result of speculators betting on a break-up of the euro area and its common currency. Specifically that assets held in euros, i.e. German bonds, would be re-denominated into a new Deutschmark that would appreciate in value against other European currencies.",
"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": "55d08474692fb05632b873fe894e4fb8",
"text": "\"Wikipedia talks about the Chinese currency: Scholarly studies suggest that the yuan is undervalued on the basis of purchasing power parity analysis. so despite it appearing cheaper due to the official exchange rate, the price in China might actually be fair. There are also restrictions on foreign exchange (purportedly \"\"to prevent inflows of hot money\"\"), which, in concert with any other legal obstacles to owning or trading on the Chinese exchange, may also explain why the high-frequency traders aren't tripping over each other to arbitrage away the difference.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e445a0592214b800d5a666495d7d54d3",
"text": "It's called correlation. I found this: http://www.forexrazor.com/en-us/school/tabid/426/ID/437424/currency-pair-correlations it looks a good place to start Similar types of political economies will correlate together, opposite types won't. Also there are geographic correlations (climate, language etc)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "044fdf5aa76caf1ff09dad3499548b51",
"text": "The Euro is a common currency between various countries in Europe. This means that individual countries give up their traditional sovereign control of their own currency, and cede that control to the EU. Such a system has many advantages, but it also means that individual countries cannot deal with their unique situations as easily. For instance, if the US were a part of the EU, then the Fed couldn't issue $600B the way they are to bolster the economy. The danger to the Euro is that countries will withdraw their participation in order to micromanage their economies more effectively. If a major country withdraws its participation, it could start a domino effect where many countries withdraw so that they too can manage their economies more effectively. As more countries withdraw, a shared currency becomes less and less appealing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a1fe391915a01cd10375e2bdf0a87c8d",
"text": "Money, like anything else, is subject to the demands of people. There are times when money is in high demand. This drives up its value. People in Japan want cash because they have an immediate need to buy emergency supplies as well as rebuild and replace damaged items. This is why the yen strengthened. This is probably why the market plummeted as people liquidated some of their stocks to get cash. The Bank Of Japan (BOJ) will not stand for a rising yen, however. It is pulling a Bernanke and printing yen in an effort to keep it weak.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
4dd3f763ca400baf543192e3299fa2c2
|
Who creates money? Central banks or commercial banks?
|
[
{
"docid": "0b4e41c69874fd33f60e3e23225eb736",
"text": "A central bank typically introduces new money into the system by printing new money to purchase items from member banks. The central bank can purchase whatever it chooses. It typically purchases government bonds but the Federal Reserve purchased mortgage-backed-securities (MBS) during the 2008 panic since the FED was the only one willing to pay full price for MBS after the crash of 2008. The bank, upon receipt of the new money, can loan the money out. A minimum reserve ratio specifies how much money the bank has to keep on hand. A reserve ratio of 10% means the bank must have $10 for every $100 in loans. As an example, let's say the FED prints up some new money to purchase some office desks from a member bank. It prints $10,000 to purchase some desks. The bank receives $10,000. It can create up to $100,000 in loans without exceeding the 10% minimum reserve ratio requirement. How would it do so? A customer would come to the bank asking for a $100,000 loan. The bank would create an account for the customer and credit $100,000 to the customer's account. There is a problem, however. The customer borrowed the money to buy a boat so the customer writes a check for $100,000 to the boat company. The boat company attempts to deposit the $100,000 check into the boat company's bank. The boat company's bank will ask the originating bank for $100,000 in cash. The originating bank only has $10,000 in cash on hand so this demand will immediately bankrupt the originating bank. So what actually happens? The originating bank actually only loans out reserves * (1 - minimum reserve ratio) so it can meet demands for the loans it originates. In our example the bank that received the initial $10,000 from the FED will only loan out $10,000 * (1-0.1) = $9,000. This allows the bank to cover checks written by the person who borrowed the $9,000. The reserve ratio for the bank is now $1,000/$9,000 which is 11% and is over the minimum reserve requirement. The borrower makes a purchase with the borrowed $9,000 and the seller deposits the $9,000 in his bank. The bank that receives that $9,000 now has an additional $9,000 in reserves which it will use to create loans of $9,000 * (1 - 0.1) = $8100. This continual fractional reserve money creation process will continue across the entire banking system resulting in $100,000 of new money created from $10,000. This process is explained very well here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0440d46c5a30fa44e6392fd3acc13e8a",
"text": "\"Scenario 1 is typically the better description. If commercial banks were allowed to simply \"\"create\"\" money, they wouldn't be in the mess they're in now. In the U.S., the central bank is the Federal Reserve or Fed, and is the only entity (not the government, not the banks, not the people) that is allowed to create money \"\"out of thin air\"\". It does this primarily by buying government debt. The government spends more than it takes in, and so to come up with the deficit, it issues bonds. The Fed buys a certain amount of these bonds, and simply prints the money (or more realistically authorized the electronic transfer of $X to the Treasury) which the government then spends. That places money in the hands of corporations and the people, who turn around and spend it. However, long-term, the interest charges on money borrowed from the Fed will actually remove money from the economy. The central banks, therefore, have to constantly make marginal changes to various monetary policy tools they have when the economy is just humming along. If they do nothing, then too much of a short-term increase in money supply will result in there being \"\"too much money\"\" which makes an individual monetary unit worth less (inflation), while making money too hard to get will reduce the rate at which it's spent, reducing GDP and causing recessions. The exact scenario you describe is typically seen in cases where the government is running with a balanced budget, and the central bank thus can't give its \"\"new money\"\" to the government to spend when it wants to increase the money supply. In that situation, the central bank instead lowers its lending rate, the percentage interest that it will charge on loans made to other banks, thereby encouraging those banks to borrow more of the money created by the central bank. Those banks will then use the money to make loans, invest in the market, etc etc which puts the money in the economy. In the U.S., the Fed does have this tool as well, but increases or decreases in the \"\"Federal Funds Rate\"\" are typically used to influence the rate that banks charge each other to borrow money, thus encouraging or discouraging this lending. A lowering in the interest rate makes banks more likely to borrow from each other (and from the Fed but the amount of money \"\"created\"\" this way is a drop in the bucket compared to current \"\"quantitative easing\"\"), and thus increases the \"\"turnover\"\" of the existing money in the economy (how many times a theoretical individual dollar is spent in a given time period).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7d8a54ce401b8444a25daaee08bf9786",
"text": "Empirial evidence for the second scenario: Can banks individually create money out of nothing? — The theories and the empirical evidence. Excerpt: It was examined whether in the process of making money available to the borrower the bank transfers these funds from other accounts (within or outside the bank). In the process of making loaned money available in the borrower's bank account, it was found that the bank did not transfer the money away from other internal or external accounts, resulting in a rejection of both the fractional reserve theory and the financial intermediation theory. Instead, it was found that the bank newly ‘invented’ the funds by crediting the borrower's account with a deposit, although no such deposit had taken place. This is in line with the claims of the credit creation theory. Thus it can now be said with confidence for the first time – possibly in the 5000 years' history of banking - that it has been empirically demonstrated that each individual bank creates credit and money out of nothing, when it extends what is called a ‘bank loan’. The bank does not loan any existing money, but instead creates new money. The money supply is created as ‘fairy dust’ produced by the banks out of thin air.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "998811179d4010020bb3b3408dd346b8",
"text": "\"left out of the pictures is the degree to which the ECB is buying their own bonds. At least with the FedResInk, we know what sort of \"\"open market\"\" action is being taken to keep interest rates held as close to zero as possible. I coke dealer can make sure his \"\"sales\"\" are through the roof by using his own product, but eventually he has to buy more supply. I think people are confused about central banks being that coke dealer or being his supplier.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fefb2bebc863d73f23a0dfeed3af1802",
"text": "Question: So basically the money created in this globalized digital world where capital is free to roam, it is referring to digital money and not actual physical cash. So the goldbugs that talk about america becoming weimar republic is delusional, since there isn't enough physical cash in relations to how big the economy is. And it is actually the debt lending that acts as a derivative of cash money that goes around posing as the money supply or the blood supply of an economy, and that feels like inflation, but when the debt is defaulted on or destroyed, underwritten or even paid back closing the circuit then it's deflationary? But does defaulting on ones debt create inflation since that money is still in the system and not being paid off? You know, when debts are paid off they are taken out of the system.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b40d1d741cd2ee1d0e634f17623de06a",
"text": "\"Since you're an idiot, here is a quote [\"\"The Bank of England (formally the Governor and Company of the Bank of England) is the central bank of the United Kingdom and the model on which most modern central banks have been based. Established in 1694, it is the second oldest central bank in the world \"\"](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_England). Note that this bank, **founded in 1694**, is the model on which most modern central banks have been based. Now a quote from you: >The UK did NOT sell debt and simultaneously purchase its own debt in the past (until modern times). Owned, fool. And another quote to rub it in \"\"The lenders would give the government cash (bullion) and also issue notes against the government bonds, which can be lent again.\"\" You still have not listed an empire that did not purchase it's own debt.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c65aff309720e8af2811e9306f15d440",
"text": "Yes, money is created out of thin air, and it is a good and necessary thing. All money, even commodity money such as gold, is given value only by what can be traded for it. So in that sense *all* money is created out of thin air, because it represents the payment of a future debt. Money merely serves as IOUs between traders. Who do you think should be responsible for adding money to the system? Inndividuals? Been tried, doesn't work so well. Individual banks? Been tried, doesn't work so well. Nation states? Works a lot better, although can still fail. So far having a central bank issue money as an economy needs it for trade has been the most successful method to deal with who gets to issue the IOUs. EDIT: see my post above on a little how and why it works as it does.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d42d3a0dc200cd5cfe6956bd4b2fceaf",
"text": "There are two answers to this (excluding central banks which are really just a banks to private banks): **Please note: This is an oversimplification and not accounting for the fact that banks operate in both categories now. ** Banks are either depository institutions or financial service/transaction providers. * Depository institutions are your typical retail bank (regions, boa retail, wells fargo retail, etc). They accept deposits from account holders and lend out via reserve lending to mortgages and business loans for their revenue generation. * Financial service/transaction providers are better known as IBanks. You have your Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, etc. These have traditionally been banks that do not accept deposit accounts but revenue generation comes from financial services such as asset management and research or from financial transaction facilitation such as market making (offering both buy/sell quotes in capital markets). This is generally the role that banks have played historically from the medieval ages on... They started out as being entities that provided access to connecting buyers and sellers of markets.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc00fd9613f0c6d3732e85398ec34f32",
"text": "borrow money from the Central Bank Wrong premise. They cannot borrow as much as they want and they cannot borrow without collateral i.e. government debt instruments they hold or any other instrument with value. And banks don’t have unlimited collateral to borrow against. Secondly central banks aren’t in the business of lending unlimited money. The more money they lend out, the more is the money supply which stokes inflation which will eventually lead them to stop lending. At any point of time they want a certain amount of money movement, so they can control inflation and interest rates within an agreed limit and as limited by their economy. No sane central bank would want to stoke hyperflation by printing money at will e,g, Helicopter money. So the only other way for banks is to accept deposits from private individuals. You can also argue that banks make money by connecting lenders and borrowers and make their profit by being the middleman without using their assets. So you can say they are making a profit with the minimum usage of their capital. Albeit they have the central bank looking over their shoulder to police their behaviour. While some banks do charge fees for keeping deposits Yes but many provide certain extra services for which they charge. That is how they differentiate between no fee accounts and fee paying accounts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d8b546e3ca3edf9892dc011ac3e6ca69",
"text": "It's quite the contrary. If there are mass failures of banks, then the money supply will collapse and there will be vicious deflation, increasing the value of money held as cash. It's only if governments print money to bail the banks out that there's a (small) risk of hyperinflation and the effective collapse of the currency.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eba6fb586308512e456cfc30b0cfd7e9",
"text": "Trade credit is fine and works without a central bank. All it needs is contract law. The perversion of that is using trade credit collected from somebody else to pay for goods and services mandated by the government as legal tender. That creates false savings that expand exponentially. It probably wouldn't happen much in a free market unless bought at a steep discount by the person receiving it. This is how collection companies work, they buy receivables from telephone companies or other businesses at a steep discount and try to collect on them. In a non-fiat system there would be plenty of trade credit, because how else are you going to drum up business? Personal relationships would ensure that debts were made good, everyone in the economy would be a banker with their own money or goods. I'm not saying we need libertarian minarchist government here for any of this to work. The government could intervene from time to time and tax to build infrastructure or raise a military for defence or whatever they really wanted but at least they wouldn't be creating booms and busts with their borrowing activity.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "81fb5e49a75af4893288857e2a4fc553",
"text": "This is adequately covered by the differential between lending and receiving interest rates. ...and technically, they pay the central bank an interest rate on the money lent as well, which means that they *are* paying back equity holders (all be it very slowly and very slightly). The equity holders have the ability to will money into existence, so there's no artificial limitation they face with respect to the branch banking system.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c64cffb9f5b04dd8da7726e4221e02f7",
"text": "Yes there is an inverse relationship but that's how it's meant to work. Debt creates money. Banks do lend out customers savings for return interest as the bank can make a profit rather than the cash just sitting there. The process of Lending pumps money into the economy that wouldn't be there otherwise so it creates money. The banks will either have a cash deficit or surplus at end of each day and either need to borrow from other banks to balance their books or if in surplus lend to other banks to make interest because that's more profitable than holding the cash surplus. The overnight cash rate then determines interest rates we pay. High private debt occurs when lots of people are investing & buying things so there is stimulation and growth in the economy. A lot more tax is being paid in these periods so government debt is lower because they are getting lots of tax money. Also To stimulate the economy into this growth period the government usually sells off large cash bonds (lowering their debt) to release cash into the economy, the more cash available the less banks have to borrow to cover deficits on overnight cash market and the lower interest rates will be. Lower interest rates = more borrowing and higher Private debt. The government can't let growth get out of control as they don't want high inflation so they do the opposite to slow down growth, I.e buy up cash bonds and take money out of economy causing higher interest rates and less borrowing = More debt for government less for private.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3eb06ff7ab226eddd36864af44dba95c",
"text": "\"They could have printed 5.0T or 10.0T or 1000 quadrillion. It doesnt make any difference for the steps a Central Bank takes. They choose a figure based on balancing inflation vs interest rates. The legal powers Central Banks or IMF have do vary (i.e. to perform quantitative easing, purchasing company bonds, purchasing retail bank bonds) but they all follow that principle. Their tools are very limited and theyre legally obligated to seek certain targets like \"\"inflation between 0 to 2%\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a7fb572eaf82e37b17cdfe0713d57919",
"text": "Commercial banks are not allowed to create real money. The confusion comes from the different ways money is counted. In M2, deposits count as money. So if you take $100 and deposit it in the bank, M2 will count the $100 deposit as money, as well as the $100 cash the bank has from the deposit. So under M2 the money supply has increased by $100, but no real money was created. Commercial banks can't create real money out of thin air, and they can't loan out money they don't have.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "854c8fa8a6896a7e1004e68dcdb3a9be",
"text": "I think you'll find some sound answers here: Money Creation in the Modern Economy by the Bank of England Where does money come from? In the modern economy, most money takes the form of bank deposits. But how those bank deposits are created is often misunderstood. The principal way in which they are created is through commercial banks making loans: whenever a bank makes a loan, it creates a deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money. This description of how money is created differs from the story found in some economics textbooks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "577a3a46a94f18e2d36e4c3e522350c2",
"text": "Central Banks always controlled by politics. Bush Jr. told Greenspan that he needed to be reelected, and all Greenspan could do was lower interest rates to help, and that fueled more speculation by the commercial bankers. The president appoints the fed chairman, so dont tell me that they are independent of politicians. the whole notion that a central banker must be independent of the government force is fuking insane. You let private bankers control your monetary policy and you lose your nation's sovereignty. I'd rather put my trust to elected officials than unelected private financial mercenaries. Nationalize the FED.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "62e5deb81b126cbdf0a917b716abcd64",
"text": "Inflation is a reflection on the expansion of the money supply, aka debt, being created by a central bank. Fiat currencies usually inflate, because there is no limit to the amount of debt that can be created. The consequences of reckless money supply expansion can be seen throughout history, see Zimbabwe, though there have been many others...Brazil, Argentinia, etc...",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
3f05a44a19a56c3359474c3cb19b4e35
|
Ways to trade the Euro debt crisis
|
[
{
"docid": "776a0fad3abfce8445dedec1de473ff6",
"text": "Short the Pound and other English financial items. Because the English economy is tied to the EU, it will be hit as well. You might prefer this over Euro denominated investments, since it's not exactly clear who your counterpart is if the Euro really crashes hard. Meaning suppose you have a short position Euro's versus dollars, but the clearing house is taken down by the crash.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac121912dc1c747d695b32eb58af4f23",
"text": "\"The way I am trading this is: I am long the USD / EUR in cash. I also hold USD / EUR futures, which are traded on the Globex exchange. I am long US equities which have a low exposure to Europe and China (as I expect China to growth significantly slower if the European weakens). I would not short US equities because Europe-based investors (like me) are buying comparatively \"\"safe\"\" US equities to reduce their EUR exposure.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d2903c879070395bd1377a25c3f82b31",
"text": "Huh? What does a flight to safety (cheaper US borrowing rates) have to do with the crisis not spreading if something goes wrong in Italy? It won't be the same over here - it will hit the banking system and companies tied to Europe rather than the sovereign market, but if something happens in Italy we'll feel it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fa6070b128d30dc1befad2f10a9c1934",
"text": "theoretically this concept makes sense. However as recent numbers have shown ( I do not have the source handy but one can simply obtain this information via the ECB's website) banks have tapped this LTRO, something in the likes of 500 billion or so, and instead of buying Sovereign debt, they instead prefer to park this money with the ECB, paying something like 25 bps on deposits. so instead of using this LTRO money to buy Sovereigns or perhaps lend to other banks, easing the strain on LIBOR, banks have just parked this money back with the ECB, as the ECB has seen its deposits once again reach record amounts (again, see the ECB website for proof). Just this speaks volumes about the LTRO carry trade and how it is evidently not going to achieve its long term goal of bringing spreads down in Europe. Perhaps in the short run yes, but if you look at the fundamentals (EURUSD, the EUR Basis Swap and the OIS-LIBOR Spread) they show how the situation in Europe is far from over, and the LTRO is nothing close to a long term and stable solution",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b7577e9124a4a8752111a7e91e5033a0",
"text": "The idea behind this move is to avoid or mitigate long-term deflationary pressure and to boost the competitiveness of Swiss exporters. This is primarily a Swiss-based initiative that does not appear likely to have a major impact on the broader Eurozone. However, some pressure will be felt by other currencies as investors look to purchase - ie. this is not a great scenario for other countries wanting to keep their currencies weak. In terms of personal wealth - if you hold Swiss f then you are impacted. However, 1.2 is still very strong (most analysts cite 1.3 as more realistic) so there seems little need for a reaction of any kind at the personal level at this time, although diversity - as ever - is good. It should also be noted that changing the peg is a possibility, and that the 1.3 does seem to be the more realistic level. If you hold large amounts of Swiss f then this might cause you to look at your forex holdings. For the man in the street, probably not an issue.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "531b4168ddf30bcc15f30b86c0f9b4e3",
"text": "You could buy Bitcoins. They are even more deflationary than Swiss Francs. But the exchange rate is currently high, and so is the risk in case of volatility. So maybe buy an AltCoin instead. See altcoin market capitalization for more information. Basically, all you'd be doing is changing SwissFrancs into Bitcoin/AltCoin. You don't need a bank to store it. You don't need to stockpile cash at home. Stays liquid, there's no stock portfolio (albeit a coin portfolio), unlike in stocks there are no noteworthy buy and sell commissions, and the central bank can't just change the bills as in classic-cash-currency. The only risk is volatility in the coin market, which is not necessarely a small risk. Should coins have been going down, then for as long as you don't need that money and keep some for everyday&emergency use on a bank account, you can just wait until said coins re-climb - volatility goes both ways after all.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d87984f8fd0b68c76fb7161190f20fd",
"text": "\"The risk is that greece defaults on it's debts and the rest of the eurozone chose to punish it by kicking it out of the Eurozone and cutting off it's banks from ECB funds. Since the greek government and banks are already in pretty dire straits this would leave greece with little choice but to forciblly convert deposits in those banks to a \"\"new drachma\"\". The exchange rate used for the forced conversions would almost certainly be unfavorable compared to market rates soon after the conversion. There would likely be capital controls to prevent people pulling their money out in the runup to the forced conversion. While I guess they could theoretically perform the forced conversion only on Euro deposits this seems politically unlikely to me.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a4a2be1c29e9de79c105c97a28e539e",
"text": "You forgot the biggest thing: Japan still controls its own currency and Greece does not. If you don't control your currency, you have much more limited options when it comes to borrowing money. It is why US states can't borrow a lot of money, they all have to share the US dollar which no one state controls. So states are used to making cutbacks in hard times, but the Eurozone nations have not adopted this mindset. Greece isn't in trouble because it borrowed too much, it's in trouble because it borrowed so much *and has to share the Euro*. Greece can't inflate its currency, so if they can't make a payment they default, no one wants to lend to a place that might default. If Greece had its own currency still there would be no currency crisis in Europe, just some inflation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f4e4d68c7f8d9a2124a3ce2c0c670d5",
"text": "**Economic and Monetary Union of the European Union: Monetary policy inflexibility** Since membership of the eurozone establishes a single monetary policy for the respective states, they can no longer use an isolated monetary policy, e. g. to increase their competitiveness at the cost of other eurozone members by printing money and devalue, or to print money to finance excessive government deficits or pay interest on unsustainable high government debt levels. As a consequence, if member states do not manage their economy in a way that they can show a fiscal discipline (as they were obliged by the Maastricht treaty), they will sooner or later risk a sovereign debt crisis in their country without the possibility to print money as an easy way out. *** ^[ [^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/economy/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.23",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a1ff24e1167bbff2621b79995be46833",
"text": "the problem now is A LOT of people dont have confidence in the euro, and they are taking their money out of it , and confidence is the only thing that backs the euro, or any fiat money. It's gonna get worst before it gets better unfortunately...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "879df5cccfdb6e93aa59f97d4b067107",
"text": "Russia current account. https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/current-account US current account https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/current-account Russia balance of trade https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/balance-of-trade US balance of trade https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/balance-of-trade Forex reserve by country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_foreign-exchange_reserves List of country by oil import size. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_imports . If I have to make a wild guess, country with huge deficit everything and no saving usually sinks faster in time of crisis.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a34530bf8080f6caa6d2ebd0f47428c2",
"text": "\"Yes, I'm a big picture guy. Like when the central banks opened unlimited short term lines recently the first thing I thought was \"\"now hedge funds can short the euro with impunity!\"\" So, short bets on the euro became a no brainer even as the market was perversely celebrating the announcement with a euro rally. Almost as if they have no idea how the bigger picture works. As if all liquidity is created equally. All it meant to me was that European banks would not have to call in the lines of credit they extend to hedge funds for THREE YEARS. That is enough time to crash the euro, hold a funeral and dance on the grave. It is just musical chairs over there. All the banks know the EU is coming for them an they all want to be in the right capital position to survive the banhammer. They'll sell out the euro to get there. I think I'm a bit too jaded for Graham style fundamental analysis. Then again I do use strong companies as my preferred trading vehicles. So, maybe I do a hybrid.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4346f7b4245d33e783f7a3756f36ccb2",
"text": "I vehemently disagree with this. Greek crisis is completely different form Spanish, Irish or Portuguese crisis. Greece has a balance of payments + fiscal crisis, due to a government which has not been balancing its budgets for decades (ever?). Greece cannot spend its way out of this crisis because this isn't a demand led crisis.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0afc4be53a7d5723c723f6f6974db822",
"text": "\"The biggest risk you have when a country defaults on its currency is a major devaluation of the currency. Since the EURO is a fiat currency, like almost all developed nations, its \"\"promise\"\" comes from the expectation that its union and system will endure. The EURO is a basket of countries and as such could probably handle bailing out countries or possibly letting some default on their sovereign debt without killing the EURO itself. A similar reality happens in the United States with some level of regularity with state and municipal debt being considered riskier than Federal debt (it isn't uncommon for cities to default). The biggest reason the EURO will probably lose a LOT of value initially is if any nation defaults there isn't a track record as to how the EU member body will respond. Will some countries attempt to break out of the EU? If the member countries fracture then the EURO collapses rendering any and all EURO notes useless. It is that political stability that underlies the value of the EURO. If you are seriously concerned about the risk of a falling EURO and its long term stability then you'd do best buying a hedge currency or devising a basket of hedge currencies to diversify risk. Many will recommend you buy Gold or other precious metals, but I think the idea is silly at best. It is not only hard to buy precious metals at a \"\"fair\"\" value it is even harder to sell them at a fair value. Whatever currency you hold needs to be able to be used in transactions with ease. Doesn't do you any good having $20K in gold coins and no one willing to buy them (as the seller at the store will usually want currency and not gold coins). If you want to go the easy route you can follow the same line of reasoning Central Banks do. Buy USD and hold it. It is probably the world's safest currency to hold over a long period of time. Current US policy is inflationary so that won't help you gain value, but that depends on how the EU responds to a sovereign debt crisis; if one matures.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0dd6ac0337c6ae43d240dcf6908189ba",
"text": "That's interesting. So Spain could be back in crisis mode if a crisis were to occur in Latam? The difference is quite large so it must mean Spain owns a heck of a lot of foreign assets producing significant returns relative to their GDP...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e13140ddbbd5bb612d992c09669ccc10",
"text": "\"In essence the problem that the OP identified is not that the FX market itself has poor liquidity but that retail FX brokerage sometimes have poor counterparty risk management. The problem is the actual business model that many FX brokerages have. Most FX brokerages are themselves customers of much larger money center banks that are very well capitalized and provide ample liquidity. By liquidity I mean the ability to put on a position of relatively decent size (long EURUSD say) at any particular time with a small price impact relative to where it is trading. For spot FX, intraday bid/ask spreads are extremely small, on the order of fractions of pips for majors (EUR/USD/GBP/JPY/CHF). Even in extremely volatile situations it rarely becomes much larger than a few pips for positions of 1 to 10 Million USD equivalent notional value in the institutional market. Given that retail traders rarely trade that large a position, the FX spot market is essentially very liquid in that respect. The problem is that there are retail brokerages whose business model is to encourage excessive trading in the hopes of capturing that spread, but not guaranteeing that it has enough capital to always meet all client obligations. What does get retail traders in trouble is that most are unaware that they are not actually trading on an exchange like with stocks. Every bid and ask they see on the screen the moment they execute a trade is done against that FX brokerage, and not some other trader in a transparent central limit order book. This has some deep implications. One is the nifty attribute that you rarely pay \"\"commission\"\" to do FX trades unlike in stock trading. Why? Because they build that cost into the quotes they give you. In sleepy markets, buyers and sellers cancel out, they just \"\"capture\"\" that spread which is the desired outcome when that business model functions well. There are two situations where the brokerage's might lose money and capital becomes very important. In extremely volatile markets, every one of their clients may want to sell for some reason, this forces the FX brokers to accumulate a large position in the opposite side that they have to offload. They will trade in the institutional market with other brokerages to net out their positions so that they are as close to flat as possible. In the process, since bid/ask spreads in the institutional market is tighter than within their own brokerage by design, they should still make money while not taking much risk. However, if they are not fast enough, or if they do not have enough capital, the brokerage's position might move against them too quickly which may cause them lose all their capital and go belly up. The brokerage is net flat, but there are huge offsetting positions amongst its clients. In the example of the Swiss Franc revaluation in early 2015, a sudden pop of 10-20% would have effectively meant that money in client accounts that were on the wrong side of the trade could not cover those on the other side. When this happens, it is theoretically the brokerage's job to close out these positions before it wipes out the value of the client accounts, however it would have been impossible to do so since there were no prices in between the instantaneous pop in which the brokerage could have terminated their client's losing positions, and offload the risk in the institutional market. Since it's extremely hard to ask for more money than exist in the client accounts, those with strong capital positions simply ate the loss (such as Oanda), those that fared worse went belly up. The irony here is that the more leverage the brokerage gave to their clients, the less money would have been available to cover losses in such an event. Using an example to illustrate: say client A is long 1 contract at $100 and client B is short 1 contract at $100. The brokerage is thus net flat. If the brokerage had given 10:1 leverage, then there would be $10 in each client's account. Now instantaneously market moves down $10. Client A loses $10 and client B is up $10. Brokerage simply closes client A's position, gives $10 to client B. The brokerage is still long against client B however, so now it has to go into the institutional market to be short 1 contract at $90. The brokerage again is net flat, and no money actually goes in or out of the firm. Had the brokerage given 50:1 leverage however, client A only has $2 in the account. This would cause the brokerage close client A's position. The brokerage is still long against client B, but has only $2 and would have to \"\"eat the loss\"\" for $8 to honor client B's position, and if it could not do that, then it technically became insolvent since it owes more money to its clients than it has in assets. This is exactly the reason there have been regulations in the US to limit the amount of leverage FX brokerages are allowed to offer to clients, to assure the brokerage has enough capital to pay what is owed to clients.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9068374da97395610198f6d0ad280764",
"text": "Krugman (Nobel prize in Economy) has just said: Greek euro exit, very possibly next month. Huge withdrawals from Spanish and Italian banks, as depositors try to move their money to Germany. 3a. Maybe, just possibly, de facto controls, with banks forbidden to transfer deposits out of country and limits on cash withdrawals. 3b. Alternatively, or maybe in tandem, huge draws on ECB credit to keep the banks from collapsing. 4a. Germany has a choice. Accept huge indirect public claims on Italy and Spain, plus a drastic revision of strategy — basically, to give Spain in particular any hope you need both guarantees on its debt to hold borrowing costs down and a higher eurozone inflation target to make relative price adjustment possible; or: 4b. End of the euro. And we’re talking about months, not years, for this to play out. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/eurodammerung-2/",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
599367355d8e70d2ce307a9fc3537187
|
Adjusting a value for inflation each month using rolling 12-monthly inflation figures
|
[
{
"docid": "40e6216fd5028fb210f768d5786defe2",
"text": "In the style of the Bank of England's Inflation Calculator, you can do the calculation like so. The third column is an index made from the inflation figures and the forth column shows the inflation-adjusted values. Using the index to calculate the difference in costs, for example: The formulas used to produce the table above are shown below.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6ab85fd6f741cf68b186595808edbb84",
"text": "\"The actual increase in the cost of living for one month over the previous month cannot be calculated from the annualized increase in cost over the entire previous year. Consider the hypothetical case of a very stable economy, where prices stay constant for decades. Nevertheless, the authorities issue monthly statements, reporting that the change in the cost of living, for the last month, year over year, is 0.00%. Then they go back to sleep for another month. Then, something happens, say in August, 2001. It causes a permanent large increase in the cost of many parts of the cost of living components. So, in September, the authorities announce that the cost of living for the end of August, 2001, compared to August a year ago, was up 10%. Great consternation results. Politicians pontificate, unions agitate on behalf of their members, etc... The economy returns to its customary behavior, except for that one-time permanent increase from August, 2001. So for the next eleven months, each month, the authorities compare the previous months prices to the prices from exactly a year ago, and announce that inflation, year over year, is still 10%. Finally, we reach September, 2002. The authorities look at prices for the end of August, 2002, and compare them to the prices from the end of August, 2001 (post \"\"event\"\"). Wonder of wonders, the inflation rate is back to 0.00%!! Absolutely nothing happened in August 2002, yet the rate of inflation dropped from 10% to 0%.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "bee1b08bfad94bfa962c90eff9c6f1bc",
"text": "The question lacks specificity, i.e. when does the initial investment occur, now or one period from now? If now then it is a perpetuity due. I will consider under 2 scenarios, A and B, relating to the size of the initial investment. A. Assuming that the initial investment (C_0) occurs now and each payment thereafter has the relationship (1+g) with this investment then the relevant base equation is that for the present value of a growing perpetuity due, expressed in terms of C_0, i.e. PVGPD= [C_0*(1+g)*(1+i)]/(i-g). Now, to suit the question asked, we can see that i=fixed rate of return (f) and g = expected inflation rate (e) such that we can rewrite the equation as PVGPD = [C_0*(1+e)*(1+i)]/(i-e]. We know that f = is a fixed nominal rate and must be adjusted for e to calculate the real rate (r) according to the equation f=(1+r)*(1+e)-1. Therefore PVGPD = [C_0*(1+e)(1+(1+r)(1+e)-1)]/((1+r)*(1+e)-1-e] Tidying up PVGPD = {C_0*(1+r)(1+e)^2}/[r(1+e)] PVGPD = [C_0*(1+r)*(1+e)]/r B. Assuming that the initial investment (X) is not equal to each subsequent perpetual payment (C_1) then the relevant base equation is that for the the initial investment plus the present value of a growing perpetuity, i.e. PVGP= X + [C_1/(i-g)] Rewriting PVGP = X + [C_1/(f-e)] Substituting PVGPD = X + {C_1/[(1+r)*(1+e)-1-e]} Tidying up PVGPD = X + C_1/[r*(1+e)]",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1a145b5ee9ce9c6ae6b82003ba3e842a",
"text": "If you have a lump sum, you could put it into a low risk investment (which should also have low fluctuations) right away to avoid the risk of buying at a down point. Then move it into a higher risk investment over a period of time. That way you'll buy more units when the price is lower than when it's higher. Usually I hear dollar cost averaging applied to the practice of purchasing a fixed dollar amount of an investment every week or month right out of your salary. The effect is pretty minimal though, except on the highest growth portfolios, and is generally just used as a sales tool by investment councilors (in my opinion).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "07c4b462447a984829ccd4f74b9b84a2",
"text": "\"Everyone buys different kinds of goods. For example I don't smoke tobacco so I'm not affected by increased tobacco prices. I also don't have a car so I'm not affected by the reduced oil prices either. But my landlord increased the monthly fee of the apartment so my cost of living per month suddenly increased more than 10% relative to the same month a year before. This is well known, also by the statistical offices. As you say, the niveau of the rent is not only time- but also location specific, so there are separate rent indices (German: Mietspiegel). But also for the general consumer price indices at least in my country (Germany) statistics are kept for different categories of things as well. So, the German Federal Statistical Office (Statistisches Bundesamt) not only publishes \"\"the\"\" consumer price index for the standard consumer basket, but also consumer price indices for oil, gas, rents, food, public transport, ... Nowadays, they even have a web site where you can put in your personal weighting for these topics and look at \"\"your\"\" inflation: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Service/InteraktiveAnwendungen/InflationsrechnerSVG.svg Maybe something similar is available for your country?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d5a8298c41dbfe1d3ded257f82ae06b",
"text": "The Finance functions in spreadsheet software will calculate this for you. The basic functions are for Rate, Payment, PV (present value), FV (Future value), and NPER, the number of periods. The single calculation faces a couple issues, dealing with inflation, and with a changing deposit. If you plan to save for 30 years, and today are saving $500/mo, for example, in ten years I hope the deposits have risen as well. I suggest you use a spreadsheet, a full sheet, to let you adjust for this. Last, there's a strange effect that happens. Precision without accuracy. See the results for 30-40 years of compounding today's deposit given a return of 6%, 7%, up to 10% or so. Your forecast will be as weak as the variable with the greatest range. And there's more than one, return, inflation, percent you'll increase deposits, all unknown, and really unknowable. The best advice I can offer is to save till it hurts, plan for the return to be at the lower end of the range, and every so often, re-evaluate where you stand. Better to turn 40, and see you are on track to retire early, than to plan on too high a return, and at 60 realize you missed it, badly. As far as the spreadsheet goes, this is for the Google Sheets - Type this into a cell =nper(0.01,-100,0,1000,0) It represents 1% interest per month, a payment (deposit) of $100, a starting value of $0, a goal of $1000, and interest added at month end. For whatever reason, a starting balance must be entered as a negative number, for example - =nper(0.01,-100,-500,1000,0) Will return 4.675, the number of months to get you from $500 to $1000 with a $100/mo deposit and 1%/mo return. Someone smarter than I (Chris Degnen comes to mind) can explain why the starting balance needs to be entered this way. But it does show the correct result. As confirmed by my TI BA-35 financial calculator, which doesn't need $500 to be negative.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "552c97f6a717f65fe5560ea03fd90c76",
"text": "\"I think we'd need to look at actual numbers to see where you're running into trouble. I'm also a little confused by your use of the term \"\"unexpected expenses\"\". You seem to be using that to describe expenses that are quite regular, that occur every X months, and so are totally expected. But assuming this is just some clumsy wording ... Here's the thing: Start out by taking the amount of each expense, divided by the number of months between occurrences. This is the monthly cost of each expense. Add all these up. This is the amount that you should be setting aside every month for these expenses, once you get a \"\"base amount\"\" set up. So to take a simple example: Say you have to pay property taxes of $1200 twice a year. So that's $1200 every 6 months = $200 per month. Also say you have to pay a water bill once every 3 months that's typically $90. So $90 divided by 3 = $30. Assuming that was it, in the long term you'd need to put aside $230 per month to stay even. I say \"\"in the long term\"\" because when you're just starting, you need to put aside an amount sufficient that your balance won't fall below zero. The easiest way to do this is to just set up a chart where you start from zero and add (in this example) $230 each month, and then subtract the amount of the bills when they will hit. Do this for some reasonable time in the future, say one year. Find the biggest negative balance. If you can add this amount to get started, you'll be safe. If not, add this amount divided by the number of months from now until it occurs and make that a temporary addition to your deposits. Check if you now are safely always positive. If not, repeat the process for the next biggest negative. For example, let's say the property tax bills are April and October and the water bills are February, May, August, and November. Then your chart would look like this: The biggest negative is -370 in April. So you have to add $370 in the first 4 months, or $92.50 per month. Let's say $93. That would give: Now you stay at least barely above water for the whole year. You could extend the chart our further, but odds are the exact numbers will change next year and you'll have to recalculate anyway. The more irregular the expenses, the more you will build up just before the big expense hits. But that's the whole point of saving for these, right? If a $1200 bill is coming next week and you don't have close to $1200 saved up in the account, where is the money coming from? If you have enough spare cash that you can just take the $1200 out of what you would have spent on lunch tomorrow, then you don't need this sort of account.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c6fa632a4fe912a3d78b7a6592e82079",
"text": "\"I wrote a little program one time to try to do this. I think I wrote it in Python or something. The idea was to have a list of \"\"projected expenses\"\" where each one would have things like the amount, the date of the next transaction, the frequency of the transaction, and so on. The program would then simulate time, determining when the next transaction would be, updating balances, and so on. You can actually do a very similar thing with a spreadsheet where you basically have a list of expenses that you manually paste in for each month in advance. Simply keep a running balance of each row, and make sure you don't forget any transactions that should be happening. This works great for fixed expenses, or expenses that you know how much they are going to be for the next month. If you don't know, you can estimate, for instance you can make an educated guess at how much your electric bill will be the next month (if you haven't gotten the bill yet) and you can estimate how much you will spend on fuel based on reviewing previous months and some idea of whether your usage will differ in the next month. For variable expenses I would always err on the side of a larger amount than I expected to spend. It isn't going to be possible to budget to the exact penny unless you lead a very simple life, but the extra you allocate is important to cushion unexpected and unavoidable overruns. Once you have this done for expenses against your bank account, you can see what your \"\"low water mark\"\" is for the month, or whatever time period you project out to. If this is above your minimum, then you can see how much you can safely allocate to, e.g. paying off debt. Throwing a credit card into the mix can make things a bit more predictable in the current month, especially for unpredictable amounts, but it is a bit more complicated as now you have a second account that you have to track that has to get deducted from your first account when it becomes due in the following month. I am assuming a typical card where you have something like a 25 day grace period to pay without interest along with up to 30 days after the expense before the grace period starts, depending on the relationship between your cut-off date and when the actual expense occurs.\"",
"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": "dcfb167b3a1e18a2fb2ee716b90a66c4",
"text": "Here's a good inflation calculator based on official US government sources: http://www.westegg.com/inflation/ You can get a good idea of the affect of productivity gains on prices by comparing price differences between different commodities. For example, eggs sold for $0.50-0.60/dozen in 1920, and are usually about $2.50/doz where I live. In real terms, the price actually declined from 1920 to 2010.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a70568de6258ac4ff20caf60647f630e",
"text": "\"First, a clarification. No assets are immune to inflation, apart from inflation-indexed securities like TIPS or inflation-indexed gilts (well, if held to maturity, these are at least close). Inflation causes a decline in the future purchasing power of a given dollar1 amount, and it certainly doesn't just affect government bonds, either. Regardless of whether you hold equity, bonds, derivatives, etc., the real value of those assets is declining because of inflation, all else being equal. For example, if I invest $100 in an asset that pays a 10% rate of return over the next year, and I sell my entire position at the end of the year, I have $110 in nominal terms. Inflation affects the real value of this asset regardless of its asset class because those $110 aren't worth as much in a year as they are today, assuming inflation is positive. An easy way to incorporate inflation into your calculations of rate of return is to simply subtract the rate of inflation from your rate of return. Using the previous example with inflation of 3%, you could estimate that although the nominal value of your investment at the end of one year is $110, the real value is $100*(1 + 10% - 3%) = $107. In other words, you only gained $7 of purchasing power, even though you gained $10 in nominal terms. This back-of-the-envelope calculation works for securities that don't pay fixed returns as well. Consider an example retirement portfolio. Say I make a one-time investment of $50,000 today in a portfolio that pays, on average, 8% annually. I plan to retire in 30 years, without making any further contributions (yes, this is an over-simplified example). I calculate that my portfolio will have a value of 50000 * (1 + 0.08)^30, or $503,132. That looks like a nice amount, but how much is it really worth? I don't care how many dollars I have; I care about what I can buy with those dollars. If I use the same rough estimate of the effect of inflation and use a 8% - 3% = 5% rate of return instead, I get an estimate of what I'll have at retirement, in today's dollars. That allows me to make an easy comparison to my current standard of living, and see if my portfolio is up to scratch. Repeating the calculation with 5% instead of 8% yields 50000 * (1 + 0.05)^30, or $21,6097. As you can see, the amount is significantly different. If I'm accustomed to living off $50,000 a year now, my calculation that doesn't take inflation into account tells me that I'll have over 10 years of living expenses at retirement. The new calculation tells me I'll only have a little over 4 years. Now that I've clarified the basics of inflation, I'll respond to the rest of the answer. I want to know if I need to be making sure my investments span multiple currencies to protect against a single country's currency failing. As others have pointed out, currency doesn't inflate; prices denominated in that currency inflate. Also, a currency failing is significantly different from a prices denominated in a currency inflating. If you're worried about prices inflating and decreasing the purchasing power of your dollars (which usually occurs in modern economies) then it's a good idea to look for investments and asset allocations that, over time, have outpaced the rate of inflation and that even with the effects of inflation, still give you a high enough rate of return to meet your investment goals in real, inflation-adjusted terms. If you have legitimate reason to worry about your currency failing, perhaps because your country doesn't maintain stable monetary or fiscal policies, there are a few things you can do. First, define what you mean by \"\"failing.\"\" Do you mean ceasing to exist, or simply falling in unit purchasing power because of inflation? If it's the latter, see the previous paragraph. If the former, investing in other currencies abroad may be a good idea. Questions about currencies actually failing are quite general, however, and (in my opinion) require significant economic analysis before deciding on a course of action/hedging. I would ask the same question about my home's value against an inflated currency as well. Would it keep the same real value. Your home may or may not keep the same real value over time. In some time periods, average home prices have risen at rates significantly higher than the rate of inflation, in which case on paper, their real value has increased. However, if you need to make substantial investments in your home to keep its price rising at the same rate as inflation, you may actually be losing money because your total investment is higher than what you paid for the house initially. Of course, if you own your home and don't have plans to move, you may not be concerned if its value isn't keeping up with inflation at all times. You're deriving additional satisfaction/utility from it, mainly because it's a place for you to live, and you spend money maintaining it in order to maintain your physical standard of living, not just its price at some future sale date. 1) I use dollars as an example. This applies to all currencies.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e579c480f632018d2e79008cd1ccaa4b",
"text": "Line one shows your 1M, a return with a given rate, and year end withdrawal starting at 25,000. So Line 2 starts with that balance, applies the rate again, and shows the higher withdrawal, by 3%/yr. In Column one, I show the cumulative effect of the 3% inflation, and the last number in this column is the final balance (903K) but divided by the cumulative inflation. To summarize - if you simply get the return of inflation, and start by spending just that amount, you'll find that after 20 years, you have half your real value. The 1.029 is a trial and error method, as I don't know how a finance calculator would handle such a payment flow. I can load the sheet somewhere if you'd like. Note: This is not exactly what the OP was looking for. If the concept is useful, I'll let it stand. If not, downvotes are welcome and I'll delete.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba2ffd3d9a2721b4e06f7c2d830e42d3",
"text": "\"I was afraid of this. If you are using 12 P/Y and 12 C/Y, then your interest rate should not be divided by 12. Also, you should use \"\"END\"\" as this means monthly payments are made at the end of the month - a usual default.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f73c5e2421b687b44ad0d6913311ff7a",
"text": "As an expansion on the correct answer: Consider a really boring economy. Nothing changes; wages and prices stay constant for years at a time. Every month the Consumer Price Index stays at 0%. Then, something catastrophic happens, say on July 31, 2000. A cheap local source for a vital resource runs out, and it must be obtained from a higher cost source. Floods cut internal road networks, resulting in higher transportation costs. Whatever. The new situation is permanent. As a result, the next month, August, 2000, prices go up 5%. That is, 5% higher than the previous month, July, 2000, and 5% higher than a year previously, August 1999. There is a lot of consternation, and politicians each promise that they and only they can wrestle inflation to the ground. But, when the figures for September, 2000 come out, inflation stays the same. Prices are the same as in August, 2000, and 5% higher than in September, 1999. This goes on for months. Nothing changes, prices stay the same, and the inflation rate, year over year, stays at 5%. Finally, the figures for August, 2001 come out. Wonder of wonders; prices are the same as in August, 2000, and inflation drops to zero. And the politicians all take the credit. Short version: inflation year over year changes either because of what in now included in the month just past, or what is now excluded from a year ago.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c548c8f369622eaa6e0093a5f0b5d4ea",
"text": "\"There has been almost no inflation during 2014-2015. do you mean rental price inflation or overall inflation? Housing price and by extension rental price inflation is usually much higher than the \"\"basket of goods\"\" CPI or RPI numbers. The low levels of these two indicators are mostly caused by technology, oil and food price deflation (at least in the US, UK, and Europe) outweighing other inflation. My slightly biased (I've just moved to a new rental property) and entirely London-centric empirical evidence suggests that 5% is quite a low figure for house price inflation and therefore also rental inflation. Your landlord will also try to get as much for the property as he can so look around for similar properties and work out what a market rate might be (within tolerances of course) and negotiate based on that. For the new asked price I could get a similar apartment in similar condos with gym and pool (this one doesn't have anything) or in a way better area (closer to supermarkets, restaurants, etc). suggests that you have already started on this and that the landlord is trying to artificially inflate rents. If you can afford the extra 5% and these similar but better appointed places are at that price why not move? It sounds like the reason that you are looking to stay on in this apartment is either familiarity or loyalty to the landlord so it may be time to benefit from a move.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c7cf50b1d08c74636ecff24bf8c02aa3",
"text": "These are the steps I'd follow: $200 today times (1.04)^10 = Cost in year 10. The 6 deposits of $20 will be one time value calculation with a resulting year 7 final value. You then must apply 10% for 3 years (1.1)^3 to get the 10th year result. You now have the shortfall. Divide that by the same (1.1)^3 to shift the present value to start of year 7. (this step might confuse you?) You are left with a problem needing 3 same deposits, a known rate, and desired FV. Solve from there. (Also, welcome from quant.SE. This site doesn't support LATEX, so I edited the image above.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e898bbf75859f38482dd86f748db8f8c",
"text": "\"Anyone who has any business looking at growth numbers will know thay are meaningless in the first year, So all they need to know is that it's the first year. It's no different than the Billboard music charts' treatment of the \"\"last week's chart ranking\"\" and \"\"movement up/down\"\" columns. It will help with visual layout if the figure used is about the same size as a percentage number. \"\"New\"\" fits nicely.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b179eed1fcaf6360d1a03216c35190c7
|
Are there special exceptions to the rule that (US) capital gains taxes are owed only when the gain materializes?
|
[
{
"docid": "16fafc1f035e5b4f5afeac6a5bb0e2f0",
"text": "Normally, you don't pay capital gains tax until you actually realize a capital gain. However, there are some exceptions. The exception that affected Eduardo Saverin is the expatriation tax, or exit tax. If you leave a country and are no longer a tax resident, your former country taxes you on your unrealized capital gains from the period that you were a tax resident of that country. There are several countries that have an expatriation tax, including the United States. Saverin left the U.S. before the Facebook IPO. Saverin was perhaps already planning on leaving the U.S. (he is originally from Brazil and has investments in Asia), so leaving before the IPO limited the amount of capital gains tax he had to pay upon his exit. (Source: Wall Street Journal: So How Much Did He Really Save?) Another situation that might be considered an exception and affects a lot of us is capital gain distributions inside a mutual fund. When mutual fund managers sell investments inside the fund and realize gains, they have to distribute those gains among all the mutual fund investors. This often takes the form of additional shares of the mutual fund that you are given, and you have to pay capital gains tax on these distributions. As a result, you can invest in a mutual fund, leave your money there and not sell, but have to pay capital gains tax anyway. In fact, you could owe capital gains tax on the distributions even if the value of your mutual fund investment has gone down.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d55e2123743cdd8329b8a35345731e11",
"text": "In addition to the expatriation case already mentioned by Ben Miller, traders/investors are required to use mark-to-market accounting on certain investments. These go by Section 1256 contracts due to the part of the law that defines them. Mark-to-market is also required on straddles (combination of a long and and a short position in equities that are expected to vary inversely to each other). Mark-to-market means that you have to treat the positions as if you closed them at their end-of-year market value (even if you still have the position across the new year).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d423ee78b68467721af9eb9d16c3d672",
"text": "This is really an extended comment on the last paragraph of @BenMiller's answer. When (the manager of) a mutual fund sells securities that the fund holds for a profit, or receives dividends (stock dividends, bond interest, etc.), the fund has the option of paying taxes on that money (at corporate rates) and distributing the rest to shareholders in the fund, or passing on the entire amount (categorized as dividends, qualified dividends, net short-term capital gains, and net long-term capital gains) to the shareholders who then pay taxes on the money that they receive at their own respective tax rates. (If the net gains are negative, i.e. losses, they are not passed on to the shareholders. See the last paragraph below). A shareholder doesn't have to reinvest the distribution amount into the mutual fund: the option of receiving the money as cash always exists, as does the option of investing the distribution into a different mutual fund in the same family, e.g. invest the distributions from Vanguard's S&P 500 Index Fund into Vanguard's Total Bond Index Fund (and/or vice versa). This last can be done without needing a brokerage account, but doing it across fund families will require the money to transit through a brokerage account or a personal account. Such cross-transfers can be helpful in reducing the amounts of money being transferred in re-balancing asset allocations as is recommended be done once or twice a year. Those investing in load funds instead of no-load funds should keep in mind that several load funds waive the load for re-investment of distributions but some funds don't: the sales charge for the reinvestment is pure profit for the fund if the fund was purchased directly or passed on to the brokerage if the fund was purchased through a brokerage account. As Ben points out, a shareholder in a mutual fund must pay taxes (in the appropriate categories) on the distributions from the fund even though no actual cash has been received because the entire distribution has been reinvested. It is worth keeping in mind that when the mutual fund declares a distribution (say $1.22 a share), the Net Asset Value per share drops by the same amount (assuming no change in the prices of the securities that the fund holds) and the new shares issued are at this lower price. That is, there is no change in the value of the investment: if you had $10,000 in the fund the day before the distribution was declared, you still have $10,000 after the distribution is declared but you own more shares in the fund than you had previously. (In actuality, the new shares appear in your account a couple of days later, not immediately when the distribution is declared). In short, a distribution from a mutual fund that is re-invested leads to no change in your net assets, but does increase your tax liability. Ditto for a distribution that is taken as cash or re-invested elsewhere. As a final remark, net capital losses inside a mutual fund are not distributed to shareholders but are retained within the fund to be written off against future capital gains. See also this previous answer or this one.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7455173c32b84deeccb016729e52c76d",
"text": "You don't have to wait. If you sell your shares now, your gain can be considered a capital gain for income tax purposes. Unlike in the United States, Canada does not distinguish between short-term vs. long-term gains where you'd pay different rates on each type of gain. Whether you buy and sell a stock within minutes or buy and sell over years, any gain you make on a stock can generally be considered a capital gain. I said generally because there is an exception: If you are deemed by CRA to be trading professionally -- that is, if you make a living buying and selling stocks frequently -- then you could be considered doing day trading as a business and have your gains instead taxed as regular income (but you'd also be able to claim additional deductions.) Anyway, as long as your primary source of income isn't from trading, this isn't likely to be a problem. Here are some good articles on these subjects:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0bf9df35234c55b80d26c47745d7db62",
"text": "If you're a non resident then you owe no capital gains tax to Canada. Most banks won't let you make trades if you're a non-resident. They may not have your correct address on file so they don't realize this. This is not tax law but just OSC (or equivalent) regulations. You do have to fill out paperwork for withholding tax on OAS/CPP payments. This is something you probably already do but here's a link . It's complicated and depends on the country you live in. Of course you may owe tax in Thailand, I don't know their laws.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fa0eedb94ddb41b43cf2a8632c031a89",
"text": "\"In this scenario the date of income is the date on which the contract has been signed, even if you received the actual money (settlement) later. Regardless of the NY special law for residency termination - that is the standard rule for recognition of income during a cash (not installments) sale. The fact that you got the actual money later doesn't matter, which is similar to selling stocks on a public exchange. When you sell stocks through your broker on a public exchange - you still recognize the income on the day of the sale, not on the day of the settlement. This is called \"\"the Constructive Receipt doctrine\"\". The IRS publication 538 has this to say about the constructive receipt: Constructive receipt. Income is constructively received when an amount is credited to your account or made available to you without restriction. You need not have possession of it. If you authorize someone to be your agent and receive income for you, you are considered to have received it when your agent receives it. Income is not constructively received if your control of its receipt is subject to substantial restrictions or limitations. Once you signed the contract, the money has essentially been credited to your account with the counter-party, and unless they're bankrupt or otherwise insolvent - you have no restrictions over it. And also (more specifically for your case): You cannot hold checks or postpone taking possession of similar property from one tax year to another to postpone paying tax on the income. You must report the income in the year the property is received or made available to you without restriction. Timing wire transfer is akin to holding and not depositing a check, from this perspective. So unless there was a restriction that was lifted after you moved out of New York, I doubt you can claim that you couldn't have received it before moving out, i.e.: you have, in fact, constructively received it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b650fc4e0e907668b3089ab88e802163",
"text": "Equal sized gains and losses in alternating years would lead to an unjust positive tax. On the contrary. If I can take my gains at the long term rate (15%) in even years, but take losses in odd years, up to $3000, or let them offset short term gains at ordinary rate, I've just gamed the system. What is the purpose of the wash sale rule? Respectfully, we here can do a fine job of explaining how a bit of tax code works. And we can suggest the implication of those code bits. But, I suspect that it's not easy to explain the history of particular rules. For wash sale, the simple intent is to not let someone take a loss without actually selling the stock for a time. You'd be right to say the +/- 30 days is arbitrary. I'd ask you to keep 2 things in mind if you continue to frequent this board -",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ec9e92e8583f6e3fb635b2d9b7fe7e8e",
"text": "\"I had been pondering this recently myself too. This question motivated me to do a little research. It appears that what happens is that (take a deep breath) the capital gain does push you into the next tax bracket, but the capital gain is always interpreted as the \"\"last\"\" income you received, so that if your non-capital-gains income is less than the threshold, it will all be taxed in the lower bracket, and only your capital gain will be taxed in the higher bracket (but it will be taxed at the capital-gains rate of that higher bracket). In short, a capital gain can only push capital gains into higher capital-gains tax brackets; it cannot push ordinary income into higher ordinary-income tax brackets. In addition, the amount of the capital gain is taxed in a marginal fashion, such that any portion of the gain that will \"\"fit\"\" into a lower bracket will be taxed at a lower level, with only the topmost portion of any gain being taxed at the top rate. This site is one claiming this: Will capital gain or dividend income push my other income into a higher tax bracket? No, the tax rates apply first to your “ordinary income” (income from sources other than long-term capital gains or qualifying dividends) so these items that are taxed at special rates won’t push your other income into a higher tax bracket. If my ordinary income puts me in the 15% tax bracket, can I receive an unlimited amount of long-term capital gain at the 0% rate? No, the 0% rate applies only to the amount of long-term capital gain and dividend income needed to “fill up” the 15% tax bracket. For example, if your ordinary income is $4,000 below the figure that would put you in the 25% bracket and you have a $10,000 long-term capital gain, you’ll pay 0% on $4,000 of your capital gain and 15% on the rest. There are several Bogleheads forum threads (here, here, here and here) that also touch on the same issue. The last of those links to the IRS capital gains worksheet. I traced through the logic and I believe it confirms this. Here's how it works: (In conclusion, we now know Mitt Romney's secret.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "200fcef0533e0e0a2d7806632fc623de",
"text": "\"For example, if I have an income of $100,000 from my job and I also realize a $350,000 in long-term capital gains from a stock sale, will I pay 20% on the $350K or 15%? You'll pay 20% assuming filing single and no major offsets to taxable income. Capital gains count towards your income for determining tax bracket. They're on line 13 of the 1040 which is in the \"\"income\"\" section and aren't adjusted out/excluded from your taxable income, but since they are taxed at a different rate make sure to follow the instructions for line 44 when calculating your tax due.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5b05207842337ec0636cc55cd7c09c7b",
"text": "Long-term capital gains, as you note, get special tax treatment. They are lower than regular income tax rates. Short-term capital gains aren't penalized, they are just treated as regular income under the regular rates. So, from a tax perspective, the day-trader gets by the same way as the rest of us because they are paying the same rates on the same progressive income tax scale.",
"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": "0ebdfe4ade818d0840a54870502ca32a",
"text": "More likely I miswrote. Yes, we're talking about capital gains. But who, outside of the moneyed elite, have enough capital gains to incur substantial taxes? Many don't and never will despite how hard they work or how productive they are. Also, doesn't taxing income more than capital gains discourage production? I always hear how high capital gains tax discourages investment and growth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d1ca76eb17568106c8677da01b8a051",
"text": "In response to your points #1 and #2: In general, yes it is true that capital gains are only subject to half one's marginal rate of income tax. That doesn't mean 50% of the gain is due as tax... rather, it means that if one's marginal tax rate (tax bracket) on the next $10K would have been, say, 32%, then one is taxed on the gain at 16%. (The percentages are examples, not factual.) However, because these are employee stock options, the tax treatment is different than for a capital gain! Details: On the Federal tax return are lines for reporting Security option benefits (Line 101) and Security options deductions (Line 249). The distinction between a regular capital gain and an employee stock option benefits is important. In many cases the net effect may be the same as a capital gain, but the income is characterized differently and there are cases where it matters. Somebody who is about to or has realized employee stock option benefits should seek professional tax advice. In response to your next two points: No, one cannot transfer a capital gain or other investment income into a TFSA immediately after-the-fact in order to receive the tax-free benefits of the TFSA on that income. Only income and gains earned within a TFSA are free from tax – i.e. The options would have to have been in the TFSA before being exercised. Once a gain or other investment income has been realized in a non-sheltered account, it is considered taxable. The horse has already left the barn, so to speak! However, despite the above, there is another strategy available: One can create an offsetting deduction by contributing some of the realized gain into an RRSP. The RRSP contribution, assuming room is available, would yield a tax deduction to offset some tax due on the gain. However, the RRSP only defers income tax; upon withdrawal of funds, ordinary income tax is due (hopefully, at a lower marginal rate in retirement.) There is no minimum amount of time that money or assets have to be inside a TFSA to benefit from the tax-free nature of the account. However, there are limits on how much money you can move into a TFSA in any given year, and many folks weren't aware of the rules. p.s. Let me add once more that this is a case where I suggest seeking professional tax advice.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3fa31b1975e0d7a3e9f65372d31635a5",
"text": "Capital losses do mirror capital gains within their holding periods. An asset or investment this is certainly held for a year into the day or less, and sold at a loss, will create a short-term capital loss. A sale of any asset held for over a year to your day, and sold at a loss, will create a loss that is long-term. When capital gains and losses are reported from the tax return, the taxpayer must first categorize all gains and losses between long and short term, and then aggregate the sum total amounts for every single regarding the four categories. Then the gains that are long-term losses are netted against each other, therefore the same is done for short-term gains and losses. Then your net gain that is long-term loss is netted against the net short-term gain or loss. This final net number is then reported on Form 1040. Example Frank has the following gains and losses from his stock trading for the year: Short-term gains - $6,000 Long-term gains - $4,000 Short-term losses - $2,000 Long-term losses - $5,000 Net short-term gain/loss - $4,000 ST gain ($6,000 ST gain - $2,000 ST loss) Net long-term gain/loss - $1,000 LT loss ($4,000 LT gain - $5,000 LT loss) Final net gain/loss - $3,000 short-term gain ($4,000 ST gain - $1,000 LT loss) Again, Frank can only deduct $3,000 of final net short- or long-term losses against other types of income for that year and must carry forward any remaining balance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22134f97c9279b484342d04421ff2d5e",
"text": "\"'Note that \"\"to keep an investor from lowering their tax bill\"\" is not an explanation'. Well, yes it is. In fact it is the only explanation. The rule plainly exists to prevent someone from realizing a loss when their economic situation remains unchanged before/after a sale. Now, you might say 'but I have suffered a loss, even if it is unrealized!' But, would you want to pay tax on unrealized gains? The tax system still caters to reducing the tax impact of investments, particularly capital investments. Part and parcel with the system of taxing gains only when realized, is that you can recognize losses only when realized. Are there other ways to 'artificially' reduce taxable income? Yes. But the goal of a good tax system should be to reduce those opportunities. Whether you agree that it is fair for the government to prevent this tax-saving opportunity, when others exist, is another question. But that is why the rule exists.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "75ffd20447fc3efc958c6f9cf52db524",
"text": "Is the Grant Date or the Vest Date used when determining the 12-month cutoff for long-term and short-term capital gains? You don't actually acquire the stock until it's vested, so that is the date and price used to determine your cost basis and short-term/long-term gain/loss. The grant date really has no tax bearing. If you held the stock (time between vesting and sale) for more than one year you will owe long-term CG tax, if less than one year you will owe short-term CG tax.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8bb9b540faa16f59254b2eeffb1f03b5",
"text": "For the Roth the earnings: interest, dividends, capital gains distributions and capital gains are tax deferred. Which means that as long as the money stays inside of a Roth or is transferred/rolled over to another Roth there are no taxes due. In December many mutual funds distribute their gains. Let's say people invested in S&P500index fund receive a dividend of 1% of their account value. The investor in a non-retirement fund will be paying tax on that dividend in the Spring with their tax form. The Roth and IRA investors will not be paying tax on those dividends. The Roth investor never will, and the regular IRA investor will only pay taxes on it when they pull the money out.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b9838f030c43ae7ef9cb5567a6f0bf48",
"text": "My understanding is that when you die, the stocks are sold and then the money is given to the beneficiary or the stock is repurchased in the beneficiaries name. This is wrong, and the conclusion you draw from michael's otherwise correct answer follows your false assumption. You seem to understand the Estate Tax federal threshold. Jersey would have its own, and I have no idea how it works there. If the decedent happened to trade in the tax year prior to passing, normal tax rules apply. Now, if the executor chooses to sell off and liquidate the estate to cash, there's no further taxable gain, a $5M portfolio can have millions in long term gain, but the step up basis pretty much negates all of it. If that's the case, the beneficiaries aren't likely to repurchase those shares, in fact, they might not even know what the list of stocks was, unless they sifted through the asset list. But, that sale was unnecessary, assets can be divvied up and distributed in-kind, each beneficiary getting their fraction of the number of shares of each stock. And then your share of the $5M has a stepped up basis, meaning if you sell that day, your gains are near zero. You might owe a few dollars for whatever the share move in the time passing between the step up date and date you sell. I hope that clarifies your misunderstanding. By the way, the IRS is just an intermediary. It's congress that writes the laws, including the tangled web of tax code. The IRS is the moral equivalent of a great customer service team working for a company we don't care for.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
7678b12f64d8e84460bffa4b1ba687ab
|
What are investment options for young married couple with no debt that have maxed out retirement savings?
|
[
{
"docid": "85fff20fe4fa7addd4a2f7129c8cadb0",
"text": "4.7 is a pretty low rate, especially if you are deducting that from your taxes. If you reduce the number by your marginal tax rate to get the real cost of the money you end up with a number that isn't far off from inflation, and also represents a pretty low 'yield' in terms of paying off the loan early. (e.g. if your marginal tax rate is 28%, then the net you are paying in interest after the tax deduction is 4.7 * .72 = 3.384) While I'm all for paying off loans with higher rates (since it's in effect the same as making that much risk free on the money) it doesn't make a lot of sense when you are down at 3.4 unless there is a strong 'security factor' (which really makes a difference to some folks) to be had that really helps you sleep at night. (to be realistic, for some folks close to retirement, there can be a lot to be said for the security of not having to worry about house payments, although you don't seem to be in that situation yet) As others have said, first make sure you have enough liquid 'emergency money' in something like a money market account, or a ladder of short term CD's If you are sure that the sprouts will be going to college, then there's a lot to be said for kicking a decent amount into a 529, Coverdell ESA (Educational Savings Account), uniform gift to minors account, or some combination of those. I'm not sure if any of those plans can be used for a kid that has not been born yet however. I'd recommend http://www.savingforcollege.com as a good starting point to get more information on your various options. As with retirement savings, money put in earlier has a lot more 'power' over the final balance due to compounding interest, so there's a lot to be said for starting early, although depending on what it takes to qualify for the plans there could be such a thing as too early ;-) ). There's nothing wrong with Managed mutual funds as long as the fund objective and investing style is in alignment with your objectives and risk tolerance; The fund is giving you a good return relative to the market as a whole; You are not paying high fees or load charges; You are not losing a lot to taxes. I would always look at the return after expenses when comparing to other options, and if the money is not in a tax deferred account, also look at what sort of tax burden you will be faced with. A fund that trades a lot will generate more short term gains which means more taxes than compared to a more passive fund. Anything lost to taxes is money lost to you so needs to come out of the total return when you calculate that. Sometimes such funds are better off as a choice inside an IRA or 401K, and you can instead use more tax efficient vehicles for money where you have to pay the taxes every year on the gains. The reason a lot of folks like index funds better is that: Given your described age, it's not appropriate now, but in the long run as you get closer to retirement, you may want to start looking at building up some investments that are geared more towards generating income, such as bonds, or depending on taxes where you live, Municipal bonds. In any case, the more money you can set aside for retirement now, both inside and outside of tax deferred accounts, the sooner you will get to the point of the 'critical mass' you need to retire, at that point you can work because you want to, not because you have to.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0a9e5e503ff2d51c31561721478e15c2",
"text": "You can't max out your retirement savings. There are vehicles that aren't tax-advantaged that you can fund after you've exhausted the tax-advantaged ones. Consider how much you want to put into these vehicles. There are disadvantages as well as advantages. The rules on these can change at any time and can make it harder for you to get your money out. How's your liquid (cash) emergency fund? It sounds like you're in a position to amass a good one. Don't miss this opportunity. Save like crazy while you can. Kids make this harder. Paying down your mortgage will save you interest, of course, but make sure you're not cash-poor as a result. If something happens to your income(s), the bank will still foreclose on you even if you only owe $15,000. A cash cushion buys you time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "80acffb45c8498b0f661c11609063965",
"text": "\"Paying the mortgage down is no different than investing in a long term taxable fixed instrument. In this economy, 4.7% isn't bad, but longer term, the stock market should return higher. When you have the kid(s), is your wife planing to work? If not, I'd first suggest going pre-tax on the IRAs, and when she's not working, convert to Roth. I'd advise against starting the 529 accounts until your child(ren) is actually born. As far as managed funds are concerned, I hear \"\"expenses.\"\" Why not learn about lower cost funds, index mutual funds or ETFs? I'd not do too much different aside from this, until the kids are born.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "8b0c286ab645d8767cbf1e001122d581",
"text": "Put in the maximum you can into the 401(k), the limit should be $16,500 so long as the highly compensated rules don't kick in. Since you cannot deduct the traditional IRA, it's a great option to deposit to a traditional IRA and immediately convert that balance to a Roth account. That puts you at $21,500/yr saved, nearly 18%. There's nothing stopping you from investing outside these accounts. A nice ETF with low expenses, investing in a stock index (I am thinking SPY for the S&P 500) is great to accumulate long term.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc904594eeef2dc814c1121ab7f0ffd0",
"text": "The biggest challenge as a young person maxing out a 401k in my opinion is the challenge of saving for a house, and (if necessary) paying off student loans. You have to consider - are you OK renting for the next 3, 5, 10 years? Or do you eventually want to buy a place? how much will that cost vs your current expenses? That being said, I didn't max out but had over 8-10% of 401k contribution in the same situation you're in right now and I don't regret it. Rereading your question, I see you are considering investing in a Roth IRA. Especially at your current age, assuming your wages will go UP, investing to the company match with the 401K and then maxing out a Roth IRA would be my recommendation. THEN continue maxing out the 401k (if you wish). P.S. I highly recommend doing two things if you go down this path:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd8d505bbe47d1a16680b5ed19bc6230",
"text": "Craig touched on it, but let me expand on the point. Deposits, by definition, are withheld at your marginal rate. And since you can choose Roth vs Traditional right till filing time, you know with certainty the rate you are at each year. Absent any other retirement income, i.e. no pension, and absent an incredibly major change to our tax code, I know your starting rate, zero. The first $10K or so per person is part of their standard deduction and exemption. For a couple, the next $18k is taxed at 10%, and so on. Let me stop here to expand this important point. This is $38,000 for the couple, and the tax on it is less than $1900. 5%. There is no 5% bracket of course. It's the first $20K with zero tax, and that first $18,000 taxed at 10%. That $38,000 takes nearly $1M in pretax accounts to offer as an annual withdrawal. The 15% bracket starts after this, and applies to the next $57K of withdrawals each year. Over $95K in gross withdrawals of pretax money, and you still aren't in the 25% bracket. This is why 100% in traditional, or 100% in Roth aren't either ideal. I continue to offer the example I consider more optimizing - using Roth for income that would otherwise be taxed at 15%, but going pretax when you hit 25%. Then at retirement, you withdraw enough traditional to just stay at 10 or 15% and Roth for the rest. It would be a shame to retire 100% Roth and realize you paid 25% but now have no income to use up those lower brackets. Oddly, time value of money isn't part of my analysis. It makes no difference. And note, the exact numbers do change a bit each year for inflation. There's a also a good chance the exemptions goes away in favor of a huge increased standard deduction.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "39efca8110c7d497f195cadf2e5cc2fe",
"text": "I think you have a good start understanding the ESA. $2k limit per child per year. The other choice is a 529 account which has a much higher limit. You can deposit up to 5 years worth of gifting per child, or $65k per child from you and another $65k from your wife. Sounds great, right? The downside is the 529 typically has fewer investment options, and doesn't allow for individual stocks. The S&P fund in my 529 costs me nearly 1% per year, in the ESA, .1%. the ESA has to be used by age 30, the 529 can be held indefinitely.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "66a8d2bd6df7b51a688f52da91c955b0",
"text": "\"Your question is very broad. Whole books can and have been written on this topic. The right place to start is for you and your wife to sit down together and figure out your goals. Where do you want to be in 5 years, 25 years, 50 years? To quote Yogi Berra \"\"If you don't know where you are going, you'll end up someplace else.\"\" Let's go backwards. 50 Years I'm guessing the answer is \"\"retired, living comfortably and not having to worry about money\"\". You say you work an unskilled government job. Does that job have a pension program? How about other retirement savings options? Will the pension be enough or do you need to start putting money into the other retirement savings options? Career wise, do you want to be working as in unskilled government jobs until you retire, or do you want to retire from something else? If so, how do you get there? Your goals here will affect both your 25 year plan and your 5 year plan. Finally, as you plan for death, which will happen eventually. What do you want to leave for your children? Likely the pension will not be transferred to your children, so if you want to leave them something, you need to start planning ahead. 25 Years At this stage in your life, you are likely talking, college for the children and possibly your wife back at work (could happen much earlier than this, e.g., when the kids are all in school). What do you want for your children in college? Do you want them to have the opportunity to go without having to take on debt? What savings options are there for your children's college? Also, likely with all your children out of the house at college, what do you and your wife want to do? Travel? Give to charity? Own your own home? 5 Years You mention having children and your wife staying at home with them. Can your family live on just your income? Can you do that and still achieve your 50 and 25 year goals? If not, further education or training on your part may be needed. Are you in debt? Would you like to be out of debt in the next 5-10 years? I know I've raised more questions than answers. This is due mostly to the nature of the question you've asked. It is very personal, and I don't know you. What I find most useful is to look at where I want to be in the near, mid and long term and then start to build a plan for how I get there. If you have older friends or family who are where you want to be when you reach their age, talk to them. Ask them how they got there. Also, there are tons of resources out there to help you. I won't suggest any specific books, but look around at the local library or look online. Read reviews of personal finance books. Read many and see how they can give you the advice you need to reach your specific goals. Good luck!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "40965c0ba17523dcab20b0d0a7b79a96",
"text": "\"(Since you used the dollar sign without any qualification, I assume you're in the United States and talking about US dollars.) You have a few options here. I won't make a specific recommendation, but will present some options and hopefully useful information. Here's the short story: To buy individual stocks, you need to go through a broker. These brokers charge a fee for every transaction, usually in the neighborhood of $7. Since you probably won't want to just buy and hold a single stock for 15 years, the fees are probably unreasonable for you. If you want the educational experience of picking stocks and managing a portfolio, I suggest not using real money. Most mutual funds have minimum investments on the order of a few thousand dollars. If you shop around, there are mutual funds that may work for you. In general, look for a fund that: An example of a fund that meets these requirements is SWPPX from Charles Schwabb, which tracks the S&P 500. Buy the product directly from the mutual fund company: if you go through a broker or financial manager they'll try to rip you off. The main advantage of such a mutual fund is that it will probably make your daughter significantly more money over the next 15 years than the safer options. The tradeoff is that you have to be prepared to accept the volatility of the stock market and the possibility that your daughter might lose money. Your daughter can buy savings bonds through the US Treasury's TreasuryDirect website. There are two relevant varieties: You and your daughter seem to be the intended customers of these products: they are available in low denominations and they guarantee a rate for up to 30 years. The Series I bonds are the only product I know of that's guaranteed to keep pace with inflation until redeemed at an unknown time many years in the future. It is probably not a big concern for your daughter in these amounts, but the interest on these bonds is exempt from state taxes in all cases, and is exempt from Federal taxes if you use them for education expenses. The main weakness of these bonds is probably that they're too safe. You can get better returns by taking some risk, and some risk is probably acceptable in your situation. Savings accounts, including so-called \"\"money market accounts\"\" from banks are a possibility. They are very convenient, but you might have to shop around for one that: I don't have any particular insight into whether these are likely to outperform or be outperformed by treasury bonds. Remember, however, that the interest rates are not guaranteed over the long run, and that money lost to inflation is significant over 15 years. Certificates of deposit are what a bank wants you to do in your situation: you hand your money to the bank, and they guarantee a rate for some number of months or years. You pay a penalty if you want the money sooner. The longest terms I've typically seen are 5 years, but there may be longer terms available if you shop around. You can probably get better rates on CDs than you can through a savings account. The rates are not guaranteed in the long run, since the terms won't last 15 years and you'll have to get new CDs as your old ones mature. Again, I don't have any particular insight on whether these are likely to keep up with inflation or how performance will compare to treasury bonds. Watch out for the same things that affect savings accounts, in particular fees and reduced rates for balances of your size.\"",
"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": "29d5fc6040fe343efceb9bc309b9c78e",
"text": "If you're maxing out your 401k, just save in tax-efficient investments like stocks and tax efficient funds. If you live in a state with income taxes, look at municipal bond funds for some tax-free income. In 2011, be careful with bond funds and look for short duration funds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c3f562533bf3c3b4127193481644ff96",
"text": "\"The word you are looking for is \"\"budget\"\" You can't pay off debt if you are spending more than you earn. Therefore, start a budget that you both work on at the same time, and both agree 100% with. Evaluate your progress on that budget on a regular basis. From your question, you understand what your obligations are and you seem to manage money pretty well. Therefore your key to retirement is just the ticket you need. As newlyweds, you both have to be VERY aware that the main reason a marriage fails in the US is money issues. Starting out with a groundwork where you both agree to your budget and can keep it will help you a lot in your upcoming life. Then, for some details Sprinkle your charitable donations anywhere in the list where you feel it is important.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "401c061194dac9da8592747cd33c6a11",
"text": "With a Roth IRA, you can withdraw the contributions at any time without penalty as long as you don't withdraw the earnings/interest. There are some circumstances where you can withdraw the earnings such as disability (and maybe first home). Also, the Roth IRA doesn't need to go through your employer and I wouldn't do it through your employer. I have mine setup through Fidelity though I'm not sure if they have any guaranteed 3% return unless it was a CD. All of mine is in stocks. Your wife could also setup a Roth IRA so over 2 years, you could contribute $20,000. If I was you, I would just max out any 403-b matches (which you surely are at 25% of gross income) and then save my down payment money in a normal money market/savings account. You are doing good contributing almost 25% to the 403-b. There are also some income limitations on Roth IRAs. I believe for a married couple, it is $160k.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "abb269f55d7bd3bd7418fe02121cf251",
"text": "At the very least you should invest as much as you can that your employer will match, as they are basically giving you free money for saving. After that I would prioritize a Roth IRA as that offers similar tax benefits with more liquidity. Provided you have enough money available in your emergency fund and have plenty for everyday expenses I see no reason not to max out your 401k after that if you can afford it. However, if your emergency fund is lacking, be sure to put some there. Other investments like a 529 may come into play if you have kids you plan on sending to college, but it all depends on your situation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "18e2dbbfbc4a95e3a737de96b732f1da",
"text": "You are young so you have time on your side. This allows you to invest in more aggressive investments. I would do the following 1) Contribute at least what your company is willing to match on your 401k, if your company offers a Roth 401k use that instead of the normal 401k (When this becomes available to you) 2) Open a Roth IRA Contribute the maximum to this account ~$5500/year 3) Live below your means, setup a budget and try and save/invest a minimum of 50% of your salary, do not get used to spending more money. With each bonus or salary increase a minimum of 75% of it should go toward your savings/investment. This will keep you from rapidly increasing your spending budget. 3) Invest in real estate (this could be its own post). Being young and not too far out of college you have probably been moving every year and have not accumulated so much stuff that it makes moving difficult. I would utilize your FHA loan slot to buy a multifamily property (2-4 Units) for your first property using only 3.5% down payment (you can put more down if you like). Learn how to analyze properties first and find a great Realtor/Mentor. Then I would continue as a NOMAD investor. Where you move every year into a new owner occupied property and turn the previous into a rental. This allows you to put 3-5% down payment of properties that you would otherwise have to put 20-25% and since you are young you can afford the risk. You should check out this article/website as it is very informative and can show you the returns that you could earn. Young Professional Nomad Good luck I am in a very similar situation",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3bf43f2321a84a27029a6e197426ed56",
"text": "You're absolutely correct. If you have maxed out your retirement investment vehicles and have some additional investments in a regular taxable account, you can certainly use that as an emergency source of funds without much downside. (You can borrow from many retirement account but there are downsides.) Sure, you risk selling at a loss when/if you need the money, but I'd rather take the risk and take advantage of the investment growth that I would miss if I kept my emergency fund in cash or money market. And you can choose how much risk you're willing to take on when you invest the money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8dd79db65f2185bdc8fe64923d0173c3",
"text": "\"Is the mortgage debt too high? The rental property is in a hot RE market, so could be easily sold with significant equity. However, they would prefer to keep it. Given the current income, there is no stress. However in absence of any other liquid [cash/near cash] assets, having everything locked into Mortgage is quite high. Even if real estate builds assets, these are highly illiquid investments. Have debt on such investments is risky; if there are no other investments. Essentially everything looks fine now, but if there is an crisis, unwinding mortgage debt is time consuming and if it forces distress sale, it would wipe out any gains. Can they afford another mortgage, and in what amount? (e.g. they are considering $50K for a small cabin, which could be rented out). I guess they can. But should they? Or diversify into other assets like stocks etc. Other than setting cash aside, what would be some good uses of funds to make sure the money would appreciate and outpace inflation and add a nice bonus to retirement? Mutual Funds / Stocks / bullions / 401K or other such retirement plans. They are currently in mid-30's. If there is ONE key strategy or decision they could make today that would help them retire \"\"early\"\" (say, mid-50's), what should it be? This opinion based ... it depends on \"\"what their lifestyle is\"\" and what would they want their \"\"lifestyle\"\" to be when they retire. They should look at saving enough corpus that would give an year on year yield equivalent to the retirement expenses.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b5cb9014490f54e93bdd3c759e17a493",
"text": "Granted, currencies don't have intrinsic value. Cryptocurrency is worse than government currencies in a few ways: - it costs real resources to produce - no institution keeps values stable - values are volatile in practice In those respects, crypto is more similar to a precious metal than a currency. Except it's worse than precious metals too, as metals have some intrinsic value. Crypto won't be able to overcome these disadvantages to compete with government-issued currencies in the long term. It might compete with gold long term. There are a lot of nuts and gold bugs in the world, and crypto might live on in that fringe space.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
2985b76ea8ca1ad63c67a83bc74a3b85
|
If USA defaults on its debt, will the T bond holder get back his money
|
[
{
"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": "ecbce6fb051a2cb6791038ba17979cbf",
"text": "There is no situation one can imagine in which the US defaults (beyond a day or three) on its obligations. The treasury can print money, and while it would be disastrous, 'monetizing' the debt would simply eliminate all outstanding debt at the risk of devaluing the dollar to hyperinflation levels.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "0d7882c298cb26a09da949ad3a233ca7",
"text": "\"Its definitely not a stupid question. The average American has absolutely no idea how this process works. I know this might be annoying, but I'm answering without 100% certainty. The Fed would increase the money supply by buying back government bonds. This increased demand for bonds would raise their price and therefore lower the interest return that they deliver. Since U.S. treasury bonds are considered to be the very safest possible investment, their rate is the \"\"risk free\"\" rate upon which all other rates are based. So if the government buys billions of these bonds, that much money ends up in the hands of whoever sold them. These sellers are the large financial organizations that hold all of our money (banks and large investment vehicles). Now, since bond rates are lower, they have an incentive to put that money somewhere else. It goes into stocks and investment in business ventures. I'm less certain about how this turns into inflation that consumers will recognize. The short answer is that there is only a finite number of goods and services for us to buy. If the amount of money increases and there are still the same number of goods and services, the prices will increase slightly. Your question about printing money to pay off debts is too complex for me to answer. I know that the inflation dynamic does play a role. It makes debts easier to pay off in the future than they seem right now. However, causing massive inflation to pay off debts brings a lot of other problems.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b6b44c3e9f0f7b02c284a23f945e7de1",
"text": "This is a extremely complicated subject, but I assume you want a very simple answer (otherwise I'm not qualified to answer). The value of most currencies is closely tied to the economy of the county, so if China were to print a huge amount of yuan, then since the value of their economy has not really changed, the international currency markets would devalue the yuan to compensate. (This is rather like, if have shares in, say Apple, and they were to issue an extra billion shares, then the value of your shares would fall (by half), rather than for Apple to be suddenly be worth twice as much) Print too many notes and your currency basically becomes almost worthless, which is what happened to the Zimbabwean dollar. I like the idea of China skipping crate loads of actual yuan or dollars notes to America, but in practice, the borrowing is just a paper exercise, rather like an IOU. As to whether America owes Yuan or dollars, the answer is whatever has been agreed. Assuming the currencies are fairly stable, then since each country has more control over their own currency, it is natural for them to prefer their own currency. However, if America believes the value of the dollar will increase, they may prefer to pay back in Yuan (costing them less dollars), and if China believes the value of the dollar will decrease they may agree to that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8dd0398ca01677625934f73a4fcc29ac",
"text": "\"> So you are saying down the road the FED might cancel out the amount of T-Bills and MBS they hold with the Treasury? I'm saying they don't have to, for the US government will never have difficulty servicing its entirely USD-denominated debt. So if you think doing so would confuse/anger foreign nations, fine, don't do it. I *would* however advise that the government stops issuing 10yr bonds in favour of funding itself off no more than say 28 day T-Bills. The reason being is that the latter's basically just creating a whole unneeded industry of speculators providing an entirely unneeded service of \"\"locking in\"\" interest rates for the government 10yrs at a time. Waste of time, waste of resources. The goverment shouldn't be subsidising that kind of activity.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5916d0641665dba5b9bd44c1ea6d82c8",
"text": "It's all about risk. In 1990, expressing the idea of the US defaulting on debt payments would result in you being labelled as a crank. Yet in 2011, the President and Speaker of the House played chicken with the credit of the United States, and have a date to do it again in December 2011.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "f6a9e39151c6a3052c0bdb72b2424316",
"text": "\"In 2001, Argentina defaulted on it's debt, and started negotiating a \"\"haircut\"\" with it's debtors. As a result, a lot of the debtors sold the bonds they had a fire-sale prices, thinking better get some back than nothing. One of the guys that bought those cheap bonds was Paul Singer AKA \"\"Mr. Vulture Hedge-fund\"\". I'll speculate here saying that Mr. Singer saw that the bond conditions gave him a way to force Argentina to pay the full value of the bonds notwithstanding it's default or negotiated haircut. Argentina did negotiate a haircut with about 97% of it's bond-holders. This meant that although they would lose out on some of the money, they would still get some back, and Argentina could work its way back to its feet eventually. Mr. Singer and friends were the 3% that did not accept the haircut, and took the country to court to get 100% of the bond value back. Now, the plot thickens. I don't understand if Mr. Singer knew this or not, but the bonds also had a post-2001 condition that said that no bond-holder would be worst-off than the highest bond deal Argentina offered anyone. Which basically means, if they pay Mr. Singer 100%, they have to pay everybody else 100%. Now, it was well established that Argentina could not pay 100%, and is not able to pay 100% of the debt, hence the 2001 default. Meanwhile, Argentina was paying out the hair-cut bonds, but holding out on Mr. Singer and friends as they still didn't agree to pay 100%. The courts ruled that they could not do this, and had to pay everybody. Since Argentina cannot pay everybody 100%, it is defaulting on the debt.\"",
"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": "660685a194380c93505c1f1b31e091ec",
"text": "> Your preferred answer: It's not debt, it's magic. It never has to be paid back. It's certainly not magic, but it is both a debt and an asset. It adds a net amount of 0 to the balance sheet, while providing a little under 100 billion dollars of income to the US Treasury. You don't seem to know what QE is.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d48578895b425cd15eff32ed8cc1d594",
"text": "\"This is a hard question to answer. Government debt and mortgages are loosely related. Banks typically use yields on government bonds to determine mortgage interest rates. The banks must be able to get higher rates from the mortgage otherwise they would buy government bonds. Your question mentions default so I'm assuming a country has reneged on its promise to pay either the principal or interest on government bonds. The main thing to consider is \"\"Who does not get their money?\"\". In other words, who does the government decide not to pay. This is the important part. The government will have some money so they could pay some bond holders. They must decide who to shaft. For example, let's look at who holds Greek government debt. Around 70% of Greek government debt is held outside Greece. See table below. The Greek government could decide to default only on the debt to foreign holders. In that case the banks in France and Switzerland would take the loss on their bonds. This could cause severe problems in France and Switzerland depending on the percentage of Greek bonds that make up the banks' assets. Greek banks would still face losses, however, since the price of their Greek bond holdings would drop sharply when the government defaults. Interestingly, the losses for the Greek banks may be smaller than the losses faced by the French and Swiss banks. This is usually the favored option chosen by government since the French and Swiss don't vote in Greece. Yields on Greek government bonds would rise dramatically. If your Greek mortgage is an adjustable rate mortgage then you could see some big adjustments upward. If you live in France or Switzerland then the bank that owns your mortgage may go under if Greece defaults. During liquidation the bank will sell their assets which includes mortgages and you will probably not notice any difference in your mortgage. As I stated earlier: this is a hard question to answer since the two financial instruments involved (bonds and mortgages) are similar but may or may not be related.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e7ef5250d5231352ccfe61ce9ffb9660",
"text": "\"Sovereigns cannot go bankrupt. Basically, when a sovereign government (this includes nations and US States, probably political subdivisions in other countries as well) becomes insolvent, they default. Sovereigns with the ability to issue new currency have the option to do so because it is politically expedient. Sovereigns in default will negotiate with creditor committees to reduce payments. Creditors with debt backed by the \"\"full faith and credit\"\" of the sovereign are generally first in line. Creditors with debt secured by revenue may be entitled to the underlying assets that provide the revenue. The value of your money in the bank in a deposit account may be at risk due to currency devaluation or bank failure. A default by a major country would likely lock up the credit markets, and you may see yourself in a situation where money market accounts actually fall in value.\"",
"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": "2928f152a15e3605c3079368d91b69d3",
"text": "The issuer pays (negative money in this case) to the holder. The person you sold your borrowed bond to gets this (negative) amount. The person who you lent you the bond is eligible for that (negative) payment, they were the original holder of the bond. When you return the bond you thus have to compensate the original holder. Now turn around the cash flows and you're there. The new holder pays the issuer, the original holder pays you.",
"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": "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": "bc3566ab57f88d8d038aa825c268d2a6",
"text": "I always find this funny. How can government bonds be in attractive and currency be attractive? With monetary policy America guarantees that it can't default on debt. The only thing that can happen which breaks this is if the government prints itself out of debt. In which case not only will you bonds be worthless but so will your cash. So to all the investors with boats of cash, you are trading one problem for the same problem. The only difference is you can hold the second problem in your hands. Fools.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
4f01908312fa65c70e10e202a8b03547
|
How can I predict which way mortgage rates are moving?
|
[
{
"docid": "df2f4da41104a279d24c1f9062983c1e",
"text": "Obviously you can't predict the future too much, but it's not too hard to figure out what is going to happen to mortgage rates in the short term. Mortgage rates are heavily influenced by 10 year treasury yields. You can find the daily 10 year rates here. It's easy to see the direction they've been moving recently. It usually takes a few days for mortgage rates to follow if the 10 year treasury yield is dropping (although if it's going up, mortgage rates will go up faster than they will fall). Here's a sample of all the 10 year treasury yields for the past 10 years. Looks like a good time to get a mortgage or refinance! You can also take a look at movements in mortgage backed securities. Here you can find a chart for Fannie Mae 3.0% mortgages. As the price goes up, mortgage rates go down. Think of it this way. Right now people are will to pay $103 for $100 worth of 3.0% mortgages. That doesn't really make sense because I could just loan you $100 at 3.0% and turn around and sell it for $103 immediately, pocketing the $3 profit. The reason is because right now, no one would willingly borrow money at 3.0%. Rates have fallen so much that if a bank has a customer paying them 3.0% on a mortgage, other people are willing to pay a premium on that mortgage. New mortgages are probably being written for 2.0%. (There is no current mortgage backed security for 2.0% fannie maes because rates have never been this low before).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9870fc6c5cb390e8cbeca543fbef2f65",
"text": "Mortgage rates generally consist of two factors: The risk premium is relatively constant for a particular individual / house combination, so most of the changes in your mortgage rate will be associated with changes in the price of money in the world economy at large. Interest rates in the overall economy are usually tied to an interest rate called the Federal Funds rate. The Federal Reserve manipulates the federal funds rate by buying and/or selling bonds until the rate is something they like. So you can usually expect your interest rate to rise or fall depending on the policies of the Federal Reserve. You can predict this in a couple of ways: The way they have described their plans recently indicates that will keep interest rates low for an extended period of time - probably through 2014 or so - and they hope to keep inflation around 2%. Unless inflation is significantly more than 2% between now and then, they are extremely unlikely to change that plan. As such, you should probably not expect mortgage interest rates in general to change more than infinitesimally small amounts until 2014ish. Worry more about your credit score.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "584de925e50869048ed428309b9d453b",
"text": "If economic conditions are weakening, i.e. unemployment rising, business and consummer confidence dropping, etc., you can expect interest rates and thus mortgage rates to drop. If economic conditions are strengthening you can expect interest rates and thus mortgage rates to start rising. As you are in the US, and with official interest rates there at 0.25% there is not much room for these rates to fall further. I am in Australia, with official interest rates at 3.75%, and with the economic weakness in the US and Europe and with China slowing down, we can expect our rates to fall further over the next year. Regarding your timeframe of one to two weeks, unless there is a decision on rates in the US in the next week I don't think there would be much change, especially with rates there at record lows. You are probably best to shop around for the best rates now and refinance once you have found one you are happy with.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "f595b1e50b0683b20aa07a69001c969c",
"text": "\"One way to think of the typical fixed rate mortgage, is that you can calculate the balance at the end of the month. Add a month's interest (rate times balance, then divide by 12) then subtract your payment. The principal is now a bit less, and there's a snowball effect that continues to drop the principal more each month. Even though some might object to my use of the word \"\"compounding,\"\" a prepayment has that effect. e.g. you have a 5% mortgage, and pay $100 extra principal. If you did nothing else, 5% compounded over 28 years is about 4X. So, if you did this early on, it would reduce the last payment by about $400. Obviously, there are calculators and spreadsheets that can give the exact numbers. I don't know the rules for car loans, but one would actually expect them to work similarly, and no, you are not crazy to expect that. Just the opposite.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc630ecd66dc499dc67deceaf82681ed",
"text": "\"In addition to the information in the other answer, I would suggest looking at an economic calendar. These provide the dates and values of many economic announcements, e.g. existing home sales, durable orders, consumer confidence, etc. Yahoo, Bloomberg, and the Wall Street Journal all provide such calendars. Yahoo provides links to the raw data where available; Bloomberg and the WSJ provide links to their article where appropriate. You could also look at a global economic calendar; both xe.com and livecharts.co.uk provide these. If you're only interested in the US, the Yahoo, Bloomberg, and WSJ calendars may provide a higher signal-to-noise ratio, but foreign announcements also affect US markets, so it's important to get as much perspective as possible. I like the global economic calendars I linked to above because they rate announcements on \"\"priority\"\", which is a quick way to learn which announcements have the greatest effect. Economic calendars are especially important in the context of an interview because you may be asked a follow-up question. For example, the US markets jumped in early trading today (5/28/2013) because the consumer confidence numbers exceeded forecasts (from the WSJ calendar, 76.2 vs 2.3). As SRKX stated, it's important to know more than the numbers; being able to analyze the numbers in the context of the wider market and being aware of the fundamentals driving them is what's most important. An economic calendar is a good way to see this information quickly and succinctly. (I'm paraphrasing part of my answer to another question, so you may or may not find some of that information helpful as well; I'm certainly not suggesting you look at the website of every central bank in the morning. That's what an economic calendar is for!)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bbb5cf86b6ab4784bc588a20e2d96659",
"text": "Regardless of how long the mortgage has left, the return you get on prepayments is identical to the mortgage rate. (What happens on your tax return is a different matter.) It's easier to get a decent financial calculator (The TI BA-35 is my favorite) than to construct spreadsheets which may or may not contain equation errors. When I duplicate John's numbers, $100K mortgage, 4% rate, I get a 60 mo remaining balance of 90,447.51 and with $50 extra, $87132.56, a diff of $3314.95. $314.95 return on the $3000. $315 over 5yrs is $63/yr, over an average $1500 put in, 63/1500 = 4.2%. Of course the simple math of just averaging the payment creates that .2% error. A 60 payment $50 returning $314.95 produces 4.000%. @Peter K - with all due respect, there's nothing for me about time value of money calculations that can be counter-intuitive. While I like playing with spreadsheets, the first thing I do is run a few scenarios and double check using the calculator. Your updated sheet is now at 3.76%? A time vaule of money calculation should not have rounding errors that larger. It's larger than my back of envelope calculation. @Kaushik - if you don't need the money, and would buy a CD at the rate of your mortgage, then pay early. Nothing wrong with that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "50c29401d0ad5c19a05ba7f906e56cbe",
"text": "I was typing up a long response and lost it to a backspace.. so, I apologize but I don't intend on rewriting it all. You'll have to use a method called bootstrapping to get the forward rates. Essentially you're looking at the spot rate today, and the forward rates, then filling in what must be the rate to make them equal out in the end. Sorry I'm not more help!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a562465e788a271ee8be89b8ddf16870",
"text": "This website is based around Ontario mortgage rates trends are similar to the trends in all Canadian provinces. To make the best choice you need to be aware of the best mortgage rates available and of their details. The access to statistics is really beneficial as it provides you with information how rates change over the years... It is the perfect presence for your Business.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c7b5e49eac72c5c8079a6d70519277a2",
"text": "how do these margins vary over time Depends on a lot of factors. The bank's financial health, bank's ongoing business activities, profits generated from it's other businesses. If it is new to mortgages, it mightn't take a bigger margin to grow its business. If it is in the business for long, it might not be ready to tweak it down. If the housing market is down, they might lower their margin's to make lending attractive. If their competitors are lowering their margins, the bank in question might also. Do they rise when the base rate rises, or fall, or are they uncorrelated? When rates rise(money is being sucked out to curb spending), large amount of spending decreases. So you can imagine margins will need to decrease to keep the mortgage lending at previous levels. Would economic growth drive them up or down? Economic growth might make them go up. Like in case 1, base rates are low -> people are spending(chances are inflation will be high) -> margins will be higher(but real value of money will be dependent on inflation) Is there any kind of empirical or theoretical basis to guess at their movement? Get a basic text book on macroeconomics, the rates and inflation portion will be there. How the rates influence the money supply and all. It will much more sense. But the answer will encompass a mixture of all conditions and not a single one in isolation. So there isn't a definitive answer. This might give you an idea of how it works. It is for variable mortgage but should be more or less near to what you desire.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d0b1d2bbd775a5706e0adc420aefddc",
"text": "Taking the help of experts is the best possible offer that an individual can look forward to. In that case calculating the current mortgage interest rates in MN becomes more important. Best home refinancing company, MN offers you the scope to deal with mortgage calculators. These are modern and tech savvy tools that take into consideration various factors related to the same.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a7ead60eedc175f97ee396c2785e16e2",
"text": "You can have a pretty good guess by looking at price pattern and order flow (size of the trades) a) price should be traded in a range b) relatively large size orders, speed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5887589fd2f004e5ffadf2a922b01929",
"text": "Im creating a 5-year projection on Profit and loss, cash flow and balance sheet and i\\m suppose to use the LIBOR (5 year forward curve) as interest rate on debt. This is the information i am given and it in USD. Thanks for the link. I guess its the USD LIBOR today, in one year, in two years, three years, four years and five years",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b949e7c4d790bedfd8add9e42eca3b2",
"text": "Generically, interest rates being charged are driven in large part by the central bank's rate and competition tends to keep similar loans priced fairly close to each other. Interest rates being paid are driven by what's needed to get folks to lend you their money (deposit in bank, purchase bonds) so it's again related. There certainly isn't very direct coupling, but in general interest rates of all sorts do tend to swing (very) roughly in the same direction at (very) roughly the same time... so the concept that interest rates of all types are rising or falling at any given moment is a simplification but not wholly unreasonable. If you want to know which interest rates a particular person is citing to back up their claim you really need to ask them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ccb71fa99e07c304004b78e7c1b9e1a2",
"text": "There are few different types of MI you can choose from, they are: Borrower-Paid Monthly (this is what most people think of when they think MI) Borrower-Paid Single Premium (you may have QM issues on this) Lender Paid Single Premium Split Up-front and Monthly The only way to determine which option will ultimately cost you less is to come up with a time estimate or range for how long you anticipate you will hold this mortgage, then look at each option over that time, and see where they fall. To answer your question about the single-premium being added to your loan, this typically does not happen (outside of FHA/VA). The reason for that is you would now have 90%+ financing and fall into a new pricing bracket, if not being disqualified altogether. What is far more typical is the use of premium pricing to pay this up-front premium. Premium pricing is where you take a lender credit in exchange for an elevated rate; it is the exact opposite of paying points to buy down your rate. For example: say a zero point rate is 4.25%, and you have monthly MI of say .8%. Your effective rate would be 5.05%. It may be possible to use premium pricing at an elevated rate of say 4.75% to pay your MI up front--now your effective rate is the note rate of 4.75%. This is how a single premium can save you money. Keep in mind though, the 4.75% will be your rate for the life of the loan, and in the other scenario, once the MI drops off, the effective rate will go back down from 5.05% to 4.25%. This is why it is critical to know your estimated length of financing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "05fa12e18a0cfd27bb2b305be522e2f2",
"text": "There's a few things going on here. If we fixed rates (and terms) over time we'd expect a pretty tight chart of home prices to income, almost lockstep. Add a layer of growth above that in boom times due to the wealth effect (when stocks are way up, we have extra money to blow on bigger houses) and the opposite when markets are down. Next, the effect of rates. With long term rates dropping from 14% in 1985 to 5% in 2003, the amount that can be bought for the same monthly payment rises dramatically as rates fall. Easy to lose site of that and the fact that the average size house has increased about 1.5% per year over the last 40 years, surely that can't continue. When you normalize all these factors, houses cost fewer hours-worked almost at the peak of the market than 25 years ago. Mike's logical example of extrapolating out is very clever, I like it. In the short term, we'll see periods that are booms and busts, but actual prices will straddle the line representing the borrowing power of a week's pay.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a8ab10fa53729a333b3bbac5f5281fc0",
"text": "As of now in 2016, is is safe to assume that mortgage rates would/should not get back to 10%? What would the rates be in future is speculation. It depends on quite a few things, overall economy, demand / supply, liquidity in market etc ... Chances are less that rates would show a dramatic rise in near future. Does this mean that one should always buy a house ONLy when mortgage rates are low? Is it worth the wait IF the rates are high right now? Nope. House purchase decision are not solely based on interest rates. There are quite a few other aspects to consider, the housing industry, your need, etc. Although interest rate do form one of the aspect to consider specially affordability of the EMI. Is refinancing an option on the table, if I made a deal at a bad time when rates are high? This depends on the terms of current mortgage. Most would allow refinance, there may be penal charges breaking the current mortgage. Note refinance does not always mean that you would get a better rate. Many mortgages these days are on variable interest rates, this means that they can go down or go up. How can people afford 10% mortgage? Well if you buy a small cheaper [Less expensive] house you can afford a higher interest rate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9f6b2fead994df1c89e1119432a9e5d9",
"text": "\"I think the closest you can come is to buy health insurance, which had the company's bet on trends in healthcare costs already built into it. But as you've posed the question, I agree that the answer is \"\"no\"\" -- at best you might find someone willing to give you short odds that the rate increases over 20% or long odds that it doesn't go up at all, or something of that sort... and that isn't a bet the markets are designed to handle.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd585fa26eeb5e188fb1aad4503d3bda",
"text": "Since 1971, mortgage interest rates have never been more than .25% below current rates (3.6%). Even restricting just to the last four years, rates have been as much as .89% higher. Overall, we're much closer to the record low interest rate than any type of high. We're currently at a three-year low. Yes, we should expect interest rates to go up. Eventually. Maybe when that happens, bonds will fall. It hasn't happened yet though. In fact, there remain significant worries that the Fed has been overly aggressive in raising rates (as it was around 2008). The Brexit side effects seem to be leaning towards an easing in monetary policy rather than a tightening.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
df6cf504eba5c7dfbf136ce2b8aab49a
|
Is there a general guideline for what percentage of a portfolio should be in gold?
|
[
{
"docid": "a39e6c7e315edaca02de2944834706e6",
"text": "I think most financial planners or advisors would allocate zero to a gold-only fund. That's probably the mainstream view. Metals investments have a lot of issues, more elaboration here: What would be the signs of a bubble in silver? Also consider that metals (and commodities, despite a recent drop) are on a big run-up and lots of random people are saying they're the thing to get in on. Usually this is a sign that you might want to wait a bit or at least buy gradually. The more mainstream way to go might be a commodities fund or all-asset fund. Some funds you could look at (just examples, not recommendations) might include several PIMCO funds including their commodity real return and all-asset; Hussman Strategic Total Return; diversified commodities index ETFs; stuff like that has a lot of the theoretical benefits of gold but isn't as dependent on gold specifically. Another idea for you might be international bonds (or stocks), if you feel US currency in particular is at risk. Oh, and REITs often come up as an inflation-resistant asset class. I personally use diversified funds rather than gold specifically, fwiw, mostly for the same reason I'd buy a fund instead of individual stocks. 10%-ish is probably about right to put into this kind of stuff, depending on your overall portfolio and goals. Pure commodities should probably be less than funds with some bonds, stocks, or REITs, because in principle commodities only track inflation over time, they don't make money. The only way you make money on them is rebalancing out of them some when there's a run up and back in when they're down. So a portfolio with mostly commodities would suck long term. Some people feel gold's virtue is tangibility rather than being a piece of paper, in an apocalypse-ish scenario, but if making that argument I think you need physical gold in your basement, not an ETF. Plus I'd argue for guns, ammo, and food over gold in that scenario. :-)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a45d86720144171e1b19179224fec645",
"text": "It depends on what your goals are, your age, how much debt you have, etc. Assuming -- and we all know what happens when you assume -- that your financial life is otherwise in order, the 5% to 10% range you're talking about isn't overinvesting. You won't have a lot of company; most people don't own any. One comment on this part: I have some gold (GLD), but not much ... Gold and GLD are not the same thing at all. Owning shares of the SPDR Gold Trust is not the same thing as owning gold coins or bars. You're achieving different ends by owning GLD shares as opposed to the physical yellow metal. GLD will follow the spot price of gold pretty closely, but it isn't the same thing as physical ownership.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fdc8b26879a2340e97a9b043f7e3f155",
"text": "My personal gold/metals target is 5.0% of my retirement portfolio. Right now I'm underweight because of the run up in gold/metals prices. (I haven't been selling, but as I add to retirement accounts, I haven't been buying gold so it is going below the 5% mark.) I arrived at this number after reading a lot of different sample portfolio allocations, and some books. Some people recommend what I consider crazy allocations: 25-50% in gold. From what I could figure out in terms of modern portfolio theory, holding some metal reduces your overall risk because it generally has a low correlation to equity markets. The problem with gold is that it is a lousy investment. It doesn't produce any income, and only has costs (storage, insurance, commissions to buy/sell, management of ETF if that's what you're using, etc). The only thing going for it is that it can be a hedge during tough times. In this case, when you rebalance, your gold will be high, you'll sell it, and buy the stocks that are down. (In theory -- assuming you stick to disciplined rebalancing.) So for me, 5% seemed to be enough to shave off a little overall risk without wasting too much expense on a hedge. (I don't go over this, and like I said, now I'm underweighted.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d7d32aa6bacabb609be5bda2008d0c4",
"text": "By mentioning GLD, I presume therefore you are referring to the SPRD Gold Exchange Traded Fund that is intended to mirror the price of gold without you having to personally hold bullion, or even gold certificates. While how much is a distinctly personal choice, there are seemingly (at least) three camps of people in the investment world. First would be traditional bond/fixed income and equity people. Gold would play no direct role in their portfolio, other than perhaps holding gold company shares in some other vehicle, but they would not hold much gold directly. Secondly, at the mid-range would be someone like yourself, that believes that is in and of itself a worthy investment and makes it a non-trivial, but not-overriding part of their portfolio. Your 5-10% range seems to fit in well here. Lastly, and to my taste, over-the-top, are the gold-gold-gold investors, that seem to believe it is the panacea for all market woes. I always suspect that investment gurus that are pushing this, however, have large positions that they are trying to run up so they can unload. Given all this, I am not aware of any general rule about gold, but anything less than 10% would seem like at least a not over-concentration in the one area. Once any one holding gets much beyond that, you should really examine why you believe that it should represent such a large part of your holdings. Good Luck",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fce119d437797fae452a931d307b949c",
"text": "10% is way high unless you really dedicate time to managing your investments. Commodities should be a part of the speculative/aggressive portion of your portfolio, and you should be prepared to lose most or all of that portion of your portfolio. Metals aren't unique enough to justify a specific allocation -- they tend to perform well in a bad economic climate, and should be evaluated periodically. The fallacy in the arguments of gold/silver advocates is that metals have some sort of intrinsic value that protects you. I'm 32, and remember when silver was $3/oz, so I don't know how valid that assertion is. (Also recall the 25% price drop when the CBOE changed silver's margin requirements.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "701044a51a7f47011eb598f92c1ca560",
"text": "Gold's valuation is so stratospheric right now that I wonder if negative numbers (as in, you should short it) are acceptable in the short run. In the long run I'd say the answer is zero. The problem with gold is that its only major fundamental value is for making jewelry and the vast majority is just being hoarded in ways that can only be justified by the Greater Fool Theory. In the long run gold shouldn't return more than inflation because a pile of gold creates no new wealth like the capital that stocks are a claim on and doesn't allow others to create new wealth like money lent via bonds. It's also not an important and increasingly scarce resource for wealth creation in the global economy like oil and other more useful commodities are. I've halfway-thought about taking a short position in gold, though I haven't taken any position, short or long, in gold for the following reasons: Straight up short-selling of a gold ETF is too risky for me, given its potential for unlimited losses. Some other short strategy like an inverse ETF or put options is also risky, though less so, and ties up a lot of capital. While I strongly believe such an investment would be profitable, I think the things that will likely rise when the flight-to-safety is over and gold comes back to Earth (mainly stocks, especially in the more beaten-down sectors of the economy) will be equally profitable with less risk than taking one of these positions in gold.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c8627953291d60451d67d6a78b00468",
"text": "\"The \"\"conventional wisdom\"\" is that you should have about 5% of your portfolio in gold. But that's an AVERAGE. Meaning that you might want to have 10% at some times (like now) and 0% in the 1980s. Right now, the price of gold has been rising, because of fears of \"\"easing\"\" Fed monetary policy (for the past decade), culminating in recent \"\"quantitative easing.\"\" In the 1980s, you should have had 0% in gold given the fall of gold in 1981 because of Paul Volcker's monetary tightening policies, and other reasons. Why did gold prices drop in 1981? And a word of caution: If you don't understand the impact of \"\"quantitative easing\"\" or \"\"Paul Volcker\"\" on gold prices, you probably shouldn't be buying it.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "f047a86a26ffe9decad612ab2b5ed4e0",
"text": "Note the above is only for shares. There are different rules for other assets like House, Jewellery, Mutual Funds, Debt Funds. Refer to the Income Tax guide for more details.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ce9537c51f2349ef3b2921eeeec8a658",
"text": "It's all about risk. These guidelines were all developed based on the risk characteristics of the various asset categories. Bonds are ultra-low-risk, large caps are low-risk (you don't see most big stocks like Coca-Cola going anywhere soon), foreign stocks are medium-risk (subject to additional political risk and currency risk, especially so in developing markets) and small-caps are higher risk (more to gain, but more likely to go out of business). Moreover, the risks of different asset classes tend to balance each other out some. When stocks fall, bonds typically rise (the recent credit crunch being a notable but temporary exception) as people flock to safety or as the Fed adjusts interest rates. When stocks soar, bonds don't look as attractive, and interest rates may rise (a bummer when you already own the bonds). Is the US economy stumbling with the dollar in the dumps, while the rest of the world passes us by? Your foreign holdings will be worth more in dollar terms. If you'd like to work alternative asset classes (real estate, gold and other commodities, etc) into your mix, consider their risk characteristics, and what will make them go up and down. A good asset allocation should limit the amount of 'down' that can happen all at once; the more conservative the allocation needs to be, the less 'down' is possible (at the expense of the 'up'). .... As for what risks you are willing to take, that will depend on your position in life, and what risks you are presently are exposed to (including: your job, how stable your company is and whether it could fold or do layoffs in a recession like this one, whether you're married, whether you have kids, where you live). For instance, if you're a realtor by trade, you should probably avoid investing too much in real estate or it'll be a double-whammy if the market crashes. A good financial advisor can discuss these matters with you in detail.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa90a5bbfd6d0baf7ace26b24986c434",
"text": "\"The topic you are apparently describing is \"\"safe withdrawal rates\"\", more here. Please, note that the asset allocation is crucial decision with your rates. If you continue to keep a lot in cash, you cannot withdraw too much money \"\"to live and to travel\"\" because the expected return from cash is too low in the long run. In contrast, if you moved to more sensible decision like 30% bonds and 70% world portfolio -- the rates will me a lot different. As you are 30 years old, you could pessimist suppose to live next 100 years -- then your possible withdrawal rates would be much lower than let say over 50 years. Anyway besides deciding asset allocation, you need to estimate the time over which you need your assets. You have currently 24% in liquid cash and 12% in bonds but wait you use the word \"\"variety of funds\"\" with about 150k USD, what are they? Do you have any short-term bonds or TIPS as inflation hedge? Do you miss small and value? What is your sector allocation between small-med-large and value-blend-growth? If you are risk-averse, you could add some value small. Read the site, it does much better job than any question-answer site can do (the link above).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "71e043e167ce5c8f12c06fbd1e32f7b6",
"text": "\"I was able to find a fairly decent index that trades very close to 1/10th the actual price of gold by the ounce. The difference may be accounted to the indexes operating cost, as it is very low, about 0.1%. The index is the ETFS Gold Trust index (SGOL). By using the SGOL index, along with a Standard Brokerage investment account, I was able to set up an investment that appropriately tracked my gold \"\"shares\"\" as 10x their weight in ounces, the share cost as 1/10th the value of a gold ounce at the time of purchase, and the original cost at time of purchase as the cost basis. There tends to be a 0.1% loss every time I enter a transaction, I'm assuming due to the index value difference against the actual spot value of the price of gold for any day, probably due to their operating costs. This solution should work pretty well, as this particular index closely follows the gold price, and should reflect an investment in gold over a long term very well. It is not 100% accurate, but it is accurate enough that you don't lose 2-3% every time you enter a new transaction, which would skew long-term results with regular purchases by a fair amount.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "08cec8c13d6cc51c6f85f6b481c17691",
"text": "Owning physical gold (assuming coins): Owning gold through a fund:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b814e2e4f943f77864610939f302e619",
"text": "\"I find it interesting that you didn't include something like [Total Bond Market](http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.html?VBMFX), or [Intermediate-Term Treasuries](http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.html?VBIIX), in your graphic. If someone were to have just invested in the DJI or SP500, then they would have ignored the tenants of the Modern Portfolio Theory and not diversified adequately. I wouldn't have been able to stomach a portfolio of 100% stocks, commodities, or metals. My vote goes for: 1.) picking an asset allocation that reflects your tolerance for risk (a good starting point is \"\"age in bonds,\"\" i.e. if you're 30, then hold 30% in bonds); 2.) save as if you're not expecting annualized returns of %10 (for example) and save more; 3.) don't try to pick the next winner, instead broadly invest in the market and hold it. Maybe gold and silver are bubbles soon to burst -- I for one don't know. I don't give the \"\"notion in the investment community\"\" much weight -- as it always is, someday someone will be right, I just don't know who that someone is.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2865984a64db25a71c7b3f2c57f1afc5",
"text": "\"Your plan already answers your own question in the best possible way: If you want to be able to make the most possible profit from a large downward move in a stock (in this case, a stock that tracks gold), with a limited, defined risk if there is an upward move, the optimal strategy is to buy a put option. There are a few Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) that track the price of gold. think of them as stocks that behave like gold, essentially. Two good examples that have options are GLD and IAU. (When you talk about gold, you'll hear a lot about futures. Forget them, for now. They do the same essential thing for your purposes, but introduce more complexity than you need.) The way to profit from a downward move without protection against an upward move is by shorting the stock. Shorting stock is like the opposite of buying it. You make the amount of money the stock goes down by, or lose the amount it goes up by. But, since stocks can go up by an infinite amount, your possible loss is unlimited. If you want to profit on a large downward move without an unlimited loss if you're wrong and it goes up, you need something that makes money as the stock drops, but can only lose so much if it goes up. (If you want to be guaranteed to lose nothing, your best investment option is buying US Treasuries, and you're technically still exposed to the risk that US defaults on its debt, although if you're a US resident, you'll likely have bigger problems than your portfolio in that situation.) Buying a put option has the exact asymmetrical exposure you want. You pay a limited premium to buy it, and at expiration you essentially make the full amount that the stock has declined below the strike price, less what you paid for the option. That last part is important - because you pay a premium for the option, if it's down just a little, you might still lose some or all of what you paid for it, which is what you give up in exchange for it limiting your maximum loss. But wait, you might say. When I buy an option, I can lose all of my money, cant I? Yes, you can. Here's the key to understanding the way options limit risk as compared to the corresponding way to get \"\"normal\"\" exposure through getting long, or in your case, short, the stock: If you use the number of options that represent the number of shares you would have bought, you will have much, much less total money at risk. If you spend the same \"\"bag 'o cash\"\" on options as you would have spent on stock, you will have exposure to way more shares, and have the same amount of money at risk as if you bought the stock, but will be much more likely to lose it. The first way limits the total money at risk for a similar level of exposure; the second way gets you exposure to a much larger amount of the stock for the same money, increasing your risk. So the best answer to your described need is already in the question: Buy a put. I'd probably look at GLD to buy it on, simply because it's generally a little more liquid than IAU. And if you're new to options, consider the following: \"\"Paper trade\"\" first. Either just keep track of fake buys and sells on a spreadsheet, or use one of the many online services where you can track investments - they don't know or care if they're real or not. Check out www.888options.com. They are an excellent learning resource that isn't trying to sell you anything - their only reason to exist is to promote options education. If you do put on a trade, don't forget that the most frustrating pitfall with buying options is this: You can be basically right, and still lose some or all of what you invest. This happens two ways, so think about them both before you trade: If the stock goes in the direction you think, but not enough to make back your premium, you can still lose. So you need to make sure you know how far down the stock has to be to make back your premium. At expiration, it's simple: You need it to be below the strike price by more than what you paid for the option. With options, timing is everything. If the stock goes down a ton, or even to zero - free gold! - but only after your option expires, you were essentially right, but lose all your money. So, while you don't want to buy an option that's longer than you need, since the premium is higher, if you're not sure if an expiration is long enough out, it isn't - you need the next one. EDIT to address update: (I'm not sure \"\"not long enough\"\" was the problem here, but...) If the question is just how to ensure there is a limited, defined amount you can lose (even if you want the possible loss to be much less than you can potentially make, the put strategy described already does that - if the stock you use is at $100, and you buy a put with a 100 strike for $5, you can make up to $95. (This occurs if the stock goes to zero, meaning you could buy it for nothing, and sell it for $100, netting $95 after the $5 you paid). But you can only lose $5. So the put strategy covers you. If the goal is to have no real risk of loss, there's no way to have any real gain above what's sometimes called the \"\"risk-free-rate\"\". For simplicity's sake, think of that as what you'd get from US treasuries, as mentioned above. If the goal is to make money whether the stock (or gold) goes either up or down, that's possible, but note that you still have (a fairly high) risk of loss, which occurs if it fails to move either up or down by enough. That strategy, in its most common form, is called a straddle, which basically means you buy a call and a put with the same strike price. Using the same $100 example, you could buy the 100-strike calls for $5, and the 100-strike puts for $5. Now you've spent $10 total, and you make money if the stock is up or down by more than $10 at expiration (over 110, or under 90). But if it's between 90 and 100, you lose money, as one of your options will be worthless, and the other is worth less than the $10 total you paid for them both.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "100c16089b98c6da4bdec9e3d52ba91b",
"text": "\"The raw question is as follows: \"\"You will be recommending a purposed portfolio to an investment committee (my class). The committee runs a foundation that has an asset base of $4,000,000. The foundations' dual mandates are to (a) preserve capital and (b) to fund $200,000 worth of scholarships. The foundation has a third objective, which is to grow its asset base over time.\"\" The rest of the assignment lays out the format and headings for the sections of the presentation. Thanks, by the way - it's an 8 week accelerated course and I've been out sick for two weeks. I've been trying to teach myself this stuff, including the excel calculations for the past few weeks.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "54d0a04493a4b5b0306b714af1d5f04c",
"text": "\"I think Swenson's insight was that the traditional recommendation of 60% stocks plus 40% bonds has two serious flaws: 1) You are exposed to way too much risk by having a portfolio that is so strongly tied to US equities (especially in the way it has historically been recommend). 2) You have too little reward by investing so much of your portfolio in bonds. If you can mix a decent number of asset classes that all have equity-like returns, and those asset classes have a low correlation with each other, then you can achieve equity-like returns without the equity-like risk. This improvement can be explicitly measured in the Sharpe ratio of you portfolio. (The Vanguard Risk Factor looks pretty squishy and lame to me.) The book the \"\"The Ivy Portfolio\"\" does a great job at covering the Swenson model and explains how to reasonably replicate it yourself using low fee ETFs.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ea028386d7b77f54bba0eb3c5e18b8c",
"text": "With gold at US$1300 or so, a gram is about $40. For your purposes, you have the choice between the GLD ETF, which represents a bit less than 1/10oz gold equivalent per share, or the physical metal itself. Either choice has a cost: the commission on the buy plus, eventually, the sale of the gold. There may be ongoing fees as well (fund fees, storage, etc.) GLD trades like a stock and you can enter limit orders or any other type of order the broker accepts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "2fa005e6b96c5bef7f326c418e9c9f03",
"text": "Putting 64% of a portfolio in gold and silver is pretty reckless from an investing standpoint. That being said, if he really did buy most of the stocks in 2002, he's probably made a good deal of money off these picks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e769761effd1d77533856624ea79940",
"text": "If you have 100% of your money in one security that is inherently more risky than splitting your money 50/50 between two securities, regardless of the purported riskiness of the two securities. The calculations people use to justify their particular breed of diversification may carry some assumptions related risk/reward calculations. But these particular justifications don't change the fact that spreading your money across different assets protects your money from value variances of the individual assets. Splitting your $100 between Apple and Microsoft stock is probably less valuable (less well diversified) than splitting your money between Apple and Whole Foods stock but either way you're carrying less risk than putting all $100 in to Apple stock regardless of the assumed rates of return for any of these companies stock specifically. Edit: I'm sure the downvotes are because I didn't make a big deal about correlation and measuring correlation and standard deviations of returns and detailed portfolio theory. Measuring efficacy and justifying your particular allocations (that generally uses data from the past to project the future) is all well and good. Fact of the matter is, if you have 100% of your money in stock that's more stock risk than 25% in cash, 25% in bonds and 50% in stock would be because now you're in different asset classes. You can measure to your hearts delight the effects of splitting your money between different specific companies, or different industries, or different market capitalizations, or different countries or different fund managers or different whatever-metrics and doing any of those things will reduce your exposure to those specific allocations. It may be worth pointing out that currently the hot recommendation is a plain vanilla market tracking S&P 500 index fund (that just buys some of each of the 500 largest US companies without any consideration given to risk correlation) over standard deviation calculating actively managed funds. If you ask me that speaks volumes of the true efficacy of hyper analyzing the purported correlations of various securities.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e9cebde4465fbb20cb434e8b71958d4",
"text": "First, a margin account is required to trade options. If you buy a put, you have the right to deliver 100 shares at a fixed price, 50 can be yours, 50, you'll buy at the market. If you sell a put, you are obligated to buy the shares if put to you. All options are for 100 shares, I am unaware of any partial contract for fewer shares. Not sure what you mean by leveraging the position, can you spell it out more clearly?",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
466f7d0fd6b8684306a911157e2581aa
|
I'm 20 and starting to build up for my mortgage downpayment, where should I put my money for optimal growth?
|
[
{
"docid": "4c05a709056f6da4dbcf85676d000157",
"text": "Good job. Assuming that you are also contributing to retirement, you are bound to be a wealthy person. I'm not really sure how Australia works as far as retirement, but I am pretty sure you are taking care of that too. Given your time frame (more than 5 years) I would consider investing at least a portion of the money. If I was you, I would tend to make that amount significant, say 75% in mutual funds, 25% in your high interest savings. The ratio you choose is up to you, but I would be heavier in the investment than savings side. As the time for home purchase approaches, you may want more in savings and less in investments. You may want to look at a mutual fund with a low beta. Beta is a measure of the price volatility. I did a google search on low beta funds, and came up with a number of good articles that explains this further. Having a fund with a low beta insulates you, a bit, from radical swings in the market allowing you to count more on the money being there when needed. One way to get to the proper ratio, is to contribute all new money to the mutual fund until it is in proper balance. This way you don't lower your interest rate for a month. Given your time frame, salary, and sense of responsibility you may be able to do the 100% down plan. Again, good work!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f9e8f42cad8fe877bf8d85961940ffd8",
"text": "The big question is whether you will be flexible about when you'll get that house. The overall best investment (in terms of yielding a good risk/return ratio and requiring little effort) is a broad index fund (mutual or ETF), especially if you're contributing continuously and thereby take advantage of cost averaging. But the downside is that you have some volatility: during an economic downturn, your investment may be worth only half of what it's worth when the economy is booming. And of course it's very bad to have that happening just when you want to get your house. Then again, chances are that house prices will also go down in such times. If you want to avoid ever having to see the value of your investment go down, then you're pretty much stuck with things like your high-interest savings account (which sounds like a very good fit for your requirements.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8bb0f3a31bb989b3f98d72cfb04cc62e",
"text": "You should never take advice from someone else in relation to a question like this. Who would you blame if things go wrong and you lose money or make less than your savings account. For this reason I will give you the same answer I gave to one of your previous similar questions: If you want higher returns you may have to take on more risk. From lowest returns (and usually lower risk) to higher returns (and usually higher risk), Bank savings accounts, term deposits, on-line savings accounts, offset accounts (if you have a mortgage), fixed interest eg. Bonds, property and stock markets. If you want potentially higher returns then you can go for derivatives like options or CFDs, FX or Futures. These usually have higher risks again but as with any investments some risks can be partly managed. What ever you decide to do, get yourself educated first. Don't put any money down unless you know what your potential risks are and have a risk management strategy in place, especially if it is from advice provided by someone else. The first rule before starting any new investment is to understand what your potential risks are and have a plane to manage and reduce those risks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d24cb9f4769b32ce990e3c75882230d5",
"text": "The highest growth for an investment has historically been in stocks. Investing in mature companies that offer dividends is great for you since it is compound growth. Many oil and gas companies provide dividends.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "028fcc6ae27f514d32d83e49aaf40a33",
"text": "The only problem that I see is that by not giving the 20% right away, you might need to pay PMI for a few months. In addition, in the case of conventional loans, I heard that banks will not remove the PMI after reaching 80% LTV without doing an appraisal. In order to be removed automatically, you need to reach 78% LTV. Finally, I think you can get a better interest by giving 20% down, and you can get a conventional loan instead of a FHA loan, which offers the option to avoid the PMI altogether (on FHA, you have two PMIs: one upfront and one monthly, and the monthly one is for the life of the loan if you give less than 10%).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9bd0f3fe069b9d41b6a0d7cbd12c89bf",
"text": "I am currently in the process of purchasing a house. I am only putting 5% down. I see that some are saying that the traditional 20% down is the way to go. I am a first time homebuyer, and unfortunately we no longer live in the world where 20% down is mandatory, which is part of the reason why housing prices are so high. I feel it is more important that you are comfortable with what your monthly payments are as well as being informed on how interest rates can change how much you owe each month. Right now interest rates are pretty low, and it would almost be silly to put 20% down on your home. It might make more sense to put money in different vehicle right now, if you have extra, as the global economy will likely pick up and until it does, interest rates will likely stay low. Just my 2 cents worth. EDIT: I thought it would not be responsible of me not to mention that you should always have extra's saved for closing costs. They can be pricey, and if you are not informed of what they are, they can creep up on you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed893d39f25d0a5035f55fa5810fbbfe",
"text": "Couple of factors here to consider: 1) The savings vehicle 2) The investments Savings Vehicle: Roth IRAs allow you the flexibility to save for retirement and/or your house. Each person can save up to $5,500 in a Roth and you can withdraw your principal at anytime without penalty. (There is a special clause for first time home buyers; however, it limits the amount to $10k per person. Given your estimate of $750k and history of putting down 20%. It would require a bit more.) The only thing is that you can't touch the growth or interest. When you do max out your Roth IRA, it may make sense for you to open a brokerage account (401Ks often have multiple steps in order to convert or withdraw money for your down payment) Investments: Given your timeline (5-7 years) your investments would be more conservative. (More fixed income) While you should stay diversified (both fixed income and equity), the conservative portfolio will allow less fluctuation in your portfolio value while allowing some growth potential.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "682598e4f8164d7fdfb67a3925b2324c",
"text": "The long term growth is not 6.5%, it's 10% give or take. But, that return comes with risk. A standard deviation of 14%. Does the 401(k) have a match? And are you getting the full match? If no match, or you already top it off, the 6.5% is a rate that I'd be happy to get on my money. So, I would pay it off faster. My highest rate debt is my 3.5% mortgage, which is 2.5% after tax. At 2.5%, I prefer to be a borrower, as that gap 2.5%-10% is pretty appealing, long term.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe9b717b496e0c08bb2428b618d1502d",
"text": "If you already have the money, put the 20% down but here is another option: You can put whatever you want down...Let's say 10%. For the other 10%, take out a 2nd mortgage. This enables you to avoid PMI. The rate you will get on the second mortgage will be higher than the first but the combination of 2 mortgages may be less than 1 plus PMI. When you get to 20% equity you can refinance and consolidate to one lower rate mortgage without PMI.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c68d769428eb86677848174ed88fdd4a",
"text": "\"I think the basic question you're asking is whether you'd be better off putting the $20K into an IRA or similar investment, or if your best bet is to pay down your mortgage. The answer is...that depends. What you didn't share is what your mortgage balance is so that we can understand how using that money to pay down the mortgage would affect you. The lower your remaining balance on the mortgage, the more impact paying it down will affect your long-term finances. For example, if your remaining principal balance is more than $200k, paying down $20k in principal will not have as significant an effect as if you only have $100k principal balance and were paying down $20k of that. To me, one option is to put the $20k toward mortgage principal, then perhaps do a refinance on your remaining mortgage with the goal of getting a better interest rate. This would double the benefit to you. First, your mortgage payment would be lower by virtue of a lower principal balance (assuming you keep the same term period in your refinanced mortgage as you have now. In other words, if you have a 15-year now, your new mortgage should be 15 years also to see the best effect on your payment). Further, if you can obtain a lower interest rate on the new loan, now you have the dual benefit of a lower principal balance to pay down plus the reduced interest cost on that principal balance. This would put money into your pocket immediately, which I think is part of your goal, although the question does hinge on what you'd pay in points and fees for a refinance. You can invest, but with that comes risk, and right now may not be the ideal time to enter the markets given all of the uncertainties with the \"\"Brexit\"\" issue. By paying down your mortgage principal, even if you do nothing else, you can save yourself considerable interest in the long term which might be more beneficial than the return you'd get from the markets or an IRA at this point. I hope this helps. Good luck!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "513293e3d919d4f98426df907777bc61",
"text": "I want to start investing money, as low risk as possible, but with a percentage growth of at least 4% over 10 - 15 years. ...I do have a mortgage, Then there's your answer. You get a risk-free return of the interest rate on your mortgage (I'm assuming it's more than 4%). Every bit you put toward your mortgage reduces the amount of interest you pay by the interest rate, helping you to pay it off faster. Then, once your mortgage is paid off, you can look at other investments that fit your risk tolerance and return requirements. That said, make sure you have enough emergency savings to reduce cash flow interruptions, and make sure you don't have any other debts to pay. I'm not saying that everyone with a mortgage should pay it off before other investments. You asked for a low-risk 4% investment, which paying your mortgage would accomplish. If you want more return (and more risk) then other investments would be appropriate. Other factors that might change your decision might be:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c124b0a7949c26904fa381882841a086",
"text": "You are correct that 20% has an impact on your interest rate, although it is not always hugely significant. You would have to do your own shopping around to find that information out. However 20% has an impact that I consider to be far more important than your monthly payment, and that is in your equity. If the DC market tanks, which I know it has not really done like much of the country but none of us have crystal balls to know if it will or not, then you will be more easily underwater the less you put down. Conversely putting 20% or more down makes you an easy sell to lenders [i]and[/i] means that you don't have to worry nearly so much about having to do a short sale in the future. I would never buy a house with less than 20% down personally and have lived well below my means to get there, but I am not you. With regards to mortgages, the cheapskate way that I found information that I needed was to get books from the library that explained the mortgage process to me. When it came time to select an actual broker I used my realtor's recommendation (because I trusted my realtor to actually have my interests at heart because he was an old family friend - you can't usually do that so I don't recommend it) and that of others I knew who had bought recently. I compared four lenders and competed them against each other to get the best terms. They will give you estimate sheets that help you weigh not only rates but costs of different fees such as the origination fee and discount points. Make sure to know what fees the lender controls and what fees (s)he doesn't so that you know which lines to actually compare. Beyond a lender make sure that before closing you have found a title company that you think is a good choice (your realtor or lender will try to pick one for you because that's the way the business is played but it is a racket - pick one who will give you the best deal on title), a settlment company (may be title company, lender, or other) that won't charge you an excessive amount, a survey company that you like if required in DC for your title insurance, and homeowner's insurance coverage that you think is a good deal. The time between contract and closing is short and nobody tells you to research all the closing costs that on a $500,000 place run to in excess of $10,000, but you should. Also know that your closing costs will be about 2% of the purchase price and plan accordingly. In general take some time to educate yourself on homebuying as well as neighborhoods and price ranges. Don't rush into this process or you will lose a lot of money fast.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5efb6240c4f3e22fb6f64f933cf1d4dc",
"text": "\"I put about that down on my place. I could have purchased it for cash, but since my investments were returning more interest than the loan was costing me (much easier to achieve now!), this was one of the safest possible ways of making \"\"leverage\"\" work for me. I could have put less down and increased the leverage, but tjis was what I felt most comfortable with. Definitely make enough of a down payment to avoid mortgage insurance. You may want to make enough of a down payment that the bank trusts you to handle your property insurance and taxes yourself rather than insisting on an escrow account and building that into the loan payments; I trust myself to mail the checks on time much more than I trust the bank. Beyond that it's very much a matter of personal preference and what else you might do with the money.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "754593853a3d3ca40ec2b931011429f9",
"text": "I'm surprised nobody else has suggested this yet: before you start investing in stocks or bonds, buy a house. Not just any house, but the house you want to live in 20 years from now, in a place where you want to live 20 years from now - but you also have to be savvy about which part of the country or world you buy in. I'm also assuming that you are in the USA, although my suggestion tends to apply equally anywhere in the world. Why? Simple: as long as you own a house, you won't ever have to pay rent (you do have to pay taxes and maintenance, of course). You have a guaranteed return on investment, and the best part is: because it's not money you earn but money you don't have to spend, it's tax free. Even if the house loses value over time, you still come out ahead. And if you live abroad temporarily, you can rent out the house and add the rent to your savings (although that does make various things more complicated). You only asked for options, so that is mine. I'll add some caveats. OK, now here are the caveats:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a92073afad23a27fb936bf7bdc9d0f55",
"text": "Whenever you put less than 20% down, you are usually required to pay private mortgage insurance (PMI) to protect the lender in case you default on your loan. You pay this until you reach 20% equity in your home. Check out an amortization calculator to see how long that would take you. Most schedules have you paying more interest at the start of your loan and less principal. PMI gets you nothing - no interest or principal paid - it's throwing money away in a very real sense (more in this answer). Still, if you want to do it, make sure to add PMI to the cost per month. It is also possible to get two mortgages, one for your 20% down payment and one for the 80%, and avoid PMI. Lenders are fairly cautious about doing that right now given the housing crash, but you may be able to find one who will let you do the two mortgages. This will raise your monthly payment in its own way, of course. Also remember to factor in the costs of home ownership into your calculations. Check the county or city website to figure out the property tax on that home, divide by twelve, and add that number to your payment. Estimate your homeowners insurance (of course you get to drop renters insurance, so make sure to calculate that on the renting side of the costs) and divide the yearly cost by 12 and add that in. Most importantly, add 1-2% of the value of the house yearly for maintenance and repair costs to your budget. All those costs are going to eat away at your 3-400 a little bit. So you've got to save about $70 a month towards repairs, etc. for the case of every 10-50 years when you need a new roof and so on. Many experts suggest having the maintenance money in savings on top of your emergency fund from day one of ownership in case your water heater suddenly dies or your roof starts leaking. Make sure you've also estimated closing costs on this house, or that the seller will pay your costs. Otherwise you loose part of that from your down payment or other savings. Once you add up all those numbers you can figure out if buying is a good proposition. With the plan to stay put for five years, it sounds like it truly might be. I'm not arguing against it, just laying out all the factors for you. The NYT Rent Versus Buy calculator lays out most of these items in terms of renting or buying, and might help you make that decision. EDIT: As Tim noted in the comments below, real monthly cost should take into account deductions from mortgage interest and property tax paid. This calculator can help you figure that out. This question will be one to watch for answers on how to calculate cost and return on home buying, with the answer by mbhunter being an important qualification",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1fe91bd871e5aa41bb2604ae5b2023e",
"text": "\"Trying to determine what the best investment option is when buying a home is like predicting the stock market. Not likely to work out. Forget about the \"\"investment\"\" part of buying a home and look at the quality of life, monthly/annual financial burden, and what your goals are. Buy a home that you'll be happy living in and in an area you like. Buy a home with the plan being to remain in that home for at least 6 years. If you're planning on having kids, then buy a home that will accommodate that. If you're not planning on living in the same place at least 6 years, then buying might not be the best idea, and certainly might not be the best \"\"investment\"\". You're buying a home that will end up having emotional value to you. This isn't like buying a rental property or commercial real estate. Chances are you won't lose money in the long run, unless the market crashes again, but in that case everyone pretty much gets screwed so don't worry about it. We're not in a housing market like what existed in decades past. The idea of buying a home so that you'll make money off it when you sell it isn't really as reliable a practice as it once was. Take advantage of the ridiculously low interest rates, but note that if you wait, they're not likely to go up by an amount that will make a huge difference in the grand scheme of things. My family and I went through the exact same thought process you're going through right now. We close on our new house tomorrow. We battled over renting somewhere - we don't have a good rental market compared to buying here, buying something older for less money and fixing it up - we're HGTV junkies but we realized we just don't have the time or emotional capacity to deal with that scenario, or buying new/like new. There are benefits and drawbacks to all 3 options, and we spent a long time weighing them and eventually came to a conclusion that was best for us. Go talk to a realtor in your area. You're under no obligation to use them, but you can get a better feel for your options and what might best suit you by talking to a professional. For what it's worth, our realtor is a big fan of Pulte Homes in our area because of their home designs and quality. We know some people who have bought in that neighborhood and they're very happy. There are horror stories too, same as with any product you might buy.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "ade1a70a1ee0761e9bad174726ff779e",
"text": "\"I've heard that the bank may agree to a \"\"one time adjustment\"\" to lower the payments on Mortgage #2 because of paying a very large payment. Is this something that really happens? It's to the banks advantage to reduce the payments in that situation. If they were willing to loan you money previously, they should still be willing. If they keep the payments the same, then you'll pay off the loan faster. Just playing with a spreadsheet, paying off a third of the mortgage amount would eliminate the back half of the payments or reduces payments by around two fifths (leaving off any escrow or insurance). If you can afford the payments, I'd lean towards leaving them at the current level and paying off the loan early. But you know your circumstances better than we do. If you are underfunded elsewhere, shore things up. Fully fund your 401k and IRA. Fill out your emergency fund. Buy that new appliance that you don't quite need yet but will soon. If you are paying PMI, you should reduce the principal down to the point where you no longer have to do so. That's usually more than 20% equity (or less than an 80% loan). There is an argument for investing the remainder in securities (stocks and bonds). If you itemize, you can deduct the interest on your mortgage. And then you can deduct other things, like local and state taxes. If you're getting a higher return from securities than you'd pay on the mortgage, it can be a good investment. Five or ten years from now, when your interest drops closer to the itemization threshold, you can cash out and pay off more of the mortgage than you could now. The problem is that this might not be the best time for that. The Buffett Indicator is currently higher than it was before the 2007-9 market crash. That suggests that stocks aren't the best place for a medium term investment right now. I'd pay down the mortgage. You know the return on that. No matter what happens with the market, it will save you on interest. I'd keep the payments where they are now unless they are straining your budget unduly. Pay off your thirty year mortgage in fifteen years.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ae20a73a57469e8a6781b4deec5cc182",
"text": "You're being too hard on yourself. You've managed to save quite a bit, which is more than most people ever do. You're in a wonderful position, actually -- you have savings and time! You don't mention how long you want/need to continue working, but I'll assume 20 years or so? You don't have to invest it all at once. Like Pete B says, index funds (just read what Mr. Buffett said in recent news: he'd tell his widow to invest in the S&P 500 Index and not Berkshire Hathaway!) should be a decent percentage. You can also pick a target fund from any of the major investment firms (fees are higher than an Index, but it will take care of any asset allocation decisions). Put some in each. Also look at retirement accounts to take advantage of tax-deferred or tax-free growth, but that's another question and country-specific. In any case, don't even blink when the market goes down. And it will go down. If you're still working, earning, and saving, it'll just be another opportunity to buy more at lower prices. As for the house, no reason you can't invest and save for a house. Invest some for the long term and set aside the rest for the house in 1-5 years. If you don't think you'll ever really buy the house, though, invest the majority of it for the long-term: I have a feeling from the tone of your question that you tend to put off the big financial decisions. So if you won't really buy the house, just admit it to yourself now!",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
d66f353a4a665150f7ff3d63f2fa517f
|
What is a good size distribution for buying gold?
|
[
{
"docid": "eddf10b9b6dae95cbbd0441684ab2b0a",
"text": "Diversification is an important aspect of precious metals investing. Therefore I would suggest diversifying in a number of different ways:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d61a663bcd292e04cf34d962b17e03c",
"text": "\"Look at a broader diversification. Something like: For physical gold, I'd look at a mix of gold coins and bullion. Study the pricing model for coins -- you'll probably find that the spreads on small coins make them too expensive. There are a few levels of risk with storing in a vault -- the practical risk is that your government will close banks in the event of a panic, and your money will be inaccessible. You need to balance that risk with the risk to your personal security that comes with having lots of gold or cash in your home. My recommendation is to avoid wasting time on the \"\"Mad Max\"\" scenarios. If the world economy collapses into utter ruin, we're all screwed. A few gold coins won't do much for you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "18d75b8742bef1ec9535145e323209d9",
"text": "\"If the \"\"crash\"\" you worry about is a dissolution of the euro, then the main thing you should concern yourself with is liquidity. For that, purchase the most highly liquid gold ETF or futures contract, whichever is more appropriate for the total amount of money involved. Any other way and you will lose a significant chunk of your assets to transaction costs. If, on the other hand, the \"\"crash\"\" you were concerned about were the total collapse of the world economy, and people around the world abandon all paper currencies and resort to barter as a method of trade, then I can see buying several small pieces being a rational strategy, although then I would also question whether you were a sane individual.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0b1b4d9b1b9d014f7d6ce32132da3509",
"text": "You are really tangling up two questions here: Q1: Given I fear a dissolution of the Euro, is buying physical gold a good response and if so, how much should I buy? I see you separately asked about real estate, and cash, and perhaps other things. Perhaps it would be better to just say: what is the right asset allocation, rather than asking about every thing individually, which will get you partial and perhaps contradictory answers. The short answer, knowing very little about your case, is that some moderate amount of gold (maybe 5-10%, at most 25%) could be a counterbalance to other assets. If you're concerned about government and market stability, you might like Harry Browne's Permanent Portfolio, which has equal parts stocks, bonds, cash, and gold. Q2: If I want to buy physical gold, what size should I get? One-ounce bullion (about 10 x 10 x 5mm, 30g) is a reasonably small physical size and a reasonable monetary granularity: about $1700 today. I think buying $50 pieces of gold is pointless: However much you want to have in physical gold, buy that many ounces.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "a43b96a974577a49b2762736aabffc13",
"text": "\"As proposed: Buy 100 oz of gold at $1240 spot = -$124,000 Sell 1 Aug 2014 Future for $1256 = $125,600 Profit $1,600 Alternative Risk-Free Investment: 1 year CD @ 1% would earn $1240 on $124,000 investment. Rate from ads on www.bankrate.com \"\"Real\"\" Profit All you are really being paid for this trade is the difference between the profit $1,600 and the opportunity for $1240 in risk free earnings. That's only $360 or around 0.3%/year. Pitfalls of trying to do this: Many retail futures brokers are set up for speculative traders and do not want to deal with customers selling contracts against delivery, or buying for delivery. If you are a trader you have to keep margin money on deposit. This can be a T-note at some brokerages, but currently T-notes pay almost 0%. If the price of gold rises and you are short a future in gold, then you need to deposit more margin money. If gold went back up to $1500/oz, that could be $24,400. If you need to borrow this money, the interest will eat into a very slim profit margin over the risk free rate. Since you can't deliver, the trades have to be reversed. Although futures trades have cheap commissions ~$5/trade, the bid/ask spread, even at 1 grid, is not so minimal. Also there is often noisy jitter in the price. The spot market in physical gold may have a higher bid/ask spread. You might be able to eliminate some of these issues by trading as a hedger or for delivery. Good luck finding a broker to let you do this... but the issue here for gold is that you'd need to trade in depository receipts for gold that is acceptable for delivery, instead of trading physical gold. To deliver physical gold it would likely have to be tested and certified, which costs money. By the time you've researched this, you'll either discover some more costs associated with it or could have spent your time making more money elsewhere.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f6b93d56422824ec67ede47fd8faf611",
"text": "Very interesting. I would like to expand beyond just precious metals and stocks, but I am not ready just to jump in just yet (I am a relatively young investor, but have been playing around with stocks for 4 years on and off). The problem I often find is that the stock market is often too overvalued to play Ben Graham type strategy/ PE/B, so I would like to expand my knowledge of investing so I can invest in any market and still find value. After reading Jim Rogers, I was really interested in commodities as an alternative to stocks, but I like to play really conservative (generally). Thank you for your insight. If you don't mind, I would like to add you as a friend, since you seem quite above average in the strategy department.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "701044a51a7f47011eb598f92c1ca560",
"text": "Gold's valuation is so stratospheric right now that I wonder if negative numbers (as in, you should short it) are acceptable in the short run. In the long run I'd say the answer is zero. The problem with gold is that its only major fundamental value is for making jewelry and the vast majority is just being hoarded in ways that can only be justified by the Greater Fool Theory. In the long run gold shouldn't return more than inflation because a pile of gold creates no new wealth like the capital that stocks are a claim on and doesn't allow others to create new wealth like money lent via bonds. It's also not an important and increasingly scarce resource for wealth creation in the global economy like oil and other more useful commodities are. I've halfway-thought about taking a short position in gold, though I haven't taken any position, short or long, in gold for the following reasons: Straight up short-selling of a gold ETF is too risky for me, given its potential for unlimited losses. Some other short strategy like an inverse ETF or put options is also risky, though less so, and ties up a lot of capital. While I strongly believe such an investment would be profitable, I think the things that will likely rise when the flight-to-safety is over and gold comes back to Earth (mainly stocks, especially in the more beaten-down sectors of the economy) will be equally profitable with less risk than taking one of these positions in gold.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f6b679633154acbe373b9083d360bc67",
"text": "No. Bonds don't work like that. When you buy a bond, you buy pieces of notional at a price. 1K denotes the amount you would get back at maturity (+ coupons), So the smallest piece size would be 1k. I've even seen 50K plus but thats for more illiquid products....",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8736d56777f6b7edd7ee1522b2e2547d",
"text": "It's extremely divisible. The smallest unit is 0.00000001 BTC. This smallest unit is called a satoshi, after the pseudonym of the inventor of Bitcoin. I suggested to my friends and family back in mid 2015 that they invest a little of their money. Nobody did. Back then I bought 21 BTC at around $600 USD/BTC for a total value of slightly less than $13k USD. Currently it's worth over $90k. I can't tell you how many of them say they wish they had listened to me. Then when I tell them they should still buy they think it's too late. It's not.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "250e59e43c4663a659e26028f92aa583",
"text": "I would track it using a regular asset account. The same way I would track the value of a house, a car, or any other personal asset. ETA: If you want automatic tracking, you could set it up as a stock portfolio holding shares of the GLD ETF. One share of GLD represents 1/10 ounce of gold. So, if you have 5 ounces of gold, you would set that up in Quicken as 50 shares of GLD.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5fc1225abe1e6651a20b3d8eea0eab7",
"text": "\"Ok, I think what you're really asking is \"\"how can I benefit from a collapse in the price of gold?\"\" :-) And that's easy. (The hard part's making that kind of call with money on the line...) The ETF GLD is entirely physical gold sitting in a bank vault. In New York, I believe. You could simply sell it short. Alternatively, you could buy a put option on it. Even more risky, you could sell a (naked) call option on it. i.e. you receive the option premium up front, and if it expires worthless you keep the money. Of course, if gold goes up, you're on the hook. (Don't do this.) (the \"\"Don't do this\"\" was added by Chris W. Rea. I agree that selling naked options is best avoided, but I'm not going to tell you what to do. What I should have done was make clear that your potential losses are unlimited when selling naked calls. For example, if you sold a single GLD naked call, and gold went to shoot to $1,000,000/oz, you'd be on the hook for around $10,000,000. An unrealistic example, perhaps, but one that's worth pondering to grasp the risk you'd be exposing yourself to with selling naked calls. -- Patches) Alternative ETFs that work the same, holding physical gold, are IAU and SGOL. With those the gold is stored in London and Switzerland, respectively, if I remember right. Gold peaked around $1900 and is now back down to the $1500s. So, is the run over, and it's all downhill from here? Or is it a simple retracement, gathering strength to push past $2000? I have no idea. And I make no recommendations.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3fbbb410b7ff1fb7eba4f60c84daad3f",
"text": "There are several problems with your reasoning: if I buy one share of GOOGLE now for $830, I could have $860 within the end of tonight -- totally possible and maybe even likely. You can do the same thing with 1,000,000 shares of google, and it's just as likely to go down as go up. if I were to invest $1,000.00 in gold to have $1,000.00 worth of gold, it's no different than keeping $1,000.00 in cash It's VERY different. Gold can be just as volatile as stocks, so it certainly is different as just keeping it in cash. Benefits of a larger portfolio:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "831c8f232d1346bee6ed25d4c736aa80",
"text": "It seems that you're interested in an asset which you can hold that would go up when the gold price went down. It seems like a good place to start would be an index fund, which invests in the general stock market. When the gold market falls, this would mainly affect gold mining companies. These do not make up a sizable portion of any index fund, which is invested broadly in the market. Unfortunately, in order to act on this, you would also have to believe that the stock market was a good investment. To test this theory, I looked at an ETF index fund which tracks the S&P 500, and compared it to an ETF which invests in gold. I found that the daily price movements of the stock market were positively correlated with the price of gold. This result was statistically significant. The weekly price movements of the stock market were also correlated with the price of gold. This result was also statistically significant. When the holding period was stretched to one month, there was still a positive relationship between the stock market's price moves and the price of gold. This result was not statistically significant. When the holding period was stretched to one year, there was a negative relationship between the price changes in the stock market and the price of gold. This result was not statistically significant, either.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8c5b9db4c3291be7f58d5a8b1126bda4",
"text": "Gold is classified as a collectible so the gain rates are as follows: So you'd report a gain of $100 or $1,000 , depending on which coin you sold.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f87e691cf0d2cbc4dbe43f3e6a856f8b",
"text": "\"In addition to the possibility of buying gold ETFs or tradable certificates, there are also firms specializing in providing \"\"bank accounts\"\" of sorts which are denominated in units of weight of precious metal. While these usually charge some fees, they do meet your criteria of being able to buy and sell precious metals without needing to store them yourself; also, these fees are likely lower than similar storage arranged by yourself. Depending on the specifics, they may also make buying small amounts practical (buying small amounts of physical precious metals usually comes with a large mark-up over the spot price, sometimes to the tune of a 50% or so immediate loss if you buy and then immediately sell). Do note that, as pointed out by John Bensin, buying gold gets you an amount of metal, the local currency value of which will vary over time, sometimes wildly, so it is not the same thing as depositing the original amount of money in a bank account. Since 2006, the price of an ounce (about 31.1 grams) of gold has gone from under $500 US to over $1800 US to under $1100 US. Few other investment classes are anywhere near this volatile. If you are interested in this type of service, you might want to check out BitGold (not the same thing at all as Bitcoin) or GoldMoney. (I am not affiliated with either.) Make sure to do your research thoroughly as these may or may not be covered by the same regulations as regular banks, particularly if you choose a company based outside of or a storage location outside of your own country.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e2ad1073731e8909e52ab00388e1e62a",
"text": "ETF's are great products for investing in GOLD. Depending on where you are there are also leveraged products such as CFD's (Contracts For Difference) which may be more suitable for your budget. I would stick with the big CFD providers as they offer very liquid products with tight spreads. Some CFD providers are MarketMakers whilst others provide DMA products. Futures contracts are great leveraged products but can be very volatile and like any leveraged product (such as some ETF's and most CFD's), you must be aware of the risks involved in controlling such a large position for such a small outlay. There also ETN's (Exchange Traded Notes) which are debt products issued by banks (or an underwriter), but these are subject to fees when the note matures. You will also find pooled (unallocated to physical bullion) certificates sold through many gold institutions although you will often pay a small premium for their services (some are very attractive, others have a markup worse than the example of your gold coin). (Note from JoeT - CFDs are not authorized for trading in the US)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b69187cb5be0290794bbdd55916a4d36",
"text": "Gold is traded on the London stock exchange (LSE) and the New York stock exchange (NYSE) under various separate asset tickers, mainly denominated in sterling and US dollars respectively. These stocks will reflect FX changes very quickly. If you sold LSE gold and foreign exchanged your sterling to dollars to buy NYSE gold you would almost certainly lose on the spreads upon selling, FX'ing and re-buying. In short, the same asset doesn't exist in multiple currencies. It may have the same International Securities Identification Number (ISIN), but it can trade with different Stock Exchange Daily Official List (SEDOL) identifiers, reflecting different currencies and/or exchanges, each carrying a different price at any one time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "58449f8023032c3e88340a3a6ff677d6",
"text": "Redditors! Buy gold and demand that the financial institution who sold it deliver it. When they try to buy enough gold to cover their short the price will explode, free money. Disclaimer: you all have to do it or it won't work",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "afafec3ae79fa797fcb2e00de3988080",
"text": "For reporting purposes, I would treat the purchase and sale of gold like a purchase and sale of a stock. The place to do so is Schedule D. (And if it's the wrong form, but you reported it, there is might not be a penalty, whereas there is a penalty for NOT reporting.) The long term gain would be at capital gains rates. The short term gain would be at ordinary income rates. And if you have two coins bought at two different times, you get to choose which one to report (as long as you report the OTHER one when you sell the second coin).",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
980fbd693b80e62058bd38f50c71d800
|
Is it safe to take a new mortgage loan in Greece?
|
[
{
"docid": "273ef3ca22682b8150cbe34e9946a2fb",
"text": "The safest financial decisions that you can make in Greece involve getting your money out of Greece. That said, it depends. If the economy is going to implode and you'll be out of the job with devalued savings -- you'll be bankrupt anyway. You didn't mention enough about your situation for anyone to really answer the question. In a high-inflation environment, *if*you have the assets to weather the storm, holding debt on real property and durable goods is a good thing. The key considerations are: If you have the means, times of crisis are great opportunities.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9d13317e05a8af7c1f3434e289ddfff6",
"text": "\"While I would be very leery of making any Investments in Greece, and if I lived there might want to strongly consider a larger than average investment in 'international' funds (such as an index fund on the US, UK, or German exchanges) Having debt in Greece might not be such a bad thing... if only it was denominated in local currency. The big issue is that right now, you'd be taking out a loan on property in greece, that would be denominated in Euros. If worse comes to worse, and Greece is kicked out of the EU and forced to go back to the drachma, then you might be in a situation where the bank says \"\"this loan is in Euros, we want payment in the same\"\" and if the drachma is plummeting vs the Euro, you could find your earning power (presuming you were then paid in drachma) greatly diminished.. And since you'd be selling the house for drachma, you might be way under-water in terms of the value of the house (due to currency exchange) vs what you owed. Now, if Greece were currently on the drachma, and you were talking about a mortgage in the same, I'd say go for it. Since what tends to happen when a government has way overspent is they just print more money rather than default.. that tends to lead to inflation, and a falling currency value vs other countries. None of which is bad for someone with a debt which would be rapidly shrinking due to the effect of inflation. but right now, safer to rent.\"",
"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": "172847e4ae7acf0ba694e561857fc838",
"text": "No it is not safe to take out a new mortgage - loan or anything credit related or any investment - in greece. Growing political risk, bonds have junk credit rating. You will be underwater on your mortgage the day you apply for it. And you better believe that the buyers will be dry once you realize that it doesn't make sense to keep paying the mortgage. If you want to have some assets, there are more liquid things you can own, in your case: paper gold. Just rent.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "5a86f8a46f42233c11e7ebf54dfaf9ac",
"text": "Regarding the mortgage company, they will want to know where the down payment came from, and as long as you are honest about it, there is no fraud. It's possible that the mortgage company may have some reservations about the deal now that they know where the down payment came from, but that will depend on the size of the deal and other factors. If everyone involved has decent credit, and this is a fairly standard mortgage, it will probably have no impact at all.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "661faa4d48f96d63ec1a4467fefc9842",
"text": "The catch is that you're doing a form of leveraged investing. In other words, you're gambling on the stock market using money that you've borrowed. While it's not as dangerous as say, getting money from a loan shark to play blackjack in Vegas, there is always the chance that markets can collapse and your investment's value will drop rapidly. The amount of risk really depends on what specific investments you choose and how diversified they are - if you buy only Canadian stocks then you're at risk of losing a lot if something happened to our economy. But if your Canadian equities only amount to 3.6% of your total (which is Canada's share of the world market), and you're holding stocks in many different countries then the diversification will reduce your overall risk. The reason I mention that is because many people using the Smith Maneuver are only buying Canadian high-yield dividend stocks, so that they can use the dividends to accelerate the Smith Maneuver process (use the dividends to pay down the mortgage, then borrow more and invest it). They prefer Canadian equities because of preferential tax treatment of the dividend income (in non-registered accounts). But if something happened to those Canadian companies, they stand to lose much of the investment value and suddenly they have the extra debt (the amount borrowed from a HELOC, or from a re-advanceable mortgage) without enough value in the investments to offset it. This could mean that they will not be able to pay off the mortgage by the time they retire!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ea2160b4af6fd3438b8a6b916d1322d",
"text": "There is a subprime loaning bubble in the auto loan sector which is growing; while it's not in the $1 trillion range or as hidden as the real estate one was, it could cause issues down the road if it continues. The use of derivatives or specifically, CDS, is continuing for other suspect investments. It was used about 4 years ago to help hide Greece's sovereign default and like in 2008, it allowed the bad debt to be hidden and thrive to dangerous levels. The use isn't widespread and limited to several firms so far, but its return as an instrument of choice so soon after the financial crisis is a little worrying that it may be a cyclical crisis.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "99cc24666a7edbd24d598e9a9a0bfd1e",
"text": "I never received any bad treatment as a foreigner. I have dinner with my landlord once a month, and go to the bar with the guy that sold me the plan. Why the fuck would you take out a loan in a foreign country? If you need to so badly, then you obviously don't have the collateral to do so and that's why they are turning you away. Homogenous countries are naturally xenophobic, get over it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a13a3d909a8a8d15a3b73e158a461de0",
"text": "I can't comment about your tax liability in Greece. You will have to pay tax on interest in the UK. If you are earning massive amounts of interest, unlikely with the current interest policies from Merv, then you might be bumped up a tier. The receiving bank may ask for proof of the source of the funds, particularly if it is a fair chunk of change.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d2903c879070395bd1377a25c3f82b31",
"text": "Huh? What does a flight to safety (cheaper US borrowing rates) have to do with the crisis not spreading if something goes wrong in Italy? It won't be the same over here - it will hit the banking system and companies tied to Europe rather than the sovereign market, but if something happens in Italy we'll feel it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "015c6c76c36152915629eb35adf9d72a",
"text": "In the UK I believe the first £50,000 in each bank are secured by the government, so are very safe but one has to check what 'each bank' means as some are members of the same 'group'. See the FSCS",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c138391e73776ca0eda4e01fa2c3c5ac",
"text": "\"No you should not borrow money at 44.9%. I would recommend not borrowing money except for a home with a healthy deposit (called down payment outside UK). in December 2016, i had financial crisis So that was like 12 days ago. You make it sound like the crisis was a total random event, that you did nothing to cause it. Financial crises are rarely without fault. Common causes are failure to understand risk, borrowing too much, insuring too little, improper maintenance, improper reserves, improper planning, etc... Taking a good step or two back and really understanding the cause of your financial crisis and how it could be avoided in the future is very useful. Talk to someone who is actually wealthy about how you could have behaved differently to avoid the \"\"crisis\"\". There are some small set of crises that are no fault of your own. However in those cases the recipe to recovery is patience. Attempting to recover in 12 days is a recipe for further disaster. Your willingness to consider borrowing at 44% suggests this crisis was self-inflicted. It also indicates you need a whole lot more education in personal finance. This is reinforced by your insatiable desire for a high credit score. Credit score is no indication of wealth, and is meaningless until you desire to borrow money. From what I read, you should not be borrowing money. When the time comes for you to buy a home with a mortgage, its fairly easy to have a high enough credit score to borrow at a good rate. You get there by paying your bills on time and having a sufficient deposit. Don't chase a high credit score at the expense of building real wealth.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1071e9190b18e5acb8ee47ab1a7007b8",
"text": "It's always a good move for risk-averse person, expecially in Europe. Because houses are not represented by number in an index. Therefor if you are risk-adverse, you will suffer less pain when house prices go down because you won't have a number to look at everyday like the S&P500 index. Because houses in Europe (Germany, Italy, Spain) are almost all made by concrete and really well done (string real marble cover, hard ceramic covers, copper pipes, ...) compared to the ones in US. The house will still be almost new after 30 years, it will just need a repaint and really few/cheap fixings. Because on the long run (20/30 years) hosues are guaranteed to rise in price, expecially in dense places like big city, NY, San Francisco, etc. The reason is simple: the number of people is ever growing in this world, but the quantity of land is always the same. Moreover there is inflation, do you really think that 30 years from now building a concrete house will be less expensive than today??? Do you think the concrete will cost less? Do you think the gasoline that moves the trucks that bring the concrete will be less expensive than now? Do you think the labour cost will be less expensice than now? So, 30 years from now building an house will be much more expensive than today, and therefor your house wil be more expensive too. On the lomng run stock market do not guarantee you to always increase. The US stock market have always been growing in the long run, but Japan stock market today is at the same level of 30 years ago. Guess what happened to you if you invested your money in the Japan stock market, 30 years ago, whilest your friend bought an hosue in Japan 30 years ago. He would now be rich, and you would now be poor.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "95c7c1e5a083176a72a3d76e28a88ef8",
"text": "Definitely, check if they are regulated by the Finnish financial regulatory board. Google FIN-FSA regulation. It can also be that they are regulated off-shore, no matter just find it out. Besides try to find the terms of you're contract, if cant find ask the broker to point out. Wonder what will happen, following this thread",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f656a547ba7391fa53d8bd4e208f2e4",
"text": "If you get your income in the currency you have the new loan in, there is no exchange risk for the future. Assuming that you are able to get and serve that loan, it reduces your cost, so go for it. Yes, if the currency exchange rate changes the right way over the next years, you could have made a better deal - but consider it could also go the other way. If you really want to play this game, do it separately, by trading calls/puts on the currency exchange rate. See it as a separate and decoupled investment option.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "57c466f2f25afac249a67fe39378fde3",
"text": "No, 401(k) and IRA accounts are not at risk when you default on a mortgage, even in states that aren't non-recourse. In states where mortgages are non-recourse loans, the bank isn't allowed to go after you at all. They get the keys and whatever they recover from the house sale is it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e6110b72db7be0364dfa70f0f2309bf",
"text": "\"Condensed to the essence: if you can reliably get more income from investing the cost of the house than the mortgage is costing you, this is the safest leveraged investment you'll ever make. There's some risk, of course, but there is risk in any financial decision. Taking the mortgage also leaves you with far greater flexibility than if you become \"\"house- rich but cash-poor\"\". (Note that you probably shouldn't be buying at all if you may need geographic flexibility in the next five years or so; that's another part of the liquidity issue.) Also, it doesn't have to be either/or. I borrowed half and paid the rest in cash, though I could have taken either extreme, because that was the balance of certainty vs.risk that I was comfortable with. I also took a shorter mortgage than I might have, again trading off risk and return; I decided I would rather have the house paid off at about the same time that I retire.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2df00d72437669b65c71a5bda02b87fd",
"text": "\"I've never heard of a loan product like that. Yes, if they keep the funds in an account, it is no risk to the bank, but they would essentially need to go through the loan process twice for the same loan: when you pick a house, they need to reevaluate everything, along with appraising and approving the house. Even if you did find a bank that would do this for you, there are a few problems with this scheme. You would be paying interest before you have a need for this money, negating the savings you might achieve if the interest rates go up. In addition, your \"\"balance\"\" will go down as \"\"payments\"\" are deducted from your loan, and when you finally find a home to buy, you might not have enough for the house you want. You'll need to borrow more than you need, which will further negate any possible savings. It is impossible to know how fast rates will climb. If I were you, I would stick to saving for your down payment, and just get the best rate you can when you are ready to buy. Another potential idea for you is to lock an interest rate. When you apply for a mortgage, the interest rate is often locked for as much as 60 days, to protect the borrower in the event that the rates go up. You could ask the bank if you can pay a fee to lock the rate even longer. I don't know if that is possible or not. And, of course, the fee would eat into your potential savings.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f7bac9cf0e5b85b734555a1a2147f61",
"text": "I have used turbo tax for years. Apart from the snafu in 2014, I have had no problem using deluxe, and I have lots of asset sales to report. I prefer form mode anyway. I can import the data from my broker, and I can e-file with no problem. So the only thing I'm missing is the support. I can usually find answers to questions on the web, anyway.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b121ef81dbdb41992571752b8d87e8f5
|
What's behind the long secular bull market in U.S. Treasuries?
|
[
{
"docid": "74fa0dddf06e3dd9017585e8ebc92d6f",
"text": "I believe that it's largely irrational, fueled largely by foreign investors that are afraid to invest anywhere else. There are a few people out there right now who are writing about this: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-treasuries-largest-bubble-in-world-history-says-nia-2011-08-30 http://articles.businessinsider.com/2010-08-25/markets/30080511_1_fed-first-yields-mbs As to why would you invest in long-dated versus short? Probably to chase yield. The 30 year yields 30x more than the 1 year. It's also easier to buy on the long end if you believe that the economy will remain slow for another decade or two and therefore the central banks will keep rates low for a very long time. Of course, at the moment, long-dated treasury prices are artificially high because of operation twist.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "518fa26daa042201cbe1c0e3e34addc3",
"text": "In a secular bull market, strong investor sentiment drives prices higher, as participants, over time, are net buyers. Secular markets are typically driven by large-scale national and worldwide events... demographic/ population shifts, governmental policies... bear market periods occur within the longer interval, but do not reverse the trend. There are still many reasons to buy the long bond, despite the lack of yield (nearly flat term structure of interest rates). Despite the recent credit ratings agency downgrades of U.S. sovereign risk, the T-bond offers greater relative security than many alternatives. If Germany were NOT part of the EU, its government bonds would be issued by the Bundesbank, denominated in Deutsche Marks. German government bonds would probably be a better choice than the U.S. Treasury's 30-year bond. Long-term maturity U.S. Treasuries are in demand by investment and portfolio managers because:",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "37b0fdd14f1ecb48f606ed0d33f56806",
"text": "\"I'll tackle number 2. It's one which many academics dismissed as an impossibility; after all, how could that be rational? What could cause negative yields (ie effectively giving an entity cash and paying for the privilege of doing so!) is something we've experiencing currently: fear. Back in the financial crisis, investors were actually paying to store their cash in treasuries, because of the fear that if they left it with a bank they might not get it back. What about the FDIC Insurance you may ask quite logically. The problem is that we're talking about massive entities, like pension funds, asset managers, corporations, who normally would store some (think millions - billions) in cash and cash equivalents (bank accounts, money market funds, short-term paper), they really aren't protected. So, they do what turns out to be the rational thing, which is pay a premium on \"\"safe assets\"\" ie US Gov't bills to guarantee you get most of your money back. The same thing is currently happening with German front-end paper, as Europeans pull their money out of banks/periphery assets and search for safety. Hope that helped.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "160c44a324bab3abc239fa3ebc2a53bf",
"text": "Yes, the Fed has made a point of buying up longer-term bonds to push down rates on that part of the curve. That's not an indication that they're having problems selling Treasuries, in fact far from it. But apparently there's no demand for Treasuries and Bloomberg is just making up lies to help get Obama reelected? >Investors are plowing into Treasuries (USB2YBC) at a record pace as the supply of the world’s safest securities dwindles, ensuring yields will stay low regardless of whether the Federal Reserve undertakes more stimulus to fight unemployment. Buyers bid $3.19 for each dollar of the $538 billion in notes and bonds sold this year, the most since the government began releasing the data in 1992 and on pace to beat the high of $3.04 in 2011. The net amount of Treasuries available will decline by 30 percent once proceeds from maturing securities are reinvested, according to data from CRT Capital Group LLC. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-09/record-treasury-demand-keeps-yields-low-as-supply-shrinks.html",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "748cfae2bbfeef912d931c272b2f4c68",
"text": "But a textbook liquidity trap means prices fluctuate. We've seen nothing but steady increases in every single possible measurable standard. Liquidity traps occur when there is fear of deflation. There is no such fear. Deflation would be a welcome remedy to today's currency crisis. Your paycheck would be able to purchase more and we would see prices fall, making it easier for the average American to afford their food, gas and housing. Plus, lending is down not because banks are hoarding cash. If anything, banks are trying to lend out more than ever. Standards for borrowing have plummited. Anyone willing to sign a contract can get hundreds of thousands of dollars at the drop of a hat. Lending is down because consumer and business demand for more debt is down. I stopped reading Krugman years ago, but if he is seriously trying to sell a liquidity trap right now, he is horribly misleading people and his advocacy of the Fed's printing and lending policies as of late is just flat out dangerous to the global economy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6be9ede1c3f854caa8cfd3b0e63ec2b6",
"text": "\"A brief review of the financial collapses in the last 30 years will show that the following events take place in a fairly typical cycle: Overuse of that innovation (resulting in inadequate supply to meet demand, in most cases) Inadequate capacity in regulatory oversight for the new volume of demand, resulting in significant unregulated activity, and non-observance of regulations to a greater extent than normal Confusion regarding shifting standards and regulations, leading to inadequate regulatory reviews and/or lenient sanctions for infractions, in turn resulting in a more aggressive industry \"\"Gaming\"\" of investment vehicles, markets and/or buyers to generate additional demand once the market is saturated \"\"Chickens coming home to roost\"\" - A breakdown in financial stability, operational accuracy, or legality of the actions of one or more significant players in the market, leading to one or more investigations A reduction in demand due to the tarnished reputation of the instrument and/or market players, leading to an anticipation of a glut of excess product in the market \"\"Cold feet\"\" - Existing customers seeking to dump assets, and refusing to buy additional product in the pipeline, resulting in a glut of excess product \"\"Wasteland\"\" - Illiquid markets of product at collapsed prices, cratering of associated portfolio values, retirees living below subsistence incomes Such investment bubbles are not limited to the last 30 years, of course; there was a bubble in silver prices (a 700% increase through one year, 1979) when the Hunt brothers attempted to corner the market, followed by a collapse on Silver Thursday in 1980. The \"\"poster child\"\" of investment bubbles is the Tulip Mania that gripped the Netherlands in the early 1600's, in which a single tulip bulb was reported to command a price 16 times the annual salary of a skilled worker. The same cycle of events took place in each of these bubbles as well. Templeton's caution is intended to alert new (especially younger) players in the market that these patterns are doomed to repeat, and that market cycles cannot be prevented or eradicated; they are an intrinsic effect of the cycles of supply and demand that are not in synch, and in which one or both are being influenced by intermediaries. Such influences have beneficial effects on short-term profits for the players, but adverse effects on the long-term viability of the market's profitability for investors who are ill-equipped to shed the investments before the trouble starts.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2732e9c4c38806c0e89bb2edd6272924",
"text": "Supply and demand for a particular bond may be such that the market price exceeds the par value for the bond at maturity. This is when you get a negative yield. Especially when volatility is high, people will actually pay money to park it in treasuries for an amount of time. But when compared to a > 25% vol in the equities market over that same period, taking a 5% or less hit doesn't sound nearly as bad!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "37fe9d23a69b6a0ff5dcad43c1dcf84e",
"text": "\">If mounting debt is such an issue, why do all the markets act as though the US is perfectly solvent? They don't. China, Russia and most emerging markets are selling U.S. treasuries faster and faster. They have started doing so a couple years ago and are doing so at a higher pace now. They sold record numbers of U.S. treasuries in June. Many countries are forging trade partnerships with each other to get away from U.S. debt and even the U.N. and IMF are calling for an end to the dollar as the global reserve currency because it no longer deserves that status, largely due to increasing debt. By the way, the Fed is owning a larger and larger portion of U.S. debt these days. >Why is our interest rate so low, and why do investors around the world continue buying Treasury bonds? The federal reserve keeps rates low. Investors speculate about the future of the market all the time, but they are starting to dump them now http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-15/u-s-investment-outflow-reaches-record-as-china-sells-treasuries.html http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/15/usa-economy-capital-idUSL2N0QL0T520140815 http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/eaccbe18-aea6-11e3-aaa6-00144feab7de.html >The total net outflow of long-term U.S. securities and short-term funds such as bank transfers was $153.5 billion, after an inflow of $33.1 billion the previous month, the Treasury Department said in a report today. The June figure, and $40.8 billion in net selling of Treasury bonds and notes by private investors in June, **were the largest on record, the Treasury said.** >\"\"This is a disappointment and is a negative for the dollar. Clearly, the United States is having a hard time attracting investments to offset its current account deficit,\"\" said Michael Woolfolk, global market strategist at BNY Mellon in New York. >Central banks sold US Treasury debt at the start of the year, according to the latest official data released on Tuesday, as stress among emerging market countries intensified. Declines in Treasury holdings were seen for Thailand, Turkey and the Philippines, which sold $3.9bn, $3.3bn and $1.5bn respectively during January. Wow look at that. Did you just dismiss all evidence that proves you wrong? I think so!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab529d74108e9de7c8dac0355282dec1",
"text": "Long convexity is achieved by owning long dated low delta options. When a significant move occurs in the underlying the volatility curve will move higher. Instead of a linear relationship between your long position and it's return, you receive a multiple of the linear return. For example: Share price $50 Long 1 (equals 100 shares) contract of a 2 year 100 call Assume this is a 5 delta option If the stock price rises to $70 the delta of the option will rise because it is now closer to the strike. Lets assume it is now a 20 delta option. Then Expected return on a $20 price move higher, 100 shares($20)(.20-.05)=$300 However what happens is the entire volatility surface rises and causes the 20 delta option to be 30 delta option. Then The return on a $20 price move higher, 100 shares($20)(.30-.05)=$500 This $200 extra gain is due to convexity and explains why option traders are willing to pay above the theoretical price for these options.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5596b89a7503739bfe1ed3ba97b4b993",
"text": "Robert Shiller has an on-line page with links to download some historical data that may be what you want here. Center for the Research in Security Prices would be my suggestion for another resource here.",
"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": "9c52167af80856de1ae5995c89bb1e1d",
"text": "\"This is a speculative question and there's no \"\"correct\"\" answer, but there are definitely some highly likely outcomes. Let's assume that the United States defaults on it's debt. It can be guaranteed that it will lose its AAA rating. Although we don't know what it will drop to, we know it WILL be AA or lower. A triple-A rating implies that the issuer will never default, so it can offer lower rates since there is a guarantee of safety there.People will demand a higher yield for the lower perceived security, so treasury yield will go up. The US dollar, or at least forex rates, will almost certainly fall. Since US treasuries will no longer be a safe haven, the dollar will no longer be the safe currency it once was, and so the dollar will fall. The US stock market (and international markets) will also have a strong fall because so many institutions, financial or otherwise, invest in treasuries so when treasuries tumble and the US loses triple-A, investments will be hurt and the tendency is for investors to overreact so it is almost guaranteed that the market will drop sharply. Financial stocks and companies that invest in treasuries will be hurt the most. A notable exception is nations themselves. For example, China holds over $1 trillion in treasuries and a US default will hurt their value, but the Yuan will also appreciate with respect to the dollar. Thus, other nations will benefit and be hurt from a US default. Now many people expect a double-dip recession - worse than the 08/09 crisis - if the US defaults. I count myself a member of this crowd. Nonetheless, we cannot say with certainty whether or not there will be another recession or even a depression - we can only say that a recession is a strong possibility. So basically, let's pray that Washington gets its act together and raises the ceiling, or else we're in for bad times. And lastly, a funny quote :) I could end the deficit in 5 minutes. You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP all sitting members of congress are ineligible for reelection. - Warren Buffett\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1b3e7446fd01d40d7513b4640655a667",
"text": "The way it actually works is that low-but-steady inflation (ie: printing of new dollars without any debt behind them) keeps the debts serviceable. In real life, unfortunately, too little of the money supply is printed rather than lent into existence.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8290de06be4d6255f61a606db30404dd",
"text": "\"Both explanations are partly true. There are many investors who do not want to sell an asset at a loss. This causes \"\"resistance\"\" at prices where large amounts of the asset were previously traded by such investors. It also explains why a \"\"break-through\"\" of such a \"\"resistance\"\" is often associated with a substantial \"\"move\"\" in price. There are also many investors who have \"\"stop-loss\"\" or \"\"trailing stop-loss\"\" \"\"limit orders\"\" in effect. These investors will automatically sell out of a long position (or buy out of a short position) if the price drops (or rises) by a certain percentage (typically 8% - 10%). There are periods of time when money is flowing into an asset or asset class. This could be due to a large investor trying to quietly purchase the asset in a way that avoids raising the price earlier than necessary. Or perhaps a large investor is dollar-cost-averaging. Or perhaps a legal mandate for a category of investors has changed, and they need to rebalance their portfolios. This rebalancing is likely to take place over time. Or perhaps there is a fad where many small investors (at various times) decide to increase (or decrease) their stake in an asset class. Or perhaps (for demographic reasons) the number of investors in a particular situation is increasing, so there are more investors who want to make particular investments. All of these phenomena can be summarized by the word \"\"momentum\"\". Traders who use technical analysis (including most day traders and algorithmic speculators) are aware of these phenomena. They are therefore more likely to purchase (or sell, or short) an asset shortly after one of their \"\"buy signals\"\" or \"\"sell signals\"\" is triggered. This reinforces the phenomena. There are also poorly-understood long-term cycles that affect business fundamentals and/or the politics that constrain business activity. For example: Note that even if the markets really were a random walk, it would still be profitable (and risk-reducing) to perform dollar-cost-averaging when buying into a position, and also perform averaging when selling out of a position. But this means that recent investor behavior can be used to predict the near-future behavior of investors, which justifies technical analysis.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc33b8954e1e7ec0fe149952f8ee1f62",
"text": "\"We are exactly where we should be for pricing. We are not over valued. The largest bull market in history is following the longest stagnation in history, we're merely playing catch up. Of course, it was spurred after Trump won because the business sector assumed he would curtail regulation - one thing we're pretty sure he'll accomplish because his business interests are alligned. Recommended reading outlining why we are appropriately valued: Stocks for the Long Run by Jeremy Seigel, Prof of finance at Wharton. I'm all for looking out for people's benefit. As an investment advisor, I have to abide by the fidicuary rule myself. I'm sure there's another side to the argument for them removing the rule. As Robert Shiller, Nobel laureate in economics, put it, \"\"We need the right regulation, not more or less.\"\" Perhaps it's not correct in it's current state. But I'm not a legislative expert, maybe someone can elaborate. We need to be wary about how quick we are to judge on these rulings. Many comments are not experts and our confirmation bias will drive people to misinformation. We judge ourselves on our intentions and others on their actions.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d8b964c197b4e88844b037810b8339df",
"text": "There are some important thing you need to understand about bonds, and how they work: * A bond doesn't need an active market - like a stock, for example - to have value. * Nonetheless, there exist active markets for all of these bonds. * The purpose of buying these bonds was not to step in due to the absence of a market. Rather, the purpose was to deliberately bid up the price of these bonds (ahead of the market), causing their price to rise and yields (interest rates) to drop. * The Fed can hold any and all of these bonds to maturity, while receiving contractual payments all the while, and never sell a single bond back to the market.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa4a29677cbaabb9dbf2395e17812b4a",
"text": "I mean, at a personal level, I do this all the time. I will absolutely take advantage of low interest financing offers if I know I can make more money with the outstanding balance than will be drawn in interest. It can also make sense from a risk management perspective: I need liquidity even if I can cover the cost, I anticipate needing a large sum of cash over a short interval during the finance period. If I were to pay all upfront the cumulative expenditures would Darwin me too close to my safety threshold for my comfort level, but by financing I can distribute the risk and keep a higher margin for error over the course of the loan.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
1e317f9c9d9fa8f3634398e8a48737fd
|
What low-fee & liquid exchange-traded index funds / ETFs should I consider holding in a retirement portfolio?
|
[
{
"docid": "7034b1830c9bba00e0fa8ff154ab84d5",
"text": "\"Here's a dump from what I use. Some are a bit more expensive than those that you posted. The second column is the expense ratio. The third column is the category I've assigned in my spreadsheet -- it's how I manage my rebalancing among different classes. \"\"US-LC\"\" is large cap, MC is mid cap, SC is small cap. \"\"Intl-Dev\"\" is international stocks from developed economies, \"\"Emer\"\" is emerging economies. These have some overlap. I don't have a specific way to handle this, I just keep an eye on the overall picture. (E.g. I don't overdo it on, say, BRIC + Brazil or SPY + S&P500 Growth.) The main reason for each selection is that they provide exposure to a certain batch of securities that I was looking for. In each type, I was also aiming for cheap and/or liquid like you. If there are substitutes I should be looking at for any of these that are cheaper and/or more liquid, a comment would be great. High Volume: Mid Volume (<1mil shares/day): Low Volume (<50k shares/day): These provide enough variety to cover the target allocation below. That allocation is just for retirement accounts; I don't consider any other savings when I rebalance against this allocation. When it's time to rebalance (i.e. a couple of times a year when I realize that I haven't done it in several months), I update quotes, look at the percentages assigned to each category, and if anything is off the target by more than 1% point I will buy/sell to adjust. (I.e. if US-LC is 23%, I sell enough to get back to 20%, then use the cash to buy more of something else that is under the target. But if US-MC is 7.2% I don't worry about it.) The 1% threshold prevents unnecessary trading costs; sometimes if everything is just over 1% off I'll let it slide. I generally try to stay away from timing, but I do use some of that extra cash when there's a panic (after Jan-Feb '09 I had very little cash in the retirement accounts). I don't have the source for this allocation any more, but it is the result of combining a half dozen or so sample allocations that I saw and tailoring it for my goals.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a3b870bb13360f8f4603071e8bca3010",
"text": "I use the following allocation in my retirement portfolio: I prefer these because: Expense Ratios Oh, and by their very definition, ETFs are very liquid. EDIT: The remaining 10% is the speculative portion of my portfolio. Currently, I own shares in HAP (as a hedge against rising commodity prices) and TIP (as a hedge against hyperinflation).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9156e491f4e2121b8b45b776294c2bea",
"text": "@bstpierre gave you an example of a portfolio similar to IFA's 70 portfolio. Please, look other variants of example portfolios there and investigate which would suit to you. Although the example portfolios are not ETF-based, required by the op, you can rather easily check corresponding components with this tool here. Before deciding your portfolio, fire up a spreadsheet (samples here) and do calculations and do not underestimate things below: Bogleheads have already answered this type of questions so why not look there? Less reinventing the wheel: google retirement portfolios site:bogleheads.org. I am not making any recommendations like other replies because financial recommendations devalue. I hope I steered you to the right track, use less time to pick individual funds or stocks and use more time to do your research.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d7701032534ea45756ab7256d60fb80c",
"text": "If liquidity and cost are your primary objectives, Vanguard is indeed a good bet. They are the walmart of finance and the absolute best at minimizing fees and other expenses. Your main portfolio holding should be VTI, the total stock market fund. Highly liquid and has the lowest fees out there at 0.05%. You can augment this with a world-minus-US fund if you want. No need to buy sector or specific geography funds when you can get the whole market for less. Add some bond funds and alternative investments (but not too much) if you want to be fully diversified.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "ad3f4ad517e76e988202279128dd35d6",
"text": "In your case, you could very well leave it in something like FFFFX, which for readers is a self balancing fund with a target retirement date of 2040. These funds are a conglomeration of other funds that tend to move more conservatively as time passes. However, I like to put no more than 10% of my portfolio in one fund with exceptions made for balances less than 20K. So If I had 18K it really wouldn't matter if it was in FUSEX a S&P 500 index fund. However by investing in FFFFX you pretty much meet that requirement. So you are golden if that fund meets your goals. For me, I kind of hate bonds and despite being of similar age, I have almost no money invested in bonds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "710dc43da017a9d1b5c67adf4f498817",
"text": "Assuming this'll be a taxable account and you're an above-average wage earner, the following seem to be biggest factors in your decision: tax-advantaged income w/o retirement account protection - so I'd pick a stock/stocks or fund that's designed to minimize earnings taxable at income and/or short-term gains rates (e.g. dividends) declining risk profile - make sure you periodically tweak your investment mix over the 2-3 year period to reduce your risk exposure. You want to be near savings account risk levels by the end of your timeline. But make sure you keep #1 in mind - so probably don't adjust (by selling) anything until you've hit the 1-year holding mark to get the long-term capital gains rates. In addition to tax-sensitive stock & bond funds at the major brokerages like Fidelity, I'd specifically look at tax-free municipal bond funds (targeted for your state of residence) since those generally pay better than savings on after tax basis for little increase in risk (assuming you stick w/ higher-rated municipalities).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "21644dc58ac157d153254c1422b6763b",
"text": "I personally like Schwab. Great service, low fees, wide variety of fund are available at no fee. TD Ameritrade is good too.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0b4d041501b889e30080b61b2a31216c",
"text": "You could certainly look at the holdings of index funds and choose index funds that meet your qualifications. Funds allow you to see their holdings, and in most cases you can tell from the description whether certain companies would qualify for their fund or not based on that description - particularly if you have a small set of companies that would be problems. You could also pick a fund category that is industry-specific. I invest in part in a Healthcare-focused fund, for example. Pick a few industries that are relatively diverse from each other in terms of topics, but are still specific in terms of industry - a healthcare fund, a commodities fund, an REIT fund. Then you could be confident that they weren't investing in defense contractors or big banks or whatever you object to. However, if you don't feel like you know enough to filter on your own, and want the diversity from non-industry-specific funds, your best option is likely a 'socially screened' fund like VFTSX is likely your best option; given there are many similar funds in that area, you might simply pick the one that is most similar to you in philosophy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "620dadd69f63a02ed5ff14e985f37356",
"text": "There is little difference between buying shares in your broker's index fund and shares of their corresponding ETF. In many cases the money invested in an ETF gets essentially stuffed right into the index fund (I believe Vanguard does this, for example). In either case you will be paying a little bit of tax. In the ETF case it will be on the dividends that are paid out. In the index fund case it will additionally be on the capital gains that have been realized within the fund, which are very few for an index fund. Not a ton in either case. The more important tax consideration is between purchase and sale, which is the same in either case. I'd say stick it wherever the lowest fees are.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fa5d7fc90781b75afd3e03ba8cc686cb",
"text": "\"There are a lot of funds that exist only to feed people's belief that existing funds are not diversified or specialized enough. That's why you have so many options. Just choose the ones with the lowest fees. I'd suggest the following: I wouldn't mess around with funds that try and specialize in \"\"value\"\" or those target date funds. If you really don't want to think and don't mind paying slightly higher fees, just pick the target date fund that corresponds to when you will retire and put all your money there. On the traditional/Roth question, if your tax bracket will be higher when you retire than it is now (unlikely), choose Roth. Otherwise choose traditional.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "07f7202017432ca3558e5ec9494595bc",
"text": "Current evidence is that, after you subtract their commission and the additional trading costs, actively managed funds average no better than index funds, maybe not as well. You can afford to take more risks at your age, assuming that it will be a long time before you need these funds -- but I would suggest that means putting a high percentage of your investments in small-cap and large-cap stock indexes. I'd suggest 10% in bonds, maybe more, just because maintaining that balance automatically encourages buy-low-sell-high as the market cycles. As you get older and closer to needing a large chunk of the money (for a house, or after retirement), you would move progressively more of that to other categories such as bonds to help safeguard your earnings. Some folks will say this an overly conservative approach. On the other hand, it requires almost zero effort and has netted me an average 10% return (or so claims Quicken) over the past two decades, and that average includes the dot-bomb and the great recession. Past results are not a guarantee of future performance, of course, but the point is that it can work quite well enough.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b8bc5ac6fc7eafb3ec03c29d82e651ec",
"text": "\"The London Stock Exchange offers a wealth of exchange traded products whose variety matches those offered in the US. Here is a link to a list of exchange traded products listed on the LSE. The link will take you to the list of Vanguard offerings. To view those offered by other managers, click on the letter choices at the top of the page. For example, to view the iShares offerings, click on \"\"I\"\". In the case of Vanguard, the LSE listed S&P500 ETF is traded under the code VUSA. Similarly, the Vanguard All World ETF trades under the code VWRL. You will need to be patient viewing iShares offerings since there are over ten pages of them, and their description is given by the abbreviation \"\"ISH name\"\". Almost all of these funds are traded in GBP. Some offer both currency hedged and currency unhedged versions. Obviously, with the unhedged version you are taking on additional currency risk, so if you wish to avoid currency risk then choose a currency hedged version. Vanguard does not appear to offer currency hedged products in London while iShares does. Here is a list of iShares currency hedged products. As you can see, the S&P500 currency hedged trades under the code IGUS while the unhedged version trades under the code IUSA. The effects of BREXIT on UK markets and currency are a matter of opinion and difficult to quantify currently. The doom and gloom warnings of some do not appear to have materialised, however the potential for near-term volatility remains so longs as the exit agreement is not formalised. In the long-term, I personally believe that BREXIT will, on balance, be a positive for the UK, but that is just my opinion.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "39039f0f18b9a5f0ebc766f87a502934",
"text": "In the past 10 years there have been mutual funds that would act as a single bucket of stocks and bonds. A good example is Fidelity's Four In One. The trade off was a management fee for the fund in exchange for having to manage the portfolio itself and pay separate commissions and fees. These days though it is very simple and pretty cheap to put together a basket of 5-6 ETFs that would represent a balanced portfolio. Whats even more interesting is that large online brokerage houses are starting to offer commission free trading of a number of ETFs, as long as they are not day traded and are held for a period similar to NTF mutual funds. I think you could easily put together a basket of 5-6 ETFs to trade on Fidelity or TD Ameritrade commission free, and one that would represent a nice diversified portfolio. The main advantage is that you are not giving money to the fund manager but rather paying the minimal cost of investing in an index ETF. Overall this can save you an extra .5-1% annually on your portfolio, just in fees. Here are links to commission free ETF trading on Fidelity and TD Ameritrade.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b37971b421af08c8675b6b64c044e31f",
"text": "One thing to be aware of when choosing mutual funds and index ETFs is the total fees and costs. The TD Ameritrade site almost certainly had links that would let you see the total fees (as an annual percentage) for each of the funds. Within a category, the lowest fees percentage is best, since that is directly subtracted from your performance. As an aside, your allocation seems overly conservative to me for someone that is 25 years old. You will likely work for 40 or so years and the average stock market cycle is about 7 years. So you will likely see 5 or so complete cycles. Worrying about stability of principal too young will really cut into your returns. My daughter is your age and I have advised her to be 100% in equities and then to start dialing that back in about 25 years or so.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf11a18f0b61c31cae4772b7d6a1112e",
"text": "Vanguard has low cost ETFs that track the S&P 500. The ticker is VOO, its expense ratio is 0.05%, which is pretty low compared to others in the market. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but you won't have to pay tax on the dividends if it's in a retirement account such as a Traditional(pay taxes when you withdraw) or Roth IRA(pay income/federal/fica etc, but no taxes on withdrawal)...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b676d3564243694c56c2b6b740d1dbc1",
"text": "Loads of financial advisors advise holding index funds they may advise other things as well, but low fee index funds are a staple portfolio item. I can't speak to the particulars of Canada, but in the US you would just open a brokerage account (or IRA or SEP IRA in the case of a small business owner) and buy a low cost S&P index ETF or low/no fee/commission S&P index mutual fund. There's no magic to it. Some examples in no particular order are, Vanguard's VOO, Schwab's SWPPX, and iShares' IVV. There are also Canadian index equities like Vanguard's VCN and iShare's XIC.",
"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": "e6cc30e76ef9235e52b2a547dac32a3a",
"text": "Considering the combined accounts you're contributing $100 per month and they want $100 per year to administer them... that's 8.3% of your contributions gone to fees each year. To me, that's a definite no. Without getting in to bad mouthing the adviser for even making the suggestion, the scale of your account doesn't warrant a fee that high. Fees are very meaningful to the little fish investors. There are LOADS of IRA account providers. With that level of competition, there are several that have very reasonable account minimums, no annual maintenance fees, and a suite of no fee, no load, no commission, low expense ratio funds to choose from. Schwab, Fidelity and Vanguard come to mind. I know Schwab is running a big ad campaign right now as it's reduced some of it's already low expense ratios. If I were you, yes I would move the account because you can even get rid of the $10/year/account fee. But, no, I would not move it to a higher fee situation. In my opinion on a $3,600 account + $1,200 per year in contributions, you don't need advise. You need a good broad market low fee index fund, and enough discipline to understand that retirement is 25 years away so you keep contributing even when news is bad and the market is going down. In 10 years maybe talk to an adviser. Using the S&P500 index daily close historical data from calendar year 2016, considering first of the month monthly deposits and a starting balance of $3,600, you would come out at the end of the year with about $5,294. That's $494 in gain on your total contributions of $4,800. They'd take $100, that's about 20% of your gain. Compared to a no fee account with a reasonable expense ratio of 0.1% the fee would be just $5.30. Bearing in mind also that your $100 per year account will probably be invested in funds that also have an expense ratio fee structure further zapping gains. Further, you lose the compounding effect of the $100 fee over time which adds up to a significant of retirement funds considering a 25 year period. If all you did was put that $100 fee in to a 1% savings account each year for 25 years you'd end up with $2,850. (Considering the average 7% return of the S&P you'd have $6,964 on just your $100 per year fees) This is why you should be so vigilant about fees.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e72405e4b94676de0eaf1aac18d330f2",
"text": "In my IRA I try to find stocks that are in growing sectors but have are undervalued by traditional metrics like PE or book value; I make sure that they have lower debt levels than their peers, are profitable, and at least have comparable margins. I started trading options to make better returns off of indices or etfs. It seems overlooked but it's pretty good, in another thread I was telling someone about my strategy buy applying it to thier portfolio: https://www.reddit.com/r/options/comments/77bt17/ive_been_trading_stocks_for_a_year_and_am/dolydu8/?context=3 I double checked, I told him/her I would buy the DIA Jan 19 2018 call 225 for 795. 8 days later it's trading for 1085. Nearly 50% in a week. It'll never be 300% earnings returns, but I'm happy to take it slow. Shorting is a very different animal it takes a lot to get things right.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
4d08d32d21efa2b77cbc690ea1414a65
|
What is the “Bernanke Twist” and “Operation Twist”? What exactly does it do?
|
[
{
"docid": "4eef03adb23ac2f2b8b9f6d3a908fd72",
"text": "\"So \"\"Operation Twist\"\" is actually a pretty simple concept. Here's the break down: The Fed sells short-term treasury bonds that it already holds on its books. Short-term treasury bonds refer to - bonds that mature in less than three years. Then: Uses that money to buy long term treasury bonds. Long-term treasury bonds refer to - bonds that mature in six to 30 years The reason: The fed buys these longer-term treasuries to lower longer-term interest rates and encourage more borrowing and spending. Diving deeper into how it works: So the Fed can easily determine short-term rates by using the Federal funds rate this rate has a direct effect on the following: However this does not play a direct role in influencing the rate of long-term loans (what you might pay on a 30-year fixed mortgage). Instead, long-term rates are determined by investors who buy and sell bonds in the bond market, which changes daily. These bond yields fluctuate depending on the health of the economy and inflation. However, the Fed funds rate does play an indirect role in these rates. So now that we know a little more about what effects what rate, why does lower long-term rates in treasuries influence my 30yr fixed mortgage? Well when you are looking for a loan you are entering a market and competing against other people, by people I mean anyone looking for money (e.g: my grandmother, companies, or the US government). The bank that lends you money has to decide weather the deal you are offering them is better then another deal on the market. If the risk of lending to one person is the same as the risk of lending to another, the bank will make whichever loan yields the higher interest rate. The U.S. government is considered a very safe borrower, so much so that government bonds are considered almost “risk free”, but because of the lower risk the rate of return is lower. So now the bank has to factor in this risk and make its decision weather to lend you money, or the government. So, if the government were to go to the market and buy its own long-term bonds it is adding demand in the market causing the price of the bond to rise in effect lowering the interest rate (when price goes up, yield goes down). So when you go back and ask for a loan it has to re-evaluate and decide \"\"Is it worth giving this money to Joe McFreeBeer instead and collecting a higher yield?\"\" (After all, Joe McFreeBeer is a nice guy). Here's an example: Lets say the US has a rating of 10 out of 10 and its bonds pay a 2% yield. Now lets say for each lower mark in rating the bank will lend at a minimum of 1% higher and your rating is 8 of 10. So if you go to market, the lowest rate you can get will be 4%. Now lets say price rises on the US treasury and causes the rate to go down by 1%. In this scenario you will now be able to get a loan for 3% and someone with a rating of 7 of 10 would be able to get that 4% loan. Here's some more info and explinations: Why is the Government Buying Long-Term Bonds? What Is 'Operation Twist'? A Q&A on US Fed Program Federal Reserve for Beginners Federal Open Market Committee\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ab90eea050860a8a0fd05acc26713a6",
"text": "\"To understand the Twist, you need to understand what the Yield Curve is. You must also understand that the price of debt is inverse to the interest rate. So when the price of bonds (or notes or bills) rises, that means the current price goes up, and the yield to maturity has gone down. Currently (Early 2012) the short term rate is low, close to zero. The tools the fed uses, setting short term rates for one, is exhausted, as their current target is basically zero for this debt. But, my mortgage is based on 10yr rates, not 1 yr, or 30 day money. The next step in the fed's effort is to try to pull longer term rates down. By buying back 10 year notes in this quantity, the fed impacts the yield at that point on the curve. Buying (remember supply/demand) pushes the price up, and for debt, a higher price equates to lower yield. To raise the money to do this, they will sell short term debt. These two transactions effectively try to \"\"twist\"\" the curve to pull long term rates lower and push the economy.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1de24d75080643ec1433ec639cffd061",
"text": "The severity of wealth inequality- more so than its existence- is what I'm getting at when I talk about the Fed. The cantillon effect is a theory that essentially states that the first recipients of stimulus are far better off than those 2 or 3 degrees of separation later. So if you look at Fed policies, where monetary stimulus is directed only towards the financial system and credit markets, certain parties will benefit disproportionately first before others later. In this case, that would be those employed by the industry (bankers, investors, etc), institutions in that industry (banks, hedge funds, pension/mutual funds), and owners of securities (the wealthy). Spillover effects impact the stock market, real estate, art, etc. and they are not a result of fundamentals, but rather of mis-allocated capital. What I'm getting at is we don't need central planners (i.e. the Fed) to make decisions regarding the market for money - interest rates - or pursue dubious financial experiments at best to somehow fix problems that they themselves caused in the past (through extended low interest rate environments). Central banking could take a very serious hit if cryptocurrencies become mainstream- which I do not expect for a long time- but it's the best emergent challenger to the existing paradigm.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "12cec45d7a98b04b18ee1ff0e22ffdc2",
"text": "Yeah it's called the Fed buying shit mortgages that the banks invented to make money, then got bailed out on 100 cents on the dollar for, and with an underhanded deal that the banks will then buy Treasury bills with the magically prestidigitated money the Fed creates out of nothing that the banks receive in order to prop up federal debt prices, and thus keep interest rates down, so the dollar can limp along a little while longer until the bottom drops out because they are out of ways to keep the money cheap because at some point government debt will become massively discounted no matter what they do. Only, how does this bizarre circlejerk process end? It ends with consumption ramped up consuming things for a large war, is how it ends. Edit: I'm wasted. Fuck you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2ffbb4a564a62c8a471a983d723cac5d",
"text": "\"Had they made a billion dollars it still wouldn't be arbitrage. The definition of arbitrage is \"\"the simultaneous purchase and sale of similar commodities in different markets to take advantage of price discrepancy\"\". What they did was take advantage of a loophole where they took free money to buy more free money. I believe the American government calls that Quantitative Easing. Bazinga.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "998811179d4010020bb3b3408dd346b8",
"text": "\"left out of the pictures is the degree to which the ECB is buying their own bonds. At least with the FedResInk, we know what sort of \"\"open market\"\" action is being taken to keep interest rates held as close to zero as possible. I coke dealer can make sure his \"\"sales\"\" are through the roof by using his own product, but eventually he has to buy more supply. I think people are confused about central banks being that coke dealer or being his supplier.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "05e87d41ee53fac21f7ce4f9b2fcdd3c",
"text": "As far as i understand the big companies on the stock markets have automated processes that sit VERY close to the stock feeds and continually processes these with the intention of identifying an opportunity to take multiple small lots and buy/sell them as a big lot or vice/versa and do this before a buy or sell completes, thus enabling them to intercept the trade and make a small profit on the delta. With enough of these small gains on enough shares they make big profits and with near zero chance of losing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb70a93417809e51fc892e9093c447aa",
"text": "Let me explain this for you: - Massive decrease in sales from 2009-2010= bad government (Obama/Bernanke). - Even bigger increase in sales from 2010-2013= substantive economic growth due to a well-run company. - Later downturn in 2013-2014= bad government (Obama/Bernanke) Basically, when a company is increasing overall revenue and profits, that's because economics and free-markets. When a company is losing sales and revenues, that's because Obama. If their stock-price goes up when it shouldn't, that's also because Obama. Stock prices that are high right now are only high because Obama/Bernanke, except when they are high because of something else. When stock prices go down, it will also be because of Obama/Bernanke. Hopefully that clarifies things for you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e488ba73bb1bea39e9b6737e5018779",
"text": "Sorry, but I am absolutely correct. Fractional reserve lending (banking) is simply that when someone deposits money into a bank, the bank is allowed to loan that money out, so long as they keep a reserve. If the reserve rate is 10% (it's much lower in reality), and someone deposits $100 into the bank, the bank can then loan out $90. That is fractional reserve lending at its most basics. Now fractional reserve lending does have a multiplier effect. And this effect is exactly how I described it. Let's go back to the example. Person A deposits the $100, the bank then loans $90 to person B, person B spends it with person C, person C takes the money and deposits back to the bank. Now the bank has the $100 cash back, $90 in loans and the $190 in deposits, so they need to hold onto $19 as a reserve and can loan out $81. Assuming the money cycles with 100% efficiency, the bank can continue loaning out the same money until they are left with $1000 in deposits, $900 in loans, and the original $100 is the reserve. This is the multiplier effect.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "045a95698737bb16498d42194ede6411",
"text": "I am just a C student with no hope for grad school, so you are going to have to walk me through this... The ECB (until recently), Japan, and the Swiss have been running QE programs equal to that of the Fed's in 2009 for the last couple of years. That's an extraordinary amount of money being created... what's more, is that the Swiss are even buying shitloads of American equities with it. Perhaps my understanding of M2 is flawed, but how would the Swiss national bank buying $63B in equities change M2? It's not like the fed is printing the money specifically for the transaction. The amount of QE being pumped into a healthy economy over the last couple years should be concerning, if only because it's unprecedented, especially since some of it is being directly invested into equities. I don't think there is a viable argument that can truthfully say that it isn't a pretty large variable in the market today.... but I could be wrong. Also, I've read enough, and heard enough, on how the inflation rate is measured to cultivate a healthy skepticism for the entire metric. The way they choose baskets, while obviously the best possible, is not something that lends itself to precision. Please be kind to my grammar.",
"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": "3abfe6c068b124327ded89f42cbe279f",
"text": "\"I think it's an argument for Keynesian economic policy, basically an abridged version of this paragraph from the Wikipedia article: Keynesian economists often argue that private sector decisions sometimes lead to inefficient macroeconomic outcomes which require active policy responses by the public sector, in particular, monetary policy actions by the central bank and fiscal policy actions by the government, in order to stabilize output over the business cycle. \"\"private sector decisions\"\" are bottom-up: millions of businesses and individuals make economic decisions and \"\"the economy\"\" is the sum of what they do. \"\"monetary policy actions by the central bank and fiscal policy actions by the government\"\" are top-down: central institutions implement measures that are intended to have a positive effect (such as reducing unemployment) on millions of individuals.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "345ee357ebff024c4d84f5403004d19b",
"text": "\"I'm still very new to the world of finance. I'm learning about all of the derivatives and how money is made off of them, but it's crazy to me that everyone involved neglected the risk aspect of this. In hindsight, it's so easy to explain what was happening. I guess when everyone is making money hand over fist, it's easy to look the other way. Even the federal gov't played a tremendous role in the crash. Looking at that FRED graph is probably the easiest way to explain the ramifications of the crash. I'm reading [All the Devils Are Here](https://www.amazon.com/All-Devils-Are-Here-Financial/dp/159184438X) right now that was recommended to me by my GF's father. It gives context to the crash in a digestible way, but isn't too dumbed down. I highly recommend it. The man played for the USA on the \"\"Miracle\"\" team and then went on to become a successful bonds trader. I've learned more from my conversations with him than I think I'll ever learn in school. Dude is brilliant and can go for hours on anything finance related.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2e8427f6c06c93827246c711c98b9cb6",
"text": "\"I've mostly seen this term peddled by those with large portfolios in gold/commodities. The incentive for these guys, who for example may have a large portfolio in gold, is to drive demand for gold up - which in turn drives the value of the gold they're holding up and makes their assets more valuable. The easiest way to get a large amount of people to invest in gold is to scare them into thinking the whole market is going to fall apart and that gold is their best/only option. I personally think that the path we're on is not particularly sustainable and that we're heading for a large correction/recession anyways - but for other reasons. **Example:** [Peter Shiff YouTube Channel called \"\"The Economist\"\" with conspiracy videos](https://www.youtube.com/user/PeterSchiffChannel/videos) [Actual \"\"The Economist\"\" magazine researching the market](https://www.youtube.com/user/EconomistMagazine/videos) (edit: formatting)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "09e0dc02beb3ab2a18b54de2e2064cd6",
"text": "A Ponzi scheme takes investor money and lies about where it is invested. New investor money is then used to pay dividends to current investors to attract more investors. However there is a fundamental lie as to where the investment is and how much money is under control. The Fed satisfies none of these requirements. You're pretty confused on the terms. See my post above on how the Fed works.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c2c240138d6421f5623cf2a6162c0879",
"text": "This might be a question better suited for r/askeconomics or just r/economics. Ben Bernanke is an excellent source on the Great Depression, however, and he's very good if you want to understand these crises from an economic point of view.",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
52b55dcb7fa4fddf1812b84c6740a9a0
|
Is it ever logical to not deposit to a matched 401(k) account?
|
[
{
"docid": "da8c84c95dbf3d06800a6611c57b1596",
"text": "\"The original question was aimed at early payment on a student loan at 6%. Let's look at some numbers. Note, the actual numbers were much lower, I've increased the debt to a level that's more typical, as well as more likely to keep the borrower worried, and \"\"up at night.\"\" On a $50K loan, we see 2 potential payoffs. A 6 year accelerated payoff which requires $273.54 extra per month, and the original payoff, with a payment of $555.10. Next, I show the 6 year balance on the original loan terms, $23,636.44 which we would need to exceed in the 401(k) to consider we made the right choice. The last section reflects the 401(k) balance with different rates of return. I purposely offer a wide range of returns. Even if we had another 'lost decade' averaging -1%/yr, the 401(k) balance is more than 50% higher than the current loan debt. At a more reasonable 6% average, it's double. (Note: The $273.54 deposit should really be adjusted, adding 33% if one is in the 25% bracket, or 17.6% if 15% bracket. That opens the can of worms at withdrawal. But let me add, I coerced my sister to deposit to the match, while married and a 25%er. Divorced, and disabled, her withdrawals are penalty free, and $10K is tax free due to STD deduction and exemption.) Note: The chart and text above have been edited at the request of a member comment. What about an 18% credit card? Glad you asked - The same $50K debt. It's tough to imagine a worse situation. You budgeted and can afford $901, because that's the number for a 10 year payoff. Your spouse says she can grab a extra shift and add $239/mo to the plan, because that' the number to get to a 6 year payoff. The balance after 6 years if we stick to the 10 year plan? $30,669.82. The 401(k) balances at varying rates of return again appear above. A bit less dramatic, as that 18% is tough, but even at a negative return the 401(k) is still ahead. You are welcome to run the numbers, adjust deposits for your tax rate and same for withdrawals. You'll see -1% is still about break-even. To be fair, there are a number of variables, debt owed, original time for loan to be paid, rate of loan, rate of return assumed on the 401(k), amount of potential extra payment, and the 2 tax rates, going in, coming out. Combine a horrific loan rate (the 18%) with a longer payback (15+ years) and you can contrive a scenario where, in fact, even the matched funds have trouble keeping up. I'm not judging, but I believe it's fair to say that if one can't find a budget that allows them to pay their 18% debt over a 10 year period, they need more help that we can offer here. I'm only offering the math that shows the power of the matched deposit. From a comment below, the one warning I'd offer is regarding vesting. The matched funds may not be yours immediately. Companies are allowed to have a vesting schedule which means your right to this money may be tiered, at say, 20%/year from year 2-6, for example. It's a good idea to check how your plan handles this. On further reflection, the comments of David Wallace need to be understood. At zero return, the matched money will lag the 18% payment after 4 years. The reason my chart doesn't reflect that is the match from the deposits younger than 4 years is still making up for that potential loss. I'd maintain my advice, to grab the match regardless, as there are other factors involved, the more likely return of ~8%, the tax differential should one lose their job, and the hope that one would get their act together and pay the debt off faster.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a37eaad18e2c46e41dca3d6ce66a1da1",
"text": "Whether or not it is logical probably depends on individual circumstance. When you take on (or maintain) debt, you are choosing to do two things: The first is clear. This is what you describe very well in your answer. It is a straightforward analysis of interest rates. The fixed cost of the debt can then be directly compared to expected return on investments that are made with the newly available cash flow. If you can reasonably expect to beat your debt interest rate, this is an argument to borrow and invest. Add to this equation an overwhelming upside, such as a 401k match, and the argument becomes very compelling. The second cost listed is more speculative in nature, but just as important. When you acquire debt, you are committing your future cash flow to payments. This exposes you to the risk of too little financial margin in the future. It also exposes you to the risk of any negatives that come with non-payment of debt (repossession, foreclosure, credit hit, sleeping at night, family tension, worst-case bankruptcy) Since the future tends to be difficult to predict, this risk is not so easy to quantify. Clearly the amount and nature of the debt is a large factor here. This would seem to be highly personal, with different individuals having unique financial or personal resources or income earning power. I will never say someone is illogical for choosing to repay their debts before investing in a 401k. I can see why some would always choose to invest to the match.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "67f1e3d6f0554611cc1f6864f874b742",
"text": "If your plan permits loans, deposit enough through the year to maximize the match and then take a loan from the plan. Use the loan portion to pay your student loan. Essentially you have refinanced your debt at a (presumably) lower rate and recieved the match. You pay yourself back (with interest) through your payroll. The rates are typically the prime rate + 1%. The loans are subject to a lesser of 50% vested account balance or $50,000 provision.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d056a5ebd67c4f992912e9eea5b149a4",
"text": "The other answers assumed student loan debt -- and for that, it's rarely worth it (unless your company only offers managed plans w/ really bad returns, or the economy recovers to the point where banks are paying 5% again on money market accounts) ... but if it's high rate debt, such as carrying a credit card debt, and the current rate of returns on the 401k aren't that great at the time, it would be worth doing the calculations to see if it's better to pay them down instead. If you're carrying extremely high interest debt (such as 'payday loans' or similar), it's almost always going to be worth paying down that debt as quickly as possible, even if it means forgoing matching 401k payments. The other possible reason for not taking the matching funds are if the required contributions would put you in a significant bind -- if you're barely scraping by, and you can't squeeze enough savings out of your budget that you'd risk default on a loan (eg, car or house) or might take penalties for late fees on your utilities, it might be preferable to save up for a bit before starting the contributions -- especially if you've maxed your available credit so you can't just push stuff to credit cards as a last resort.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c7c28f4c19bec73bdb506f07d5a19e6f",
"text": "One situation where it would be prudent not to contribute would be if expenses are so tight that you cannot afford to contribute because you need that cashflow for expenses.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "846c25ba517a8c3fd0c8159cd443b533",
"text": "Some have suggested you can put the money in the 401k then take a loan to pay off the student loan debt. Some things to consider before doing that: Check your 401k plan first. Some plans allow you to continue paying on a loan if you leave the company, some do not. If you have to change jobs before you pay back the 401k loan, you may only have 90 days to completely pay the loan or the IRS will treat this as an early withdrawal, which means taxes and penalties. If you don't have another job lined up, this is going to make things much worse since you will have lost your income and may owe even more to the government (depending on your state, it may be up to 50% of the remaining amount). There are ways to work with some student debt loans to defer or adjust payments. There is no such option with a 401k plan. This may change your taxes at the end of the year. Most people can deduct student loan interest payments. You cannot deduct interest paid to your 401k loan. You are paying the interest to yourself though. It may hurt your long term growth potential. Currently loans on 401k loans are in the 4% range. If you are able to make more than 4% inside of your 401k, you will be losing out on that growth since that money will only be earning the interest you pay back. It may limit flexibility for a few years. When people fall on hard times, their 401k is their last resort. Some plans have a limit on the number of loans you can have at one time. You may need a loan or a withdrawal in the future. Once you take the money out for a loan, you can't access it again. See the first bullet about working with student loan vendors, they typically have ways to work with you under hard circumstances. 401k loans don't. Amortization schedule. Many 401k loans can only be amortized for a max of 5 years, if you currently have 10 year loans, can you afford to pay the same debt back in 1/2 the time at a lower rate? You will have to do the math. When considering debt other than student loans (such as credit cards), if you fall on hard times, you can always negotiate to reduce the amount you owe, or the debt can be discharged (with tax penalties of course). They can't make you take money out. Once it is out, it is fair game. Just to clarify, the above isn't saying you shouldn't do it under any circumstances, it is a few things you need to evaluate before making that choice. The 401k is supposed to be used to help secure your financial future when you can't work. The numbers may work out in the short term, but do they still work out in the long term? Most credit cards require minimum payments high enough to pay back in 7-10 years, so does shortening that to 5 (or less) make up for the (probably early) years of compounding interest for your retirement? I think others have addressed some of this so I won't do the math. I can tell you that I have a 401k loan, and when things got iffy at my job for, it was a very bad feeling to have that over my head because, unlike other debts, there isn't much you can do about it.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "3902ff75b95b17d3da9bb9b7e00e3bdb",
"text": "\"If you have enough earned income to cover this amount you should be all set. If I understand you correctly you proposed two transactions. The first, a withdrawal from the beneficiary IRA. Some of which is an RMD the rest is an extra withdrawal of funds. Next, you propose to make a deposit to a combination of your IRA and your wife's IRA. As long as there's earned income to cover this deposit, your plan is fine. To be clear, you can't \"\"take a bene IRA and deposit the RMD to an IRA.\"\" But, money is fungible, the dollars you deposit aren't traceable, only need to be justified by enough earned income. A bene IRA is a great way to get the money to increase your own IRA or 401(k) deposits. Further details - The 2016 contribution limit is $5,500 per person, so I did make the assumption you knew the $9000 deposit need to be split between the 2 IRAs, with no more than $5500 going into either one.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8418b64bc7a531370f7aca1b38f565ab",
"text": "The fact that you are planning to move abroad does not affect the decision to contribute to a 401(k). The reason for this is that after you leave your employer, you can roll all the money over from your 401(k) into a self-directed traditional IRA. That money can stay invested until retirement, and it doesn't matter where you are living before or after retirement age. So, when deciding whether or not to use a 401(k), you need to look at the details of your employer's plan: Does your employer offer a match? If so, you should definitely take advantage of it. Are there good investments available inside the 401(k)? Some plans offer very limited options. If you can't find anything good to invest in, you don't want to contribute anything beyond the match; instead, contribute to an IRA, where you can invest in a fund that you like. The other reason to use a 401(k) is that the contribution limits can be higher. If you want to invest more than you are allowed to in an IRA, the 401(k) might allow that. In your case, since there is no match, it is up to you whether you want to participate or not. An IRA will allow more flexibility in investing options. If you need to invest more than your IRA limit, the 401(k) might allow that. When you leave your employer, you should probably roll any 401(k) money into an IRA.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a253b6cffa7a7926e5d5c5802a2858d2",
"text": "Separate from some of the other considerations such as the legality, it is likely going to be worth your will if you employer has company matching even if you have to pay the early withdraw penalty because the matching funds from your employer can be viewed as gains on the money deposited. For example, using round numbers to make the math easy: No 401(k) Deposit With 401(k) Deposit So as you can see there is a benefit to deferring some of the earnings to the 401(k) account due to the employer matching but the actual dollar amount that you would be able to take home will be different based upon your own circumstances. Depending upon what the take home would be at the end of the day the percentage return may or may not be worth the time involved with doing the paperwork. However, all of this only applies if you have to pull the money out early as once you hit 59.5 years old you can start withdrawing the money without the tax penalty in which case the returns on your initial deposit will be much more.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0231a1ed438596a093df5865378641ef",
"text": "To expand on mhoran's answer - Once you mention the 401(k), we're compelled to ask (a) what is the match, if any, and (b) what are the expenses within the funds offered. Depositing to get the full match is going to get you the biggest return on your money. It's common to get a dollar for dollar match on the first 5 or 6% of your income. If the fees are high, you stop at the match, and move to an IRA for the next money you wish to save. At 22, I'd probably focus on the Roth. If you have access to a Roth 401(k), that's great, the match will be pre tax dollars and you'll get started with a decent tax status mix. These accounts can form the core of your investing. Most people have little left over once their retirement accounts are fully funded. And yes, reading to understand stocks is great, but also to understand why stock indexing is the best choice for most investors.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b98c50fba6e6a87e5801149122fd644b",
"text": "\"Another consideration is that you are going to wind up with money in the \"\"regular\"\" 401(k) no matter which one you contribute to. The employer match can't go into the Roth 401(k). So all employer matching funds go in with pre-tax dollars and will be deposited in a normal 401(k) account. Edit from JoeTaxpayer - 2013 brought with it the Roth 401(k) conversion the ability to convert from the traditional pretax side of your 401(k) account to the Roth side.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "019436e3750e0037cce98d04021422c0",
"text": "the whole room basically jumped on me I really have an issue with this. Someone providing advice should offer data, and guidance. Not bully you or attack you. You offer 3 choices. And I see intelligent answers advising you against #1. But I don't believe these are the only choices. My 401(k) has an S&P fund, a short term bond fund, and about 8 other choices including foreign, small cap, etc. I may be mistaken, but I thought regulations forced more choices. From the 2 choices, S&P and short term bond, I can create a stock bond mix to my liking. With respect to the 2 answers here, I agree, 100% might not be wise, but 50% stock may be too little. Moving to such a conservative mix too young, and you'll see lower returns. I like your plan to shift more conservative as you approach retirement. Edit - in response to the disclosure of the fees - 1.18% for Aggressive, .96% for Moderate I wrote an article 5 years back, Are you 401(k)o'ed in which I discuss the level of fees that result in my suggestion to not deposit above the match. Clearly, any fee above .90% would quickly erode the average tax benefit one might expect. I also recommend you watch a PBS Frontline episode titled The Retirement Gamble It makes the point as well as I can, if not better. The benefit of a 401(k) aside from the match (which you should never pass up) is the ability to take advantage of the difference in your marginal tax rate at retirement vs when earned. For the typical taxpayer, this means working and taking those deposits at the 25% bracket, and in retirement, withdrawing at 15%. When you invest in a fund with a fee above 1%, you can see it will wipe out the difference over time. An investor can pay .05% for the VOO ETF, paying as much over an investing lifetime, say 50 years, as you will pay in just over 2 years. They jumped on you? People pushing funds with these fees should be in jail, not offering financial advice.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b9b6bd0da39b12ed4ac17e04daefd67",
"text": "\"Here are the issues, as I see them - It's not that I don't trust banks, but I just feel like throwing all of our money into intangible investments is unwise. Banks have virtually nothing to do with this. And intangible assets has a different meaning than you assume. You don't have to like the market, but try to understand it, and dislike it for a good reason. (Which I won't offer here). Do your 401(k) accounts offer company match? When people start with \"\"we'd like to reduce our deposits\"\" that's the first thing we need to know. Last - you plan to gain \"\"a few hundred dollars a month.\"\" I bet it's closer to zero or a loss. I'll return to edit, we have recent posts here that reviewed the expenses to consider, and I'd bet that if you review the numbers, you've ignored some of them. \"\"A few hundred\"\" - say it's $300. Or $4000/yr. It would take far less work and risk to simply save $100K in your retirement accounts to produce this sum each year. The investment may very well be excellent. I'm just offering the flip side, things you might have missed. Edit - please read the discussion at How much more than my mortgage should I charge for rent? The answers offer a good look at the list of expenses you need to consider. In my opinion, this is one of the most important things. I've seen too many new RE investors \"\"forget\"\" about so many expenses, a projected monthly income reverts to annual losses.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b5b9a2379fe0e363b5e4f935c7eda594",
"text": "\"Defining risk tolerance is often aided with a series of questions. Such as - You are 30 and have saved 3 years salary in your 401(k). The market drops 33% and since you are 100% S&P, you are down the same. How do you respond? (a) move to cash - I don't want to lose more money. (b) ride it out. Keep my deposits to the maximum each year. Sleep like a baby. A pro will have a series of this type of question. In the end, the question resolves to \"\"what keeps you up at night?\"\" I recall a conversation with a coworker who was so risk averse, that CDs were the only right investment for her. I had to explain in painstaking detail, that our company short term bond fund (sub 1 year government paper) was a safe place to invest while getting our deposits matched dollar for dollar. In our conversations, I realized that long term expectations (of 8% or more) came with too high a risk for her, at any level of her allocation. Zero it was.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eabd723d57d919a323d3f41519a30077",
"text": "If it were my money, I wouldn't put it in a 401(k) for this purpose. If you were working at a company that provided 401(k) matching, then it might be worth it to put the money in your employer's 401(k) because the employer chips in based on what you put in. But you're self-employed, so there's no matching unless you match it yourself. (Correct?) So, given that there's no matching, a 401(k) arrangement would have more restrictions than a non-tax-advantaged account (like a bank account, or a taxable money market account). This would be taxable in the year you earn the money, but then that's it. If you're expecting to pull out the money pre-retirement, I wouldn't put it in in the first place.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "627cffc58d9c9f7ac31ca1bbc12289f5",
"text": "The details of the 401(k) are critical to the decision. A high cost (the expenses charged within the) 401(k) - I would deposit only to the match, and I'd be sure to get the entire match offered. In which case, that $3000 might be good to have available if you start out with a tight budget. Low cost 401(k) w/match - a no-brainer, deposit what you can afford. Roth 401(k) w/match - same rules for expenses apply, with the added note to use Roth when getting started and in a lower bracket. Yes, it makes sense to have both. You should note, depositing to the Roth now is riskless. The account, not the investment. If you decide next year you didn't want it, you can withdraw the deposit with no penalty or tax. Edit to respond to updated question - there are two pieces to the Roth deposit issue. The deposit itself, which puts the $3000 earned income into tax sheltered account, and the choice to invest. These two are sequential and you can take your time in between. I'm not sure what you mean by the dividend timing. In an IRA or 401(k) the dividend isn't taxed, so it's a non-issue. In a cash account, you might quickly have a small tax issue, but this doesn't come into the picture in the tax deferred accounts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa1ab4352c4b2ea40d45ae23b1f82460",
"text": "If there is no match and you are disciplined enough to contribute without it coming directly out of your paycheck, dump the 401K. The reason: Most 401K plans have huge hidden fees built into the investment prices. You won't see them directly, but 3% is not uncommon. 3% is a horrible drag on your investment performance. Get an IRA or Roth IRA and pick something with low fees. Bonus: You will have a lot more investment choices!",
"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": ""
},
{
"docid": "80c8c8cc1ed477d727736d22d56956fb",
"text": "\"I frequently advise to go 401(k) up to the match. With no match, I'm not so sure. If you are in the 15% bracket, I'd skip the 401(k). Your standard deduction is $5800 this year, do you itemize? I ask because the 15% bracket ends at $34,500, and I don't know if you manage enough deductions to get under that. But - I'd only pt into the 401(k) what would otherwise be taxed at 25%, no more. Even then only if the 401(k) expenses were pretty reasonable. Will all the hoopla over retirement accounts, we easily forget the beauty of the investment in ETFs long term. You buy the SPY (S&P 500 ETF) and hold it forever. The gains are all deferred until you sell, and then they have a favored rate. You control the timing of the sale with no risk of penalty. The expenses are low, and over time, can make up for the lack of tax deduction (The pretax deposit) vs the 401(k) account. You die and the beneficiaries have a stepped up basis with no tax due (under whatever the limit is that year). Long term, I'd go with low cost ETFs and pay the mortgage at the minimum payments. Even without itemizing, 4.2% is pretty low compared to the expected return over the next decade in stocks. I recommend a look at Fairmark to help understand your marginal rate. Your gross doesn't matter as much as that line on 1040 \"\"taxable income.\"\" This will tell you if you are in the 25% bracket and if so, how deep. Edit - If one's taxable income, line 43 on your 1040, I believe, puts him into the 15% bracket, there are issues using a pretax 401(k). The priority should be to use a Roth IRA or Roth 401(k). Being so close to that 25% bracket at 26 tells me you will grow, and/o marry into it over time, that's the ideal time to use the pre-tax 401(k) to stay at 15%. i.e. deposit just enough to bring your taxable income right to that line of 15/25%.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "908961df089838354f7ea512ee03d06e",
"text": "\"I would like to buy hubby a beer and talk some sense into him. Do you have 2 years gross income saved as your retirement balance? That's about where he should be at age 30. I wrote about this in an article Retirement Savings Ratio. Blowing the 401(k) for anything less than an extreme emergency is downright foolish. The decision whether to roll it to an IRA or the new account isn't so simple. If you roll it to new plan, yes you can borrow, up to 60 months at a low rate, 4% or so. Taking the cash and then making an IRA deposit just means paying the penalty for nothing, unless you manage it just right, depositing the amount within 60 day, etc. You don't mention what he wants to do with it. You need to sit down and have a long \"\"money talk.\"\" Keep in mind, if you oversave, it's easy to retire early, or at 50 just stop saving, spend every new dime. But it's something else to turn 50 and realize you will have to work till you die. I've seen both situations. (I am 48, the Mrs, 54 our multiple is now 13. The target is 20 to retire. The house is not counted as it can't be spent. The mortgage IS counted as it must be paid) Edit - as I read this again, I see the OP asked about opening an IRA in the same year they withdraw the 401(k) and pay tax and penalty. Wow. I also see her user reverted to generic, which means, I think, she's never returned. I hope they made the right decision, to keep the money in retirement accounts. Hubby never even said what he wanted the money for.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96be169c2db8ab9588b647f3b54e964b",
"text": "By definition, this is a payroll deduction. There's no mechanism for you to tell the 401(k) administrator that a Jan-15 deposit is to be credited for 2016 instead of 2017. (As is common for IRAs where you do have the 'until tax time' option) If you are paid weekly, semi-monthly, or monthly, 12/31 is a Saturday this year and should leave no ambiguity about the date of your last check. The only unknown for me if if one is paid bi-weekly, and has a check covering 12/25 - 1/7. Payroll/HR will need to answer whether that check is considered all in 2016, all in 2017 or split between the two.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f03ed9d9a2a4a10aa901779aa0acb493
|
Relation between interest rates and currency for a nation
|
[
{
"docid": "9073fe66e32efa5077a99658e8e018e5",
"text": "What you are asking about is called Interest Rate Parity. Or for a longer explanation the article Interest Rate Parity at Wikipedia. If the US has a rate of say zero, and the rate in Elbonia is 10%, one believes that in a year the exchange rate will be shifted by 10%, i.e. it will take 1.1 unit of their currency to get the dollars one unit did prior. Else, you'd always profit from such FOREX trades. (Disclaimer - I am not claiming this to be true or false, just offering one theory that explains the rate difference effect on future exchange rates.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c49716a0538758168f596a785f54f5f0",
"text": "From Indian context, there are a number of factors that are influencing the economic condition and the exchange rate, interest rate etc. are reflection of the situation. I shall try and answer the question through the above Indian example. India is running a budget deficit of 4 odd % for last 6-7 years, which means that gov.in is spending more than their revenue collection, this money is not in the system, so the govt. has to print the money, either the direct 4% or the interest it has to pay on the money it borrows to cover the 4% (don't confuse this with US printing post 2008). After printing, the supply of INR is more compared to USD in the market (INR is current A/C convertible), value of INR w.r.t. USD falls (in simplistic terms). There is another impact of this printing, it increases the money supply in domestic market leading to inflation and overall price rise. To contain this price rise, Reserve Bank of India (RBI) increases the interest rates and increases Compulsory Reserve Ratio (CRR), thus trying to pull/lock-up money, so that overall money supply decreases, but there is a limit to which RBI can do this as overall growth rate keeps falling as money is more expensive to borrow to invest. The above (in simplistic term) how this is working. However, there are many factors in economy and the above should be treated as it is intended to, a simplistic view only.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "483a44043abcf489a5cbc05a12eb5d2d",
"text": "I've always understood inflation to be linked to individual currencies, although my only research into the subject was an intro economics course in undergrad and I don't recall seeing why that would be the case. I guess the basic principle is that currency traders are watching the printing presses and trading in exchange markets to the point that the exchange rates fall in relation to increases in money supply. There's probably something about the carry trade in there as well, but it's late and I took some medications, so someone else will have to carry that torch. I must admit I've not really paid attention to foreign currencies like HKD, but the proximity and political relationship with China probably greatly complicates your question, since part of the problem has been China's currency peg.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c4d799f952082cf6768813a8df4b3127",
"text": "The Swiss franc has appreciated quite a bit recently against the Euro as the European Central Bank (ECB) continues to print money to buy government bonds issues by Greek, Portugal, Spain and now Italy. Some euro holders have flocked to the Swiss franc in an effort to preserve the savings from the massive Euro money printing. This has increased the value of the Swiss franc. In response, the Swiss National Bank (SNB) has tried to intervene multiple times in the currency market to keep the value of the Swiss franc low. It does this by printing Swiss francs and using the newly printed francs to buy Euros. The SNB interventions have failed to suppress the Swiss franc and its value has continued to rise. The SNB has finally said they will print whatever it takes to maintain a desired peg to the Euro. This had the desired effect of driving down the value of the franc. Which effect will this have long term for the euro zone? It is now clear that all major central bankers are in a currency devaluation war in which they are all trying to outprint each other. The SNB was the last central bank to join the printing party. I think this will lead to major inflation in all currencies as we have not seen the end of money printing. Will this worsen the European financial crisis or is this not an important factor? I'm not sure this will have much affect on the ongoing European crisis since most of the European government debt is in euros. Should this announcement trigger any actions from common European people concerning their wealth? If a European is concerned with preserving their wealth I would think they would begin to start diverting some of their savings into a harder currency. Europeans have experienced rapidly depreciating currencies more than people on any other continent. I would think they would be the most experienced at preserving wealth from central bank shenanigans.",
"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": "3f97d35bd94c664205c2929914af3cc9",
"text": "Stocks, gold, commodities, and physical real estate will not be affected by currency changes, regardless of whether those changes are fast or slow. All bonds except those that are indexed to inflation will be demolished by sudden, unexpected devaluation. Notice: The above is true if devaluation is the only thing going on but this will not be the case. Unfortunately, if the currency devalued rapidly it would be because something else is happening in the economy or government. How these asset values are affected by that other thing would depend on what the other thing is. In other words, you must tell us what you think will cause devaluation, then we can guess how it might affect stock, real estate, and commodity prices.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e8c1ebfbc151286159ad3e8e46305bc",
"text": "The Hong Kong Dollar is based on the US dollar. The Hong Kong central bank recognizes the US dollar as its reserve currency. That is, the Hong Kong central bank keeps US dollars as its main reserve. Not long ago the reserve currency of choice would have been gold. Central banks of each country would need to have enough gold to back up any currency they issued. Now central banks use the US dollar instead. This is what is meant when people mention the US dollar being the reserve currency for most countries. From wiki regarding the HK dollar: A bank can issue a Hong Kong dollar only if it has the equivalent exchange in US dollars on deposit. So you're assumption is correct: as the US Federal Reserve prints more money and that money finds its way to Hong Kong banks, the Hong Kong banks will be able to issue more Hong Kong dollars which will have an inflationary affect. What to do? If you look around enough on this site you'll find some suggestions. Here is one.",
"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": "58eafc943a14f3c08e58f381165b935c",
"text": "Your hypothetical money market account parallel basically nails it. You understand exactly how the math works. IRR computes a rate at which your money market account would have to pay interest in order to match whatever investment you are comparing to. That said, there are two major complicating factors to consider: Your hypothetical account would have to not only pay interest, but also lend money, at exactly the IRR rate. In reality of course, it never happens this way. You may be able to lend (invest) at x, but to borrow you're going to have to pay y. IRR simplifies away that issue in order to give us a single number. That number can be very handy for comparison to other competing hypothetical investments, but it does not capture that fundamental issue of lending rate vs. borrowing rate. An IRR calculation assumes implicitly that all cash flows, outgoing and incoming, are known and fixed; that is, risk-free. It makes no allowance whatever for risk, and all investments have some level of risk. Two investments that compute to the same IRR might have hugely different risk around their cashflows, and so not be a close decision at all. To compare those investments, you might go to a measure like RAROC-- risk-adjusted return on capital. But that's much harder, and more subjective, because it requires some numerical measurement of risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d67d3a9f9940d33d75c8fbfa7f854d74",
"text": "The general idea is that if the statement wasn't true there would be an arbitrage opportunity. You'll probably want to do the math yourself to believe me. But theoretically you could borrow money in country A at their real interest rate, exchange it, then invest the money in the other country at Country B's interest rate. Generating a profit without any risk. There are a lot of assumptions that go along with the statement (like borrowing and lending have the same costs, but I'm sure that is assumed wherever you read that statement.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e5416a1c34543f185d3e43efc655ef62",
"text": "As Sean pointed out they usually mean LIBOR or the FFR (or for other countries the equivalent risk free rate of interest). I will just like to add on to what everyone has said here and will like to explain how various interest rates you mentioned work out when the risk free rate moves: For brevity, let's denote the risk free rate by Rf, the savings account interest rate as Rs, a mortgage interest rate as Rmort, and a term deposit rate with the bank as Rterm. Savings account interest rate: When a central bank revises the overnight lending rate (or the prime rate, repo rate etc.), in some countries banks are not obliged to increase the savings account interest rate. Usually a downward revision will force them to lower it (because they net they will be paying out = Rf - Rs). On the other hand, if Rf goes up and if one of the banks increases the Rs then other banks may be forced to do so too under competitive pressure. In some countries the central bank has the authority to revise Rs without revising the overnight lending rate. Term deposits with the bank (or certificates of deposit): Usually movements in these rates are more in sync with Rf than Rs is. The chief difference is that savings account offer more liquidity than term deposits and hence banks can offer lower rates and still get deposits under them --consider the higher interest rate offered by the term deposit as a liquidity risk premium. Generally, interest rates paid by instruments of similar risk profile that offer similar liquidity will move in parallel (otherwise there can be arbitrage). Sometimes these rates can move to anticipate a future change in Rf. Mortgage loan rates or other interests that you pay to the bank: If the risk free rate goes up, banks will increase these rates to keep the net interest they earn over risk free (= Δr = Rmort - Rf) the same. If Rf drops and if banks are not obliged to decrease loan rates then they will only do so if one of the banks does it first. P.S:- Wherever I have said they will do so when one of the banks does it first, I am not referring to a recursion but merely to the competitive market theory. Under such a theory, the first one to cut down the profit margin usually has a strong business incentive to do so (e.g., gain market share, or eliminate competition by lowering profit margins etc.). Others are forced to follow the trend.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bff253c2835df67c70228c10c88ea019",
"text": "\"It is important to distinguish between cause and effect as well as the supply (saving) versus demand (borrowing) side of money to understand the relationship between interest rates, bond yields, and inflation. What is mean by \"\"interest rates\"\" is usually based on the officially published rates determined by the central bank and is referenced to the overnight lending rate for meeting reserve requirements. In practice, what the means is, (for example) in the United States the Federal Reserve will have periodic meetings to determine whether to leave this rate alone or to raise or lower the rate. The new rate is generally determined by their assessment of current and forecast national and global economic conditions and factors in the votes of the various Regional Federal Reserve Presidents. If the Fed anticipates economic weakness they will tend to lower and keep rates lower, while when the economy seems to be overheated the tendency will be to raise rates. Bond yields are also based on the expectation of future economic conditions, but as determined by market participants. At times the market will actually \"\"lead\"\" the Fed in bidding bond prices up or down, while at other times it will react after the Fed does. However, ignoring the varying time lag the two generally will track each other because they are really the same thing. The only difference is the participants which are collectively determining what the rates/yields are. The inverse relationship between interest rates and inflation is the main reason for fluctuating rates in the first place. The Fed will tend to raise rates to try to slow inflation, and lower rates when it feels inflation is too low and economic growth should be stimulated. Likewise, when the economy is doing poorly there is both little inflationary pressure (driving interest rates down both in terms of what savers can accept to keep ahead of inflation and at) and depressed levels of borrowing (reduced demand for money, driving down rates to try to balance supply and demand), and the opposite is true when the economy is booming. Bond yields are thus positively correlated to inflation because during periods of high inflation savers won't want to invest in bonds that don't provide them with an acceptable inflation adjusted yield. But high interest rates tend to have the effect or reining in inflation because it gets more costly for borrowers and thus puts a damper on new economic activity. So to summarize,\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1df8591be32d4babf6b7a50426ebacda",
"text": "Yes - it's called the rate of inflation. The rate of return over the rate of inflation is called the real rate of return. So if a currency experiences a 2% rate of inflation, and your investment makes a 3% rate of return, your real rate of return is only 1%. One problem is that inflation is always backwards-looking, while investment returns are always forward-looking. There are ways to calculate an expected rate of inflation from foreign exchange futures and other market instruments, though. That said, when comparing investments, typically all investments are in the same currency, so the effect of inflation is the same, and inflation makes no difference in a comparative analysis. When comparing investments in different currencies, then the rate of inflation may become important.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7cff897020391a620928a2dc45c9594c",
"text": "Thanks. It has taken me some time to understand how all this works, and there are still many gray areas I want to understand further. The Fed interest rate is the rate charged by banks to loan to each other to balance overnight reserves but only using the reserves they hold at the Fed. That adds no new money to the system, but increases the money multiplier a little since perhaps more loans can be made. Basically one bank with excess reserves can loan to another bank that needs reserves. The Fed injects no money here, only sets the rate for banks to do this with each other. When the Fed buys securities that effectively adds that many more dollars into circulation, which then gets hit by the money multiplier, adding a lot of new liquidity. I think historically the latter tracks increases in the money supply much better than the former. I think the St. Louis Fed has records online for all this dating back to the 1940's or so.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cdf12a9cc260c7dc4e165c7bd53e1716",
"text": "This is very insightful, I think. As an open question, consider what *downside* a nation (or bank) has to acknowledging bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies. Obviously nations may lose some monetary control by endorsing bitcoin, but I don't know if there's much of a downside for banks considering bitcoin's easy conversion in to USD. If anything, I feel like most of the problems for banks surrounding cryptos would be regulatory.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d8e93ad767c500b3ef79d69ebc32df0",
"text": "Basically, they all do. The relationship is much more dynamic with stocks but corporate financing costs increase, return requirements increase (risk free rate goes up). Same with real estate. Commodity demand is correlated with economic activity, which is correlated with interest rates, although not perfectly. The most important factor is, a higher risk free rate increases the discount rate, which reduces asset values",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac4977a4961a36d663225f022a72b039",
"text": "Not to be a jerk, since I'm learning about options myself, but I think you have a few things wrong about your tesla put postion. First, assuming it was itm or atm within a week of strike it would maybe be worth $12-15, I glanced at the 11/10 put strikes ~325 trades for $12.65 https://www.barchart.com/stocks/quotes/TSLA/options?expiration=2017-11-10 The closer it gets to expiry theta decay reduces put value significantly, the 325's that expire tomorrow are only worth $2.60. Expecting TSLA to drop from 325 to 50 a share by Jan has a .006% chance of occuring according to the current delta. It's a lottery ticket at best. _____ Lastly the $50 price is the expected share price at the date of expiry. The price you pay is 57c for the options. So in order to get to your 494k number TSLA would need to decline $50 dollars to a price of 275 a share. You wouldn't want to buy 50 dollar puts, just the 275 puts, provided it declines very quickly. EDIT: I was looking at the recent expiration to get an idea of atm or itm prices, since it's not like you would hold to expiration. Also the Jan has a 0.6% chance of hitting 50, not .006%. That said what I've noticed when things start to slide is that puts have a weird way of pricing themselves. For example when something gradually goes up all of the calls go up down the chain through time frames, but puts do not in the same fashion. Further out lower priced puts won't move nearly as much unless the company is basically headed for bankruptcy.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
54d0a3948cc5316f7811548186525c81
|
Optimal Asset Allocation
|
[
{
"docid": "8adfee5e74946a3fe31601151914d637",
"text": "Generally a diversified portfolio will give you a better overall return --a couple of factors that may address what you are looking at - 1) Correlation - The correlation between your two funds is still very high -- it's partially a function of how global economies are related and many companies are now multi-national. It may help if you diversified into other types of products. 2) Diversification - Following up from before, you may want to also look into diversifying into some bonds, commodities, reits, etc. They will have a much smaller correlation with a total domestic stock fund. 3) Returns - I'm not sure if by dominate you mean that it has better overall returns, but the point of diversification is to to get you the highest returns. It's really the ability to limit the risk for the returns - this really translates to limiting the volatility. This may mean that overall your max returns could be lower-- ie: maybe VTSAX gives potential average returns between 3%-11%. A diversified portfolio may give you potential average returns of 5%-9%. A similar article debating the merits of 'smart beta ETFs' if you are curious. Hope that helps.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab49bc410881ee4bc8e5e5d965482653",
"text": "\"There are some good answers about the benefits of diversification, but I'm going to go into what is going on mathematically with what you are attempting. I was always under the assumption that as long as two securities are less than perfectly correlated (i.e. 1), that the standard deviation/risk would be less than if I had put 100% into either of the securities. While there does exist a minimum variance portfolio that is a combination of the two with lower vol than 100% of either individually, this portfolio is not necessarily the portfolio with highest utility under your metric. Your metric includes returns not just volatility/variance so the different returns bias the result away from the min-vol portfolio. Using the utility function: E[x] - .5*A*sig^2 results in the highest utility of 100% VTSAX. So here the Sharpe ratio (risk adjusted return) of the U.S. portfolio is so much higher than the international portfolio over the period tracked that the loss of returns from adding more international stocks outweigh the lower risk that you would get from both just adding the lower vol international stocks and the diversification effects from having a correlation less than one. The key point in the above is \"\"over the period tracked\"\". When you do this type of analysis you implicitly assume that the returns/risk observed in the past will be similar to the returns/risk in the future. Certainly, if you had invested 100% in the U.S. recently you would have done better than investing in a mix of US/Intl. However, while the risk and correlations of assets can be (somewhat) stable over time relative returns can vary wildly! This uncertainty of future returns is why most people use a diversified portfolio of assets. What is the exact right amount is a very hard question though.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "19f504b9aea811dc04900fe99d9f9a1f",
"text": "\"There are a couple of reasons to diversify your assets. First, since we cannot predict which of our investments will perform best, we want to \"\"cast our net\"\" broadly enough to have something invested in what's going to be performing well. Second, diversification isn't intended to provide the highest returns, but rather it is used to soften the effects of market volatility. By softening the downsides and lowering the overall volatility among our assets, returns are more consistent. If a model does not address future downside risk it is only telling you part of the story. (Past performance does not guarantee... you get the picture)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ea037e297eea30bc449f3febfb1d4090",
"text": "\"When you have multiple assets available and a risk-free asset (cash or borrowing) you will always end up blending them if you have a reasonable objective function. However, you seem to have constrained yourself to 100% investment. Combine that with the fact that you are considering only two assets and you can easily have a solution where only one asset is desired in the portfolio. The fact that you describe the US fund as \"\"dominating\"\" the forign fund indicates that this may be the case for you. Ordinarily diversification benefits the overall portfolio even if one asset \"\"dominates\"\" another but it may not in your special case. Notice that these funds are both already highly diversified, so all you are getting is cross-border diversification by getting more than one. That may be why you are getting the solution you are. I've seen a lot of suggested allocations that have weights similar to what you are using. Finding an optimal portfolio given a vector of expected returns and a covariance matrix is very easy, with some reliable results. Fancy models get pretty much the same kinds of answers as simple ones. However, getting a good covariance matrix is hard and getting a good expected return vector is all but impossible. Unfortunately portfolio results are very sensitive to these inputs. For that reason, most of us use portfolio theory to guide our intuition, but seldom do the math for our own portfolio. In any model you use, your weak link is the expected return and covariance. More sophisticated models don't usually help produce a more reasonable result. For that reason, your original strategy (80-20) sounds pretty good to me. Not sure why you are not diversifying outside of equities, but I suppose you have your reasons.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "668e10003575f88b6ce719c0d39a32af",
"text": "I want to mention I've found 2 options for more powerful tools that can be used to manage asset allocation: Advantages/Disadvantages: Vanguard Morningstar X-ray I hope this helps others struggling with asset allocation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe9921a7843fe5fe58cfc9155f83a271",
"text": "\"Modern portfolio theory dramatically underestimates the risk of the recommended assets. This is because so few underlying assets are in the recommended part of the curve. As investors identify such assets, large amounts of money are invested in them. This temporarily reduces measured risk, and temporarily increases measured return. Sooner or later, \"\"the trade\"\" becomes \"\"crowded\"\". Eventually, large amounts of money try to \"\"exit the trade\"\" (into cash or the next discovered asset). And so the measurable risk suddenly rises, and the measured return drops. In other words, modern portfolio theory causes bubbles, and causes those bubbles to pop. Some other strategies to consider:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3bea9e988a1f22d46aa61a5179ca7bf5",
"text": "Standard Markowitz's portfolio optimization takes trend into account, not mean reversion. Otherwise, since a portfolio is a linear combination of your individual assets, you could 1st model them separately and than establish a second-layer criteria for weighting. For the 1st layer, mean reversion (as well as trend) of returns can be captured with a ARIMA model, and for the 2nd layer, you could use the Kelly criterion, for instance. A more direct approach to mean-reversion portfolio selection is working with pairs trading. I'm not linking any materials as those topics are plentiful on the web. ...If that's still not the answer you're looking for... The problem with predicting economic cycles is that, they are long, and we hardly have a sufficient measured history to forecast anything reliable. In order to predict the mean reversion of a stock or bond market cycle, you've got to measure their long-term mean first. And there you'll have disagreements right on the start... Some researchers (see Jeremy Siegel) have tried to measure the long-term mean of returns for various asset classes. Some argue that stocks are the long-run winners and that CAPM explains that, but others say that's just questionable, since measurements go just as far as the western countries (US, UK, etc.) have thrived. Other countries have much more recent economic records.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1bea3acc878bbc52ef38fcc73324835a",
"text": "\"An asset allocation formula is useful because it provides a way to manage risk. Rebalancing preserves your asset allocation. The investment risk of a well-diversified portfolio (with a few ETFs or mutual funds in there to get a wide range of stocks, bonds, and international exposure) is mostly proportional to the asset class distribution. If you started out with half-stocks and half-bonds, and stocks surged 100% over the past few years while bonds have stayed flat, then you may be left with (say) 66% stocks and 33% bonds. Your portfolio is now more vulnerable to future stock market drops (the risk associated with stocks). (Most asset allocation recommendations are a little more specific than a stock/bond split, but I'm sure you can get the idea.) Rebalancing can be profitable because it's a formulaic way to enforce you to \"\"buy low, sell high\"\". Massive recessions notwithstanding, usually not everything in your portfolio will rise and fall at the same time, and some are actually negatively correlated (that's one idea behind diversification, anyway). If your stocks have surged, chances are that bonds are cheaper. This doesn't always work (repeatedly transferring money from bonds into stocks while the market was falling in 2008-2009 could have lost you even more money). Also, if you rebalance frequently, you might incur expenses from the trading (depending on what sort of financial instrument you're holding). It may be more effective to simply channel new money into the sector that you're light on, and limit the major rebalancing of the portfolio so that it's just an occasional thing. Talk to your financial adviser. :)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6856197742bcbab76c7f3726f14eda60",
"text": "\"Old question I know, but I have some thoughts to share. Your title and question say two different things. \"\"Better off\"\" should mean maximizing your ex-ante utility. Most of your question seems to describe maximizing your expected return, as do the simulation exercises here. Those are two different things because risk is implicitly ignored by what you call \"\"the pure mathematical answer.\"\" The expected return on your investments needs to exceed the cost of your debt because interest you pay is risk-free while your investments are risky. To solve this problem, consider the portfolio problem where paying down debt is the risk-free asset and consider the set of optimal solutions. You will get a capital allocation line between the solution where you put everything into paying down debt and the optimal/tangent portfolio from the set of risky assets. In order to determine where on that line someone is, you must know their utility function and risk parameters. You also must know the parameters of the investable universe, which we don't.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9852216cde5c4e947daed12ed984d1e7",
"text": "In answer to your last formulation, no. In a perfectly efficient market, different investors still have different risk tolerances (or utility functions). They're maximizing expected utility, not expected value. The portfolios that maximize expected utility for different risk preferences are different, and thus generally have different expected values. (Look up mean-variance utility for a simple-ish example.) Suppose you have log utility for money, u(x) = log(x), and your choice is to invest all of your money in either the risk-free bond or in the risky bond. In the risky bond, you have a positive probability of losing everything, achieving utility u(0) = -\\infty. Your expected utility after purchase of the risky bond is: Pr(default)*u(default) + (1-Pr(default))*u(nominalValue). Since u(default)= -\\infty, your expected utility is also negative infinity, and you would never make this investment. Instead you would purchase the risk-free bond. But another person might have linear utility, u(x) = x, and he would be indifferent between the risk-free and risky bonds at the prices you mention above and might therefore purchase some. (In fact you probably would have bid up the price of the risk-free bond, so that the other investor strictly prefers the risky one.) So two different investors' portfolios will have different expected returns, in general, because of their different risk preferences. Risk-averse investors get lower expected value. This should be very intuitive from portfolio theory in general: stocks have higher expected returns, but more variance. Risk-tolerant people can accept more stocks and more variance, risk-averse people purchase less stocks and more bonds. The more general question about risk premia requires an equilibrium price analysis, which requires assumptions about the distribution of risk preferences among other things. Maybe John Cochrane's book would help with that---I don't know anything about financial economics. I would think that in the setup above, if you have positive quantities of these two investor types, the risk-free bond will become more expensive, so that the risky one offers a higher expected return. This is the general thing that happens in portfolio theory. Anyway. I'm not a financial economist or anything. Here's a standard introduction to expected utility theory: http://web.stanford.edu/~jdlevin/Econ%20202/Uncertainty.pdf",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e684c98f04db9a9885cad4ab7319e653",
"text": "DCA is not 10%/day over 10 days. If I read the objective correctly, I'd suggest about a 5 year plan. It's difficult to avoid the issue of market timing. And any observation I'd make about the relative valuation of the market would be opinion. By this I mean, some are saying that PE/10 which Nobel prize winner Robert Schiller made well known, if not popular, shows we are pretty high. Others are suggesting the current PE is appropriate given the near zero rate of borrowing. Your income puts long term gains at zero under current tax code. Short term are at your marginal rate. I would caution not to let the tax tail wag the investing dog. The fellow that makes too many buy/sell decisions based on his taxes is likely to lag he who followed his overall allocation goals.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d9a087db7ac36a435de1783db63916d",
"text": "\"What you are seeking is termed \"\"Alpha\"\", the mispricing in the market. Specifically, Alpha is the price error when compared to the market return and beta of the stock. Modern portfolio theory suggests that a portfolio with good Alpha will maximize profits for a given risk tolerance. The efficient market hypotheses suggests that Alpha is always zero. The EMH also suggests that taxes, human effort and information propagation delays don't exist (i.e. it is wrong). For someone who is right, the best specific answer to your question is presented Ben Graham's book \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\" (starting on page 280). And even still, that book is better summarized by Warren Buffet (see Berkshire Hathaway Letters to Shareholders). In a great disservice to the geniuses above it can be summarized much further: closely follow the company to estimate its true earnings potential... and ignore the prices the market is quoting. ADDENDUM: And when you have earnings potential, calculate value with: NPV = sum(each income piece/(1+cost of capital)^time) Update: See http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2014/02/24/warren-buffett-berkshire-letter/ \"\"When Charlie Munger and I buy stocks...\"\" for these same ideas right from the horse's mouth\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "52a68e315eefe0325f56476761a2d3ea",
"text": "Over time, fees are a killer. The $65k is a lot of money, of course, but I'd like to know the fees involved. Are you doubling from 1 to 2%? if so, I'd rethink this. Diversification adds value, I agree, but 2%/yr? A very low cost S&P fund will be about .10%, others may go a bit higher. There's little magic in creating the target allocation, no two companies are going to be exactly the same, just in the general ballpark. I'd encourage you to get an idea of what makes sense, and go DIY. I agree 2% slices of some sectors don't add much, don't get carried away with this.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eca7b08aae740dccd9c59d0ec0679496",
"text": "Canadian Couch Potato has an article which is somewhat related. Ask the Spud: Can You Time the Markets? The argument roughly boils down to the following: That said, I didn't follow the advice. I inherited a sum of money, more than I had dealt with before, and I did not feel I was emotionally capable of immediately dumping it into my portfolio (Canadian stocks, US stocks, world stocks, Canadian bonds, all passive indexed mutual funds), and so I decided to add the money into my portfolio over the course of a year, twice a month. The money that I had not yet invested, I put into a money market account. That worked for me because I was purchasing mutual funds with no transaction costs. If you are buying ETFs, this strategy makes less sense. In hindsight, this was not financially prudent; I'd have been financially better off to buy all the mutual funds right at the beginning. But I was satisfied with the tradeoff, knowing that I did not have hindsight and I would have been emotionally hurt had the stock market crashed. There must be research that would prove, based on past performance, the statistically optimal time frame for dollar-cost averaging. However, I strongly suppose that the time frame is rather small, and so I would advise that you either invest the money immediately, or dollar-cost average your investment over the course of the year. This answer is not an ideal answer to your question because it is lacking such a citation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "43365c974a9498c87b911d593b9ced47",
"text": "Mutual Funds are relatively evaluated and this is likely what you want. Your answer is likely the information ratio. If your interested, Active Portfolio Management by Grinold, Kahn is probably a good book to read. That being said, hedge funds will generally have absolute mandates and will be more likely to use a sharpe ratio.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ec424b8304b09e414879c974e3e7db78",
"text": "\"You are conflating two different types of risk here. First, you want to invest money, and presumably you're not looking at the \"\"lowest risk, lowest returns\"\" end of the spectrum. This is an inherently risky activity. Second, you are in a principal-agent relationship with your advisor, and are exposed to the risk of your advisor not maximizing your profits. A lot has been written on principal-agent theory, and while incentive schemes exist, there is no optimal solution. In your case, you hope that your agent will start maximizing your profits if they are 100% correlated with his profits. While this idea is true (at least according to standard economic theory, you could find exceptions in behavioral economics and in reality), it also forces the agent to participate in the first risk. From the point of view of the agent, this does not make sense. He is looking to render services and receive income for it. An agent with integrity is certainly prepared to carry the risk of his own incompetence, just like Apple is prepared to replace your iPhone should it not start one day. But the agent is not prepared to carry additional risks such as the market risk, and should not be compelled to do so. It is your risk, a risk you personally take by deciding to play the investment gamble, and you cannot transfer it to somebody else. Of course, what makes the situation here more difficult than the iPhone example is that market-driven losses cannot be easily distinguished from incompetent-agent losses. So, there is no setup in which you carry the market risk only and your agent carries the incompetence risk only. But as much as you want a solution in which the agent carries all risk, you probably won't find an agent willing to sign such a contract. So you have to simply accept that both the market risk and the incompetence risk are inherent to being an investor. You can try to mitigate your own incompetence by having an advisor invest for you, but then you have to accept the risk of his incompetence. There is no way to depress the total incompetence risk to zero.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd01dc792e5e107c7aa7065b5a85f17e",
"text": "I would read any and all of the John Bogle books. Essentially: We know the market will rise and fall. We just don't know when specifically. For the most part it is impossible to time the market. He would advocate an asset allocation approach to investing. So much to bonds, tbills, S&P500 index, NASDAQ index. In your case you could start out with 10% of your portfolio each in S&P500 and NASDAQ. Had you done that, you would have achieved growth of 17% and 27% respectively. The growth on either one of those funds would have probably dwarfed the growth on the entire rest of your portfolio. BTW 2013 and 2014 were also very good years, with 2015 being mostly flat. In the past you have avoided risk in the market to achieve the detrimental effects of inflation and stagnant money. Don't make the same mistakes going forward.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cc3b53420f83deaefdcd21bacc9b616d",
"text": "Modern portfolio theory has a strong theoretical background and its conclusions on the risk/return trade-off have a lot of good supporting evidence. However, the conclusions it draws need to be used very carefully when thinking about retirement investing. If you were really just trying to just pick the one investment that you would guess would make you the most money in the future then yes, given no other information, the riskiest asset would be the best one. However, for most people the goal retirement investing is to be as sure as possible to retire comfortably. If you were to just invest in a single, very risky asset you may have the highest expected return, but the risk involved would mean there might be a good chance you money may not be there when you need it. Instead, a broad diversified basket of riskier and safer assets leaning more toward the riskier investments when younger and the safer assets when you get closer to retirement tends to be a better fit with most people's retirement goals. This tends to give (on average) more return when you are young and can better deal with the risk, but dials back the risk later in life when your investment portfolio is a majority of your wealth and you can least afford any major swings. This combines the lessons of MPT (diversity, risk/return trade-off) in a clearer way with common goals of retirement. Caveat: Your retirement goals and risk-tolerance may be very different from other peoples'. It is often good to talk to (fee-only) financial planner.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8966c3b7edd79325543ea051ef2ebe6e",
"text": "It looks like there's some confusion about the purchase price and reclaiming VAT. You should pay your supplier the total amount (£10 + VAT in this scenario, so £12) - look for this figure on the invoice or receipt. The supplier doesn't normally expect you to work this out for yourself, so I'd be a little surprised if it's not on there? As Dumbcoder's said, you'd then be able to claim the VAT back from HMRC if you were VAT registered. But seeing as you're not, then you don't need to worry about claiming it. And as for selling the product without VAT, you can (and probably should) increase the unit price to cover the extra cost, otherwise you'll be operating at a loss. Hope this helps!",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
393d5329a36b4fdd26ef2e86b4cc176f
|
For a mortgage down-payment, what percentage is sensible?
|
[
{
"docid": "b33d90ed50b9465c8401b318e3e86ff2",
"text": "\"The typical down-payment was expected to be 20%. The idea being that if one could not save 1/5 of the cost of a house, they were not responsible enough to ensure repayment of the loan. It is hard to say whether this is truly a relevant measure. However, in the absence of other data points, it is pretty decent. It typically requires a fair amount of time to amass that much money and it does demonstrate some restraint. (e.g. it is easily the cost of a decent new car or some other shiny \"\"toy.\"\") Income is not necessarily a good measure, on its own. I am certainly more responsible with my spending when I have less money to spend. (Lately, I have been feeling like my father, scrutinizing every single purchase down to the penny.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e67ad87b1c3891b0e9a587976822f66",
"text": "In Australia, you will typically be required to pay for mortgage insurance if you borrow more than 80% of the value of the property. Basically this means another ~1% on top of the regular interest rate. So it's in your interests to save until you can at least reach that point. If you can't rent and save at the same time, it suggests your finances may be too stretched for buying now to be a good idea.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ad9c8354dd526a1f94c6ca1f2ff3a52c",
"text": "A bigger down payment is good, because it insulates you from the swings in the real estate market. If you get FHA loan with 3% down and end up being forced to move during a down market, you'll be in a real bind, as you'll need to scrape up some cash or borrow funds to get out of your mortgage.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a77ce45759fedc4b9142759f19d2ed37",
"text": "\"Well hindsight tells us now that by and large, doing 100% borrowing was not the best policy we could have taken. It gets nitpicky, but in the US the traditional 20% is the answer I presently feel comfortable with. It could be a reactionary judgement I am making to the current mess (in which I have formed the opinion that all parties are responsible) and arm-chair quarterbacking \"\"if we had only stuck with the 20% rule, we wouldn't be here right now. The truth is probably much more gray than that, but like all things personal finance it is really up to you. If the law allows 100% financing ask yourself if it really makes sense that a bank would just loan you hundreds of thousands of dollars to live somewhere.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd4f93a1d7ad2601e1dd0ef443ae9d42",
"text": "I think anything from 10% on demonstrates a reasonable ability to save. I would consider ongoing debt level a better indicator than the size of the down payment. It's been my experience that, without exception, there is a direct correlation between a persons use of revolving credit and their ability to manage their money & control their spending. Living in Seattle, I only put 10% down on my first house, but not only have we never missed a payment we have always paid extra and now have about 50% equity after 10 years with a family. Yet it would have taken me another year to save the other 10% during which time I would have burned that amount and 1/2 again in useless rent.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9bd0f3fe069b9d41b6a0d7cbd12c89bf",
"text": "I am currently in the process of purchasing a house. I am only putting 5% down. I see that some are saying that the traditional 20% down is the way to go. I am a first time homebuyer, and unfortunately we no longer live in the world where 20% down is mandatory, which is part of the reason why housing prices are so high. I feel it is more important that you are comfortable with what your monthly payments are as well as being informed on how interest rates can change how much you owe each month. Right now interest rates are pretty low, and it would almost be silly to put 20% down on your home. It might make more sense to put money in different vehicle right now, if you have extra, as the global economy will likely pick up and until it does, interest rates will likely stay low. Just my 2 cents worth. EDIT: I thought it would not be responsible of me not to mention that you should always have extra's saved for closing costs. They can be pricey, and if you are not informed of what they are, they can creep up on you.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7a16e7a60d19912d82df48675bb490c6",
"text": "\"I second DJClayworth's suggestion to wait and save a larger down-payment. I'll also add: It looks like you neglected to consider CMHC insurance in your calculation. When you buy your first home with less than 20% down, the bank will require you to insure the mortgage. CMHC insurance protects the bank if you default – it does not protect you. But such insurance does make a bank feel better about lending money to people it otherwise wouldn't take a chance on. The kicker is you would be responsible for paying the CMHC insurance that's protecting the bank. The premium is usually added on to the amount borrowed, since a buyer requiring CMHC insurance doesn't, by definition, have enough money up front. The standard CMHC premium for a mortgage with 5% down, or as they would say a \"\"95% Loan-to-Value ratio\"\" is 2.75%. Refer to CMHC's table of premiums here. So, if you had a down-payment of $17,000 to borrow a remaining $323,000 from the bank to buy a $340,000 property, the money you owe the bank would be $331,883 due to the added 2.75% CMHC insurance premium. This added $8883, plus interest, obviously makes the case for buying less compelling. Then, are there other closing costs that haven't been fully considered? One more thing I ought to mention: Have you considered saving a larger down-payment by using an RRSP? There's a significant advantage doing it that way: You can save pre-tax dollars for your down-payment. When it comes time to buy, you'd take advantage of the Home Buyer's Plan (HBP) and get a tax-free loan of your own money from your RRSP. You'd have 15 years to put the money back into your RRSP. Last, after saving a larger downpayment, if you're lucky you may find houses not as expensive when you're ready to buy. I acknowledge this is a speculative statement, and there's a chance houses may actually be more expensive, but there is mounting evidence and opinion that real estate is currently over-valued in Canada. Read here, here, and here.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f91a9b488625fc14dbb4fe82bc2da20",
"text": "\"The optimal down payment is 100%. The only way you would do anything else when you have the cash to buy it outright is to invest the remaining money to get a better return. When you compare investments, you need to take risk into account as well. When you make loan payments, you are getting a risk free return. You can't find a risk-free investment that pays as much as your car loan will be. If you think you can \"\"game the system\"\" by taking a 0% loan, then you will end up paying more for the car, since the financing is baked into the sales [price in those cases (there is no such thing as free money). If you pay cash, you have much more bargaining power. Buy the car outright (negotiating as hard as you can), start saving what you would have been making as a car payment as an emergency fund, and you'll be ahead of the game. For the inflation hedge - you need to find investments that act as an inflation hedge - taking a loan does not \"\"hedge\"\" against inflation since you'll still be paying interest regardless of the inflation rate. The fact that you'll be paying slightly less interest (in \"\"real\"\" terms) does not make it a hedge. To answer the actual question, if your \"\"reinvestment rate\"\" (the return you can get from investing the \"\"borrowed\"\" cash) is less than the interest rate, then the more you put down, the greater your present value (PV). If your reinvestment rate is less than the interest rate, then the less you put down the better (not including risk). When you incorporate risk, though, the additional return is probably not worth the risk. So there is no \"\"optimal\"\" down payment in between those mathematically - it will depend on how much liquid cash you need (knowing that every dollar that you borrow is costing you interest).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3c9b2dd4b3aa31b34090a78696fb1c8",
"text": "Given that you have your emergency fund, and no other high interest rate debts (credit cards, etc.) you will want to put down at least enough to not have to pay Private Mortgage Insurance (PMI). PMI is solely to protect the lender if you default. It has no benefit to you. It generally means that you will need at least 20% down. After that, its a personal decision, depending on what else you are going to do with the money. If you are the type to spend money frivolously if you have it, it might make sense to put as much down as you can. If you think that you can invest the money and over the long-term make more than the historically low mortgage interest rates, it might make sense to invest. One thing to keep in mind is that money that you put into the down-payment is relatively illiquid, meaning that it is hard to turn back into cash. If you have large expenses in the future, like health problems or college for the kids, it might be better to have the money in something easier to turn into cash.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e0f3195d0e9409f2aa92e1fb02bc0eef",
"text": "\"There are actually a few questions you are asking here. I will try and address each individually. Down Payment What you put down can't really be quantified in a dollar amount here. $5k-$10k means nothing. If the house costs $20k then you're putting 50% down. What is relevant is the percent of the purchase price you're putting down. That being said, if you go to purchase a property as an investment property (something you wont be moving into) then you are much more likely to be putting a down payment much closer to 20-25% of the purchase price. However, if you are capable of living in the property for a year (usually the limitation on federal loans) then you can pay much less. Around 3.5% has been my experience. The Process Your plan is sound but I would HIGHLY suggest looking into what it means to be a landlord. This is not a decision to be taken lightly. You need to know the tenant landlord laws in your city AND state. You need to call a tax consultant and speak to them about what you will be charging for rent, and how much you should withhold for taxes. You also should talk to them about what write offs are available for rental properties. \"\"Breaking Even\"\" with rent and a mortgage can also mean loss when tax time comes if you don't account for repairs made. Financing Your first rental property is the hardest to get going (if you don't have experience as a landlord). Most lenders will allow you to use the potential income of a property to qualify for a loan once you have established yourself as a landlord. Prior to that though you need to have enough income to afford the mortgage on your own. So, what that means is that qualifying for a loan is highly related to your debt to income ratio. If your properties are self sustaining and you still work 40 hours a week then your ability to qualify in the future shouldn't be all that impacted. If anything it shows that you are a responsible credit manager. Conclusion I can't stress enough to do YOUR OWN research. Don't go off of what your friends are telling you. People exaggerate to make them seem like they are higher on the socioeconomic ladder then they really are. They also might have chicken little syndrome and try to discourage you from making a really great choice. I run into this all the time. People feel like they can't do something or they're to afraid so you shouldn't be able to either. If you need advice go to a professional or read a book. Good luck!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2c49bd9fd655065c73ebf814a7429ebf",
"text": "As I've crunched numbers towards what my family could afford for a down payment (in an area with similar housing costs - don't you hate that high cost of living?), I've come up with the following numbers: We may be missing some area of expenses, but in general I think we are being fairly conservative. You should consider making a similar list to determine your comfort level. Spend some time with an interest calculator to know the serious pain of each dollar you are paying interest on to a lender. Also know that the bigger your down payment, the more likely the seller is to accept your offer. It shows you are serious.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d0a8dfb3b7af002ee8840658871d052e",
"text": "I suggest that you first decide on what %'s of the home value you each have a legal claim to. Then split the mortgage using the same %'s. Then, if someone feels their % is slightly higher, they are compensated because they 'own' a correspondingly higher share of the house. Use the same %'s for downpayments (which may mean that an 'adjustment' payment might be required to bring your initial cash outlay from 70/30 into the %'s that you agree to). Tenant income gets split the same way. Utilities are a bit more difficult - as heating depends more on square feet, but water and hydro depend more on how many people are there. You can try to be really precise about working out the %'s, or just keep it simple by using the same %'s as the mortgage.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f260d60e042c1bb1e0774d8db9cbbf1",
"text": "I'm not saying it's great, but I have a 705... I think we'll get a second opinion to lower that rate. Also, logically, with a higher down payment, we should be able to reduce the amount we need to borrow. Is that how that would work? For example, if we scrounged up a $7,000 for a down payment and came down on the price say $3,000",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1eb13c9666e53791ca4cf6f61715f852",
"text": "\"The (interest bearing) mortgage of £300,000 would be SIX times your salary. That's a ratio that was found in Japan, and (I believe) was a main reason for their depressed economy of the past two decades. Even with an interest free loan of nearly £150,000, it would be a huge gamble for someone of your income. Essentially, you are gambling that 1) your income will \"\"grow\"\" into your mortgage, (and that's counting income from renting part of the property) or 2) the house will rise in value, thereby bailing you out. That was a gamble that many Americans took, and lost, in the past ten years. If you do this, you may be one of the \"\"lucky\"\" ones, you may not, but you are really taking your future in your hands. The American rule of thumb is that your mortgage should be no more than 2.5-3 times income, that is maybe up to £150,000. Perhaps £200,000 if £50,000 or so of that is interest free. But not to the numbers you're talking about.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b1d662b8c52df021205c3ee3346a9c52",
"text": "\"I'm going to answer your questions out of order. Emergency fund: Depending on how conservative you are and how much insurance you have, you may want anywhere from 3-12 months of your expenses on hand. I like to keep 6 months worth liquid in a \"\"high-yield\"\" savings account. For your current expenses that would be $24k, but when this transaction completes, you will have a mortgage payment (which usually includes home-owners insurance and property taxes in addition to your other expenses) so a conservative guess might be an additional $3k/month, or a total of $42k for six months of expenses. So $40-$100k for an emergency fund depending on how conservative you are personally. Down payment: You should pay no less than 20% down ($150k) on a loan that size, particularly since you can afford it. My own philosophy is to pay as much as I can and pay the loan off as soon as possible, but there are valid reasons not to do that. If you can get a higher rate of return from that money invested elsewhere you may wish to keep a mortgage longer and invest the other money elsewhere. Mortgage term: A 15-year loan will generally get you the best interest rate available. If you paid $400k down, financing $350k at a 3.5% rate, your payment would be about $2500 on a 15-year loan. That doesn't include property taxes and home-owners insurance, but without knowing precisely where you live, I have no idea whether those would keep you inside the $3000 of additional monthly home expenses I mentioned above when discussing the emergency fund. That's how I would divide it up. I'd also pay more than the $2500 toward the mortgage if I could afford to, though I've always made that decision on a monthly basis when drawing up the budget for the next month.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "06fb3d1da7a348d784d4b3b0bf146096",
"text": "Risk. That's it. No guarantees on the fund performance, while the mortgage has a guaranteed return of -3%. I'm doing this very thing. Money is cheap, I think it's wise to take advantage of it, assuming your exercise proper risk management.",
"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": "a92073afad23a27fb936bf7bdc9d0f55",
"text": "Whenever you put less than 20% down, you are usually required to pay private mortgage insurance (PMI) to protect the lender in case you default on your loan. You pay this until you reach 20% equity in your home. Check out an amortization calculator to see how long that would take you. Most schedules have you paying more interest at the start of your loan and less principal. PMI gets you nothing - no interest or principal paid - it's throwing money away in a very real sense (more in this answer). Still, if you want to do it, make sure to add PMI to the cost per month. It is also possible to get two mortgages, one for your 20% down payment and one for the 80%, and avoid PMI. Lenders are fairly cautious about doing that right now given the housing crash, but you may be able to find one who will let you do the two mortgages. This will raise your monthly payment in its own way, of course. Also remember to factor in the costs of home ownership into your calculations. Check the county or city website to figure out the property tax on that home, divide by twelve, and add that number to your payment. Estimate your homeowners insurance (of course you get to drop renters insurance, so make sure to calculate that on the renting side of the costs) and divide the yearly cost by 12 and add that in. Most importantly, add 1-2% of the value of the house yearly for maintenance and repair costs to your budget. All those costs are going to eat away at your 3-400 a little bit. So you've got to save about $70 a month towards repairs, etc. for the case of every 10-50 years when you need a new roof and so on. Many experts suggest having the maintenance money in savings on top of your emergency fund from day one of ownership in case your water heater suddenly dies or your roof starts leaking. Make sure you've also estimated closing costs on this house, or that the seller will pay your costs. Otherwise you loose part of that from your down payment or other savings. Once you add up all those numbers you can figure out if buying is a good proposition. With the plan to stay put for five years, it sounds like it truly might be. I'm not arguing against it, just laying out all the factors for you. The NYT Rent Versus Buy calculator lays out most of these items in terms of renting or buying, and might help you make that decision. EDIT: As Tim noted in the comments below, real monthly cost should take into account deductions from mortgage interest and property tax paid. This calculator can help you figure that out. This question will be one to watch for answers on how to calculate cost and return on home buying, with the answer by mbhunter being an important qualification",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c47f234affebd290a287b5aa59f0de7f",
"text": "How much should my down payment be? Ideally 20% of the purchase price because with 20% of the purchase price, you don't have to pay a costly private mortgage insurance (PMI). If you don't have 20% down and come across a good property to purchase, it is still a good idea to go forward with purchasing with what you are comfortable with, because renting long term is generally never a good idea if you want to build wealth and become financially independent. How much should I keep in my emergency fund? People say 3-12 months of living expenses. Keep in mind though, in most cases, if you lose your job, you are entitled to unemployment benefits from the government. How long should my mortgage be? 30 year amortization is the best. You can always opt to pay more each month. But having that leverage with a 30 year loan can allow you to invest your savings in other opportunities, which can yield more than mortgage interest. Best of luck!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0afe1f4ed3ca647fba82bf18a7ce93ad",
"text": "In regards to your 1st question, if you are a US resident (according to IRS rules) and you have any foreign bank accounts, then you need to file a FBAR form for every year in which any of these accounts has more than $10,000. This is the way that IRS keeps track of substantial amounts of money kept by US residents in foreign accounts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4015a67ac8479112a93c6116fbb474bf",
"text": "However, we would also like to include on our budget the actual cost of the furniture when we buy it. That would be double-counting. When it's time to buy the new kit, just pay for it directly from savings and then deduct that amount from the Furniture Cash asset that you'd been adding to every month.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
d834c1c4bdc00b19b52efaf78128cea3
|
What forces cause a company to write down goodwill?
|
[
{
"docid": "7a01acf95a353dcd5c011f4163d3d225",
"text": "To understand the answer we first have to understand what Goodwill is. Goodwill in a companies balance sheet is an intangible asset that represents the extra value because of a strong brand name, good customer relations, good employee relations and any patents or proprietary technology. An article from The Economist explains this very well and actually talks about Time Warner directly - The goodwill, the bad and the ugly When one firm buys another, the target’s goodwill—essentially the premium paid over its book value—is added to the combined entity’s balance-sheet. Goodwill and other intangibles on the books of companies in the S&P 500 are valued at $2.6 trillion, or 10% of their total assets, according to analysts at Goldman Sachs. As the economy deteriorates and more firms trade down towards (or even below) their book value, empire-builders are having to mark down the value of assets they splashed out on in rosier times. A recently announced $25 billion goodwill charge is expected to push Time Warner into an operating loss for 2008, for instance. Michael Moran of Goldman Sachs thinks such hits could amount to $200 billion or more over the cycle. Investors have so far paid little attention to intangibles, but as write-downs proliferate they are likely to become increasingly wary of industries with a high ratio of goodwill to assets, such as health care, consumer goods and telecoms. How bad things get will depend on the beancounters. American firms used to be allowed to amortise goodwill over many years. Since 2002, when an accounting-rule change ended that practice, goodwill has had to be tested every year for impairment. In this stormy environment, with auditors keener than ever to avoid being seen to go easy on clients, companies are being told to mark down assets if there is any doubt about their value. The sanguine point out that this has no effect on cashflow, since such charges are non-cash items. Moreover, some investors take goodwill write-offs with a pinch of salt, preferring to look past such non-recurring costs and accept the higher “normalised” earnings numbers to which managers understandably cling. The largest companies are thus able to survive thumping blows that might otherwise floor them, such as the $99 billion loss that the newly formed but ill-conceived AOL Time Warner, as it then was, reported for 2002. But the impact can be all too real, as write-downs reduce overall book value and increase leverage ratios, a particular concern in these debt-averse times.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "0fabf85cd931ba89b9c27fcb7b04bb9b",
"text": "\"To my knowledge, there's no universal equation, so this could vary by individual/company. The equation I use (outside of sentiment measurement) is the below - which carries its own risks: This equations assumes two key points: Anything over 1.2 is considered oversold if those two conditions apply. The reason for the bear market is that that's the time stocks generally go on \"\"sale\"\" and if a company has a solid balance sheet, even in a downturn, while their profit may decrease some, a value over 1.2 could indicate the company is oversold. An example of this is Warren Buffett's investment in Wells Fargo in 2009 (around March) when WFC hit approximately 7-9 a share. Although the banking world was experiencing a crisis, Buffett saw that WFC still had a solid balance sheet, even with a decrease in profit. The missing logic with many investors was a decrease in profits - if you look at the per capita income figures, Americans lost some income, but not near enough to justify the stock falling 50%+ from its high when evaluating its business and balance sheet. The market quickly caught this too - within two months, WFC was almost at $30 a share. As an interesting side note on this, WFC now pays $1.20 dividend a year. A person who bought it at $7 a share is receiving a yield of 17%+ on their $7 a share investment. Still, this equation is not without its risks. A company may have a solid balance sheet, but end up borrowing more money while losing a ton of profit, which the investor finds out about ad-hoc (seen this happen several times). Suddenly, what \"\"appeared\"\" to be a good sale, turns into a person buying a penny with a dollar. This is why, to my knowledge, no universal equation applies, as if one did exist, every hedge fund, mutual fund, etc would be using it. One final note: with robotraders becoming more common, I'm not sure we'll see this type of opportunity again. 2009 offered some great deals, but a robotrader could easily be built with the above equation (or a similar one), meaning that as soon as we had that type of environment, all stocks fitting that scenario would be bought, pushing up their PEs. Some companies might be willing to take an \"\"all risk\"\" if they assess that this equation works for more than n% of companies (especially if that n% returns an m% that outweighs the loss). The only advantage that a small investor might have is that these large companies with robotraders are over-leveraged in bad investments and with a decline, they can't make the good investments until its too late. Remember, the equation ultimately assumes a person/company has free cash to use it (this was also a problem for many large investment firms in 2009 - they were over-leveraged in bad debt).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "abddbd847efa0c61c2eeaf68bb22a483",
"text": "OK, looking at the balance sheet they have $42M in cash, but that is down from $325M in December. Meanwhile their debt has increased from $1.756B in December to $1.832B as of June so their net cash has dropped by $355M in only 6 months. It looks like they spent $329M (give or take) buying other companies in those 6 months. Otherwise their working capital (an important measure of the ability to run the business) looks OK at $230M. Looking at the income statement, they are making money: $70.6M in the last quarter on revenue of $226.7M, which is quite remarkable however they had an unusual item which increased earnings somewhat. Otherwise their earnings would have been about $39M, which is still pretty healthy. All in, the company itself looks healthy and on a bit of a buying binge, growing through acquisition. I don’t like the debt load but that is probably usual for the industry. When companies grow through acquisition they generally plan to reduce total employment because of redundancies because you sort of get economies of scale. This usually factors into the decision to buy the company: you increase revenues through the purchase and reduce costs by eliminating employees. This is typically how they “sell” an acquisition to investors. If I was to guess (and it would only be a guess) this company has a team which looks at the employees of the company it just bought and decides where to downsize. It may not downsize from the newly acquired company but from its own existing employees for a variety of reasons. So most likely that is what you were a victim of: it wasn’t because the company was struggling, or because you were necessarily not a good employee. It is a process, albeit sometimes unfair, and you were a victim of it. The layoff decisions are not always prudent and it can be hard to understand why a particular group was cut instead of another one. Management doesn’t always make the right call. The broadcast industry has been going through consolidation (companies buying companies) for some time now. Most likely management is hoping to “bulk up” to make it harder for another company to buy it and/or to get a better price when it is bought. So in summary, most likely they are doing this for reasons of greed, ie, they’ll make more money with fewer employees. Sorry about your situation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe6bc779bbc88c442ac003d44cff045a",
"text": "You guys seem to have forgotten the most important part of this equation ... i work for a bank and I can tell u this as a painful fact ... every business is governed by its paperwork ... articles bylaws operating agreements amendments and minutes .. if a companys paperwork says that the 51% owner can fire everyone and move to Alaska and that paperwork is proper (signed and binding) it is with minimal excavation law... case in point every company is different .. and it is formed and governed by its paperwork.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a8a9a1bbaef5f80d1d041669c1399c3",
"text": "\"Can anyone explain why the analyst is writing off goodwill, please? I would have thought that the HP brand would be worth something for some years to come, that some section of the market will continue saying \"\"well, it's an HP laptop, it must be decent quality\"\" and \"\"you can rely on HP printers\"\" for the foreseeable future. Or is that something else?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d7757af949d34fb59fec0397d70582f1",
"text": "\"The difficulty is that you are thinking of a day as a natural unit of time. For some securities the inventory decisions are less than a minute, for others, it can be months. You could ask a similar question of \"\"why would a dealer hold cash?\"\" They are profit maximizing firms and, subject to a chosen risk level, will accept deals that are sufficiently profitable. Consider a stock that averages 1,000 shares per day, but for which there is an order for 10,000 shares. At a sufficient discount, the dealer would be crazy not to carry the order. You are also assuming all orders are idiosyncratic. Dividend reinvestment plans (DRIP) trigger planned purchases on a fixed day, usually by averaging them over a period such as 10 days. The dealer slowly accumulates a position leading up to the date whenever it appears a good discount is available and fills the DRIP orders out of their own account. The dealer tries to be careful not to disturb the market leading up to the date and allows the volume request to shift prices upward and then fills them.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e86e3e5d05fe804123b83e08af271ecb",
"text": "If this is a publicly traded company, I'd be thinking the shareholders should take a long hard look at this. This is a man who hates his employees more than he likes money. A spite-based decision is obviously going to be inferior to a money-based decision. And shareholders want money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6f35493317b0fa9767a0827ede4a4505",
"text": "I appreciate it. I didn't operate under selling the asset year five but other than that I followed this example. I appreciate the help. These assignments are just poorly laid out. Financial management also plays on different calculation interactions so it is difficult for me to easily identify the intent at times. Thanks again.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4c3533a0299064bf878acac048095187",
"text": "The primary drivers of cash flow in a software firm is the productivity and skill of your employees. How is that reflected in a balance sheet? Well, take a company like Adobe or Salesforce, or even Microsoft. What would you be able to tell about each from their balance sheets? You can look at their cash level, and what else would matter?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d2807c840985b9088a4bab68077ea99",
"text": "\"I heard today while listening to an accounting podcast that a balance sheet... can be used to determine if a company has enough money to pay its employees. The \"\"money\"\" that you're looking at is specifically cash on the balance sheet. The cash flows document mentioned is just a more-finance-related document that explains how we ended at cash on the balance sheet. ...even looking for a job This is critical, that i don't believe many people look at when searching for a job. Using the ratios listed below can (and many others), one can determine if the business they are applying for will be around in the next five years. Can someone provide me a pair of examples (one good)? My favorite example of a high cash company is Nintendo. Rolling at 570 Billion USD IN CASH ALONE is astonishing. Using the ratios we can see how well they are doing. Can someone provide me a pair of examples (one bad)? Tesla is a good example of the later on being cash poor. Walk me though how to understand such a document? *Note: This question is highly complex and will take months of reading to fully comprehend the components that make up the financial statements. I would recommend that this question be posted completely separate.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2b3c158f5defdeaf2d702e47a703246d",
"text": "Well it would appear that you had a wash sale that canceled out a loss position. Without seeing the entire report, I couldn't tell you exactly what was happening or how you triggered § 1091. But just from the excerpted images, it appears as though your purchase of stock was layered into multiple tranches - perhaps you acquired more of the stock in the 61-day period than you sold (possibly because of a prior holding). If in the 61-day period around the sale of stock (30 days before and 30 days after), you also acquire the same stock (including by contract or option), then it washes out your loss. If you held your stock for a while, then in a 61-day period bought more, and sold some, then any loss would be washed out by the acquisition. Of course it is also a wash sale if your purchase of the stock follows your sale, rather than precedes it. Your disallowed loss goes into the basis of your stock holding, so will be meaningful when you do have a true economic sale of that stock. From IRS Pub 550: A wash sale occurs when you sell or trade stock or securities at a loss and within 30 days before or after the sale you: Buy substantially identical stock or securities, Acquire substantially identical stock or securities in a fully taxable trade, Acquire a contract or option to buy substantially identical stock or securities, or Acquire substantially identical stock for your individual retirement account (IRA) or Roth IRA. If you sell stock and your spouse or a corporation you control buys substantially identical stock, you also have a wash sale. Looking at your excerpted account images, we can see a number of positions sold at a loss (sale proceeds less than basis) but each one is adjusted to a zero loss. I suspect the fuller picture of your account history and portfolio will show a more complicated and longer history with this particular stock. That is likely the source of the wash sale disallowed loss notations. You might be able to confirm that all the added numbers are appearing in your current basis in this stock (or were reflected upon your final exit from the stock).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "17fa3756f29015c0cd0ca5a37ed40fd6",
"text": "The reason is because there's basically no incentive for anyone to not be unrealistically optimistic (aka lie). The management wants to show its being active so they aren't replaced. The IB trying to sell a company wants to make it look as good as possible. The bank providing a loan for the acquisition needs to make it look good for their risk committee, so they won't try to sour down the claims in the CIM too much. The acquired company would rather make more money than less. The only person who loses is the shareholder. It's an agency problem.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "009fcc2fa640129a3c1b7c43fbab0ea5",
"text": "\"As you pointed out in reference to cost-cutting, fiduciary lawsuits come out when things go wrong. When directors successfully increase stock value, everyone including shareholders is happy. I'm not sure exactly where the best place is to look for such cases, but here's what my google-fu yielded: * [Example 1](http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/25/business/the-media-business-excerpts-from-ruling-in-paramount-case.html): Paramount is sold to Viacom at a lower price than QVC's offer, shareholders sue. Paramount claims they were looking out for long-term but shareholders sued them for screwing them out of maximal share value. * [Example 2](http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2012/05/case-law-on-the-fiduciary-duty-of-directors-to-maximize-the-wealth-of-corporate-shareholders.html): Dodge v. Ford Motor Co, Ford had a majority share in his company and wanted to stop paying dividends to shareholders so he could expand his business. At trial Ford \"\"testified to his belief that the company made too much money and had an obligation to benefit the public and the firm’s workers and customers.\"\" The court disagreed, as his motor company was set up for profit, not charity. Ford was ordered to resume paying dividends. Interestingly I found many more lawsuits where corporations sacrificed long-term for short-term. It seems once incorporated this is where the internal incentives and pressures lead many managers, lawsuits are merely one of these pressures.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "69ecd756d26ab41775af6aef6f9aa581",
"text": "P/E is the number of years it would take for the company to earn its share price. You take share price divided by annual earnings per share. You can take the current reported quarterly earnings per share times 4, you can take the sum of the past four actual quarters earnings per share or you can take some projected earnings per share. It has little to do with a company's actual finances apart from the earnings per share. It doesn't say much about the health of a company's balance sheet, and is definitely not an indicator for bankruptcy. It's mostly a measure of the market's assumptions of the company's ability to grow earnings or maintain it's current earnings growth. A share price of $40 trading for a P/E ratio of 10 means it will take the company 10 years to earn $40 per share, it means there's current annual earnings per share of $4. A different company may also be earning $4 per share but trade at 100 times earnings for a share price of $400. By this measure alone neither company is more or less healthy than the other. One just commands more faith in the future growth from the market. To circle back to your question regarding a negative P/E, a negative P/E ratio means the company is reporting negative earnings (running at a loss). Again, this may or may not indicate an imminent bankruptcy. Increasing balance sheet debt with decreasing revenue and or earnings and or balance sheet assets will be a better way to assess bankruptcy risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "36a2251f0e3038728874ef6f3cf0ad31",
"text": "My grandfather owned a small business, and I asked him that very question. His answer was that year-end closeout is very time-consuming, both before and after EOY (end of year), and that they didn't want to do all that around Christmas and New Year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e9c9cec3c9de303788378a493ed49f9",
"text": "The 10-K language is very specific. And as someone that has worked w/ securities attorneys to write these things, I know it is worded like that for a reason. Regardless, to have that risk factor in there and not disclose executives leaving is really shoddy disclosure.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
99e28db8f7fe285c0c7e0fc02deeb946
|
Do large market players using HFT make it unsafe for individual investors to be in the stock market?
|
[
{
"docid": "3816bdadaff52d8404cf2217ab792410",
"text": "There's a lot of hype about HFT. It involves computers doing things that people don't really understand and making a bunch of rich guys a bunch of money, and there was a crisis and so we hate rich wall street guys this year, and so it's a hot-button issue. Meh. There's some reason for concern about the safety of the markets, but I think there's also a lot more of people trying to sell you a newspaper. Remember that while HFT may mean there are a lot of trades, the buying and the selling add up to the same thing. Meanwhile, people who buy stock to hold on to it for significant periods of time will still affect the quantity of stock out there on the market, applying pressure to the price, buying and selling at the prices that they think the security is worth. As a result, it's unlikely that high-frequency trading moves the stock price very far from the price that the rest of the market would determine for very long; if it did, the lower-frequency traders could take advantage of it, buying if it's too low and selling if it's too high. How long do you plan to hold a stock? If you're trying to do day-trading, you might have some trouble; these people are competing with you to do the same thing, and have significant resources at their disposal. If you're holding onto your stock for years on end (like you probably should be doing with most stock) then a trivial premium or discount on the price probably isn't going to be a big deal for you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1479b4eb0af174904498d34db9675862",
"text": "\"I don't think that HFT is a game-changer for retail investors. It does mean that amateur daytraders need to pack it up and go home, because the HFT guys are smarter, faster and have more money than you. I'm no Warren Buffet, but I've done better in the market over the last 4 years than I ever have, and I've been actively investing since 1995. You need to do your research and understand what you're investing in. Barring outliers like the \"\"Flash Crash\"\", nothing has changed. You have a great opportunity to buy quality companies with long track records of generous dividends right now for the \"\"safe\"\" part of your portfolio. You have great value stock opportunities. You have great opportunities to take risks on good companies the will benefit from economic recovery. What has changed is that the \"\"set it and forget it\"\" advice that people blindly followed from magazines doesn't work anymore. If you expect to park your money in Index funds and don't manage your money, you're going to lose. Remember that saying \"\"Buy low, sell high\"\"? You buy low when everyone is freaked out and you hear Gold commercials 24x7 on the radio.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e450299e0cbede429bd9a9f93b8bee39",
"text": "Obviously there are good answers about the alternatives to the stock market in the referenced question. HFT has been debated heavily over the past couple of years, and the Flash crash of May 6, 2010, has spurred regulators to rein in heavy automated trading. HFT takes advantage of churn and split second reactions to changing market trends, news and rumors. It is not wise for individual investors to fight the big boys in these games and you will likely lose money in day trading as a result. HFT's defender's may be right when they claim that it makes the market more liquid for you to get the listed price for a security, but the article points out that their actions more closely resemble the currently illegal practice of front-running than a negotiated trade where both parties feel that they've received a fair value. There are many factors including supply and demand which affect stock prices more than volume does. While market makers are generating the majority of volume with their HFT practices, volume is merely the number of shares bought and sold in a day. Volume shows how many shares people are interested in trading, not the actual underlying value of the security and its long term prospects. Extra volume doesn't affect most long term investments, so your long term investments aren't in any extra danger due to HFT. That said, the stock market is a risky place whether panicked people or poorly written programs are trading out of control. Most people are better off investing rather than merely trading. Long term investors don't need to get the absolute lowest price or the highest sell. They move into and out of positions based on overall value and long term prospects. They're diversified so bad apples like Enron, etc. won't destroy their portfolio. Investors long term view allows them to ignore the effects of churn, while working like the tortoise to win the race while the hare eventually gets swallowed by a bad bet. There are a lot of worrying and stressful uncertainties in the global economy. If it's a question of wisdom, focus on sound investments and work politically (as a citizen and shareholder) to fix problems you see in the system.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "35d6242a9c18d05aa1c2988f791bd14e",
"text": "In some senses, any answer to this question is going to be opinion based - nobody outside of HFT firms really know what they do, as they tend to be highly secretive due to the competitive nature of the activity they're engaged in. What's more, people working at HFT firms are bound by confidentiality agreements, so even those in the industry have no idea how other firms operate. And finally, there tend to be very, very few people at each firm who have any kind of overall picture of how things work. The hardware and software that is used to implement HFT is 'modular', and a developer will work on a single component, having no idea how it fits into a bigger machine (a programmer, for instance, might right routines to perform a function for variable 'k', but have absolutely no idea for what 'k' stands!) Keeping this in mind and returning to the question . . . The one thing that is well known about HFT is that it is done at incredibly high speeds, making very small profits many thousands of times per day. Activities are typically associated with market making and 'scalping' which profits from or within the bid-ask spread. Where does all this leave us? At worst, the average investor might get clipped for a few cents per round trip in a stock. Given that investing buy its very nature involves long holding periods and (hopefully) large gains, the dangers associated with the activities of HFT are negligible for the average trader, and can be considered no more than a slight markup in execution costs. A whole other area not really touched upon in the answers above is the endemic instability that HFT can bring to entire financial markets. HFT is associated with the provision of liquidity, and yet this liquidity can vanish very suddenly at times of market stress as the HFT remove themselves from the market; the possibility of lack of liquidity is probably the biggest market-wide danger that may arise from HFT operations.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "daff22609d39d7ef7c465090f1d9b402",
"text": "\"Are you talking long-term institutional or retail investors? Long-term *retail* investors look for *orderly markets*, the antithesis of HFT business models, which have a direct correlation between market volatility and profits. To a lesser extent, some \"\"dumb money\"\"/\"\"muppet\"\" institutionals do as well. HFT firms tout they supply liquidity into markets, when in fact the opposite is true. Yes, HFTs supply liquidity, *but only when the liquidity's benefits runs in their direction*. That is, they are applying the part of the liquidity definition that mentions \"\"high trading activity\"\", and conveniently ignoring the part that simultaneously requires \"\"*easily* buying *or* selling an asset\"\". If HFT's are the new exchange floor, then they need to be formalized as such, *and become bound to market maker responsibilities*. If they are actually supplying liquidity, like real Designated Market Makers in the NYSE for example, they become responsible to supply a specified liquidity for specified ticker symbols in exchange for their informational advantage on those tickers. The indisputable fact is that HFT cannot exist at their current profit levels without the information advantage they gain with preferential access to tick-by-tick data unavailable to investors who cannot afford the exchange fees ($1M per exchange 10 years ago, more now). Restrict the entire market, including HFTs, to only second-by-second price data without the tick-by-tick depth, and they won't do so well. Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking HFTs *per se*; I think they are a marvelous development, so long as they really do \"\"supply liquidity\"\". Right now, they aren't doing so, and especially in an orderly manner. If you want retail investors to keep out of the water as they are doing now, by all means let HFT (and regulatory capture, and a whole host of other financial service industry ills) run as they are. There are arguments to be made about \"\"only let the professionals play the market\"\", where there is no role for retail and anyone who doesn't know how to play the long-term investment game needs to get out of the kitchen. But if you are making such an argument, come out and say so.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3bce49c9f14e16724303feccaa0b44cf",
"text": "I disagree strongly with the other two answers posted thus far. HFT are not just liquidity providers (in fact that claim is completely bogus, considering liquidity evaporates whenever the market is falling). HFT are not just scalping for pennies, they are also trading based on trends and news releases. So you end up having imperfect algorithms, not humans, deciding the price of almost every security being traded. These algorithms data mine for news releases or they look for and make correlations, even when none exist. The result is that every asset traded using HFT is mispriced. This happens in a variety of ways. Algos will react to the same news event if it has multiple sources (Ive seen stocks soar when week old news was re-released), algos will react to fake news posted on Twitter, and algos will correlate S&P to other indexes such as VIX or currencies. About 2 years ago the S&P was strongly correlated with EURJPY. In other words, the American stock market was completely dependent on the exchange rate of two currencies on completely different continents. In other words, no one knows the true value of stocks anymore because the free market hasnt existed in over 5 years.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7332bdb9d8afee47b06d1b4655871170",
"text": "FFTs target people who make frequent, large transactions. It would primarily affect people like day traders, high frequency traders. If you're doing either of those things with your 401(k), I think you have other problems. Oh, it'll also affect people transferring extremely large amounts of money (like billions), which again, if you have in your 401(k), you have other problems.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6840ddecbf02e8c564ec38036cce7563",
"text": "You can execute block trades on the options market and get exercised for shares to create a very large position in Energy Transfer Partners LP without moving the stock market. You can then place limit sell orders, after selling directly into the market and keep an overhang of low priced shares (the technical analysis traders won't know what you specifically are doing, and will call this 'resistance'). If you hit nice even numbers (multiples of 5, multiples of 10) with your sell orders, you can exacerbate selling as many market participants will have their own stop loss orders at those numbers, causing other people to sell at lower and lower prices automatically, and simultaneously keep your massive ask in effect. If your position is bigger than the demand then you can keep a stock lower. The secondary market doesn't inherently affect a company in any way. But many companies have borrowed against the price of their shares, and if you get the share price low enough they can get suddenly margin called and be unable to service their existing debt. You will also lose a lot of money doing this, so you can also buy puts along the way or attempt to execute a collar to lower your own losses. The collar strategy is nice because it is unlikely that other traders and analysts will notice what you are doing, since there are calls, puts and share orders involved in creating it. One person may notice the block trade for the calls initially, but nobody will notice it is part of a larger strategy with multiple legs. With the share position, you may also be able to vote on some things, but that solely depends on the conditions of the shares.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a3b07a4b217c94d673981374e4e7ced8",
"text": "This can be done, you can be prosecuted for some forms of it, in any case there are more riskless ways of doing what you suggested. First, buying call options from market makers results in market makers buying shares at the same delta as the call option. (100 SHARES X DELTA = How many shares MM's bought). You can time this with the volume and depth of the shares market to get a bigger resulting move caused by your options purchase to get bigger quote changes in your option. So on expiration day you can be trade near at the money options back and forth between being out the money and in the money. You would exit the position into liquidity at a profit. The risk here is that you can be sitting on a big options position, where the commissions costs get really big, but you can spread this out amongst several options contracts. Second, you can again take advantage of market maker inefficiencies by getting your primary position (whether in the share market or options market) placed, and then your other position being a very large buy order a few levels below the best bid. Many market makers and algorithms will jump in front of your, they think they are being smart, but it will raise the best bid and likely make a few higher prints for the mark, raising the price of your call option. And eventually remove your large buy order. Again, you exit into liquidity. This is called spoofing. There have been some regulatory actions against people in doing this in the last few years. As for consequences, you need to put things into perspective. US capital market regulators have the most nuanced regulations and enforcement actions of worldwide capital market regulators, and even then they get criticized for being unable or unwilling to curb these practices. With that perspective American laws are basically a blueprint on what to do in 100 other country's stock exchanges, where the legislature has never gotten around to defining the same laws, the securities regulator is even more underfunded and toothless, and the markets more inefficient. Not advice, just reality.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "13ecea7d2cec3c6c0b9e80e181a53a71",
"text": "HFT is a controversial issue and there are smart people with very different opinions on it. You sound like your confidence in your own opinion is not matched with a deep knowledge of market structure. Also, front running has a technical meaning, and what you are referring to as front running is something different.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "941aef807b75234d032142cb464d03de",
"text": "\"Not really. High frequency traders affect mainly short term investors. If everyone invested long-term and traded infrequently, there would be no high frequency trading. For a long term investor, you by at X, hold for several years, and sell at Y. At worst, high frequency trading may affect \"\"X\"\" and \"\"Y\"\" by a few pennies (and the changes may cancel out). For a long term trader that doesn't amount to a \"\"hill of beans\"\" It is other frequent traders that will feel the loss of those \"\"pennies.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "879c0735767dce73815b86de9e6871b6",
"text": "\"This is a classic correlation does not imply causation situation. There are (at least) three issues at play in this question: If you are swing- or day-trading then the first and second issues can definitely affect your trading. A higher-price, higher-volume stock will have smaller (percentage) volatility fluctuations within a very small period of time. However, in general, and especially when holding any position for any period of time during which unknowns can become known (such as Netflix's customer-loss announcement) it is a mistake to feel \"\"safe\"\" based on price alone. When considering longer-term investments (even weeks or months), and if you were to compare penny stocks with blue chip stocks, you still might find more \"\"stability\"\" in the higher value stocks. This is a correlation alone — in other words, a stable, reliable stock probably has a (relatively) high price but a high price does not mean it's reliable. As Joe said, the stock of any company that is exposed to significant risks can drop (or rise) by large amounts suddenly, and it is common for blue-chip stocks to move significantly in a period of months as changes in the market or the company itself manifest themselves. The last thing to remember when you are looking at raw dollar amounts is to remember to look at shares outstanding. Netflix has a price of $79 to Ford's $12; yet Ford has a larger market cap because there are nearly 4 billion shares compared to Netflix's 52m.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e8592693ad8075012e587f766af2775a",
"text": "\"In fact, it's quite the opposite. If someone is willing to sell some stock as low as $30/share, and someone else is willing to pay $31/share, one of those individuals is going to get a good deal - unless HFT acts as the middle-man and snags the extra dollar. In which case the individuals get the worst price they would accept and someone with fast collocated computers gets to skim some profits (while adding no value, the order could have happened without the so called \"\"liquidity\"\" that HFT claims to add). It's not exactly that simple, but that's the basic effect. It's an unnecessary middleman that skims profits away from individuals on both sides. I would like to see a return to \"\"investing\"\" back to the meaning of the word, instead of gambling on daily or short-term fluctuations. I wouldn't mind a long-term holding requirement (3 months?) for every purchase, and a daily exchange-calculated set price (calculated by actual orders placed) that everyone who buys/sells a particular stock on a given day pays. Yes, my ideas would destroy an entire industry. I'm ok with that because it would encourage people to *really* invest in companies.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "32f15a8afc23a2b007d6f89f30eef936",
"text": "\"Right, as I stated I agree that it will cause greater variance from the true intrinsic value for individual equities. To take this example to an extreme, traders can throw darts at a board of ticker symbols, purchase them, and still diversify away most firm specific risk. You're correct in stating that such a strategy will eventually cause systematic market failures if everyone does it, but the herd goes where they can make the most profit, and right now that is with ETFs. When fund managers prove they have foresight enough to exploit any systematic failures that this causes, or can start beating ETF returns, the herd will flock back to them. I only meant to point out the reasoning behind why this is happening, not advocating one over the other, and also to point out that Paul Singer shouldn't whine. To re-purpose an old saying, \"\"Don't get mad, get even (by making your investors rich).\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a71be0c4fad79ee79b2a3bf10b56110",
"text": "\"What do you mean by \"\"handful\"\" and \"\"VERY well-funded\"\"? There are a plenty of HFT shops out there that do just fine. But what zenwarrior said before about the effect of fund size is especially true for HFT, since market capacity is usually the limiting factor when making trades.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "661faa4d48f96d63ec1a4467fefc9842",
"text": "The catch is that you're doing a form of leveraged investing. In other words, you're gambling on the stock market using money that you've borrowed. While it's not as dangerous as say, getting money from a loan shark to play blackjack in Vegas, there is always the chance that markets can collapse and your investment's value will drop rapidly. The amount of risk really depends on what specific investments you choose and how diversified they are - if you buy only Canadian stocks then you're at risk of losing a lot if something happened to our economy. But if your Canadian equities only amount to 3.6% of your total (which is Canada's share of the world market), and you're holding stocks in many different countries then the diversification will reduce your overall risk. The reason I mention that is because many people using the Smith Maneuver are only buying Canadian high-yield dividend stocks, so that they can use the dividends to accelerate the Smith Maneuver process (use the dividends to pay down the mortgage, then borrow more and invest it). They prefer Canadian equities because of preferential tax treatment of the dividend income (in non-registered accounts). But if something happened to those Canadian companies, they stand to lose much of the investment value and suddenly they have the extra debt (the amount borrowed from a HELOC, or from a re-advanceable mortgage) without enough value in the investments to offset it. This could mean that they will not be able to pay off the mortgage by the time they retire!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7d7022a861bd1e99017015e50ae64583",
"text": "The typical structure of an HFT group is very small and flat. A few dozen people (maybe). The firm's capital is at risk, so the principals are usually very involved in what everyone is doing. I haven't seen any of these guys take up the title CEO.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4fc19dd318f11e0953684c776cace4a4",
"text": "\"I can address what it means to \"\"pick off\"\" all those trades... As quantycuenta & littleadv have said, it is absolutely true that professionals \"\"prey\"\" on less-sophisticated market participants. They aren't in the market for charity's sake. If you're not familiar with the definition of the word \"\"arbitrage\"\", look it up. One possible strategy that can be employed with HFT machinery in order to arbitrage successfully in the stock market is to 'intercept' orders that are placed on various exchanges. In order to do this, an HFT organization watches all the transactions at once to find opportunities to buy low and sell high. A good explanation of it is described here in this NY Times article; I'll paraphrase what that article lays out. Stocks are traded through multiple exchanges The first key point to understand is that stocks listed on one exchange (i.e. the NYSE) can be sold on multiple exchanges. That's where the actual \"\"I would like to sell 100 shares of Ford stock\"\" is matched with \"\"I would like to buy 100 shares of Ford stock.\"\" There are multiple clearinghouses on the various exchanges. Your order gets presented to one exchange at a Time An ideal market maker would like to look at the order books for a given stock, say Ford, and see that in exchange A there's a sell order for 100 shares of F at $15.85, and in exchange B there's a buy order for 100 shares of F at $15.90. Arbitrage Market maker buys from A, sells in B, and pockets $0.05 * 100... $5. It's not much, but it was relatively risk free. Also, scale this up to the scale of the US' multiple stock exchanges, and there are lots of opportunities to make $5 every second. Computers are (of course) faster than people To tie it in completely with your question about 'picking off trades', HFT rigs can be set up and programmed to go faster than an average retail investor's order. Let's say you execute the trade to buy 100 shares @ $15.85 as a retail investor. The HFT rigs see your order starting to make the rounds of the different exchanges that your brokerage works through, and go out in front in a matter of milliseconds, finding the orders that are less than $15.85 and less than or equal to 100 shares. They execute a transaction, buy them up, sell to you, and pocket the difference. You have been \"\"picked off\"\". It's admittedly not the only way to use HFT equipment to make money, but it's definitely one way to do it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "02cf1973bc8bfdb5930a3f0b20037ecd",
"text": "By exploiting institutional investors, HFT does hurt small investors. People with pension, mutual, and index funds get smaller returns. Endowment funds are also going to get hurt which hurts hospitals, schools, charities, and other institutions that work for the public good. I agree with you though. At this point we would likely be just arguing semantics.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f6a6c6a54bca7a2cdb8661119ad25003
|
Variations of Dual momentum
|
[
{
"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": "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": "b486f52ac222a212ce347c49cee3f862",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/dp1503.pdf) reduced by 99%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Alternative risk outcomes All risk outcomes capture ex-post risk realizations rather than ex- ante risks. > 4.8 1.2 1.6 Figure 2: Positive Correlation Tests - Dynamics t+1 t+2 t+3 t+4 t+5 t+6 Displacement Probability in Year t+k t+7 t+8 Notes: Risk realization in t + 1 may fail to fully capture the unemployment risk faced by an individual as she is making her coverage choice at time t, which justifies using risk realizations for that individual further into the future. > 05 Individual-level model &beta;OLS =.082 &beta;2SLS =.245 0.05.1.15 Firm Displacement Risk in t.2 Notes: The Figure uses cross-sectional variation in displacement risk across firms as a risk shifter to estimate how UI coverage choices react to variation in risk that is not driven by individual moral hazard. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/76t73y/lse_riskbased_selection_in_unemployment_insurance/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~229382 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*: **risk**^#1 **coverage**^#2 **individual**^#3 **work**^#4 **selection**^#5\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1fec42beb84e2821dd90cd035446ea8d",
"text": "Something like cost = a × avg_spreadb + c × volatilityd × (order_size/avg_volume)e. Different brokers have different formulas, and different trading patterns will have different coefficients.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "69e661b4e1154b9542f9d63bc5d62bbb",
"text": "So I did some queries on Google Scholar, and the term of art academics seem to use is target date fund. I notice divided opinions among academics on the matter. W. Pfau gave a nice set of citations of papers with which he disagrees, so I'll start with them. In 1969, Paul Sameulson published the paper Lifetime Portfolio Selection By Dynamic Stochaistic Programming, which found that there's no mathematical foundation for an age based risk tolerance. There seems to be a fundamental quibble relating to present value of future wages; if they are stable and uncorrelated with the market, one analysis suggests the optimal lifecycle investment should start at roughly 300 percent of your portfolio in stocks (via crazy borrowing). Other people point out that if your wages are correlated with stock returns, allocations to stock as low as 20 percent might be optimal. So theory isn't helping much. Perhaps with the advent of computers we can find some kind of empirical data. Robert Shiller authored a study on lifecycle funds when they were proposed for personal Social Security accounts. Lifecycle strategies fare poorly in his historical simulation: Moreover, with these life cycle portfolios, relatively little is contributed when the allocation to stocks is high, since earnings are relatively low in the younger years. Workers contribute only a little to stocks, and do not enjoy a strong effect of compounding, since the proceeds of the early investments are taken out of the stock market as time goes on. Basu and Drew follow up on that assertion with a set of lifecycle strategies and their contrarian counterparts: whereas a the lifecycle plan starts high stock exposure and trails off near retirement, the contrarian ones will invest in bonds and cash early in life and move to stocks after a few years. They show that contrarian strategies have higher average returns, even at the low 25th percentile of returns. It's only at the bottom 5 or 10 percent where this is reversed. One problem with these empirical studies is isolating the effect of the glide path from rebalancing. It could be that a simple fixed allocation works plenty fine, and that selling winners and doubling down on losers is the fundamental driver of returns. Schleef and Eisinger compare lifecycle strategy with a number of fixed asset allocation schemes in Monte Carlo simulations and conclude that a 70% equity, 30% long term corp bonds does as well as all of the lifecycle funds. Finally, the earlier W Pfau paper offers a Monte Carlo simulation similar to Schleef and Eisinger, and runs final portfolio values through a utility function designed to calculate diminishing returns to more money. This seems like a good point, as the risk of your portfolio isn't all or nothing, but your first dollar is more valuable than your millionth. Pfau finds that for some risk-aversion coefficients, lifecycles offer greater utility than portfolios with fixed allocations. And Pfau does note that applying their strategies to the historical record makes a strong recommendation for 100 percent stocks in all but 5 years from 1940-2011. So maybe the best retirement allocation is good old low cost S&P index funds!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a471ff2224383dc5a4b1d140d6501ee",
"text": "The methodology for divisor changes is based on splits and composition changes. Dividends are ignored by the index. Side note - this is why, in my opinion, that any discussion of the Dow's change over a long term becomes meaningless. Ignoring even a 2% per year dividend has a significant impact over many decades. The divisor can be found at http://wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-djiahourly.html",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "61a0389e9614cc542b0d2148ce23e79e",
"text": "Here is a list of threads in other subreddits about the same content: * [An alternative entrepreneur principle. | The Dismal Science](https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/79fl0a/an_alternative_entrepreneur_principle_the_dismal/) on /r/Economics with 1 karma (created at 2017-10-29 17:13:29 by /u/The_man_who_sold) ---- ^^I ^^am ^^a ^^bot ^^[FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/DuplicatesBot/wiki/index)-[Code](https://github.com/PokestarFan/DuplicateBot)-[Bugs](https://www.reddit.com/r/DuplicatesBot/comments/6ypgmx/bugs_and_problems/)-[Suggestions](https://www.reddit.com/r/DuplicatesBot/comments/6ypg85/suggestion_for_duplicatesbot/)-[Block](https://www.reddit.com/r/DuplicatesBot/wiki/index#wiki_block_bot_from_tagging_on_your_posts) ^^Now ^^you ^^can ^^remove ^^the ^^comment ^^by ^^replying ^^delete!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fbef7be29da184e019befb83c4726298",
"text": "If we assume constant volatility, gamma increases as the stock gets closer to the strike price. Thus, delta is increasing at a faster rate as the stock reaches closer to ITM because gamma is the derivative of delta. As the stock gets deeper ITM, the gamma will slow down as delta reaches 1 or -1 (depends if a call or a put). Thus, the value of the option will change depending upon the level of the delta. I am ignoring volatility and time for this description. See this diagram from Investopedia: Gamma",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f93ae4aa6cff425d08d6816d9cb7ee3f",
"text": "I understand that ITM have little time value, so they will have small time decay(theta), but why OTM has a lesser theta than ATM? The Time value represents uncertainty. That uncertainty decreases the farther away from ATM you get (in either direction). At-the-money, there is roughly a 50% chance that the option expires worthless. As you get deeper in-the-money, the change that is expires worthless decreases, so there is less uncertainty (there is more certainty that the option will pay off). As you go deeper OTM, the probability that the option expires worthless increases, so there is also less uncertainty. At the TTM decreases, the uncertainty (theta) decreases as well, since there is less time for the option to cross the strike from either direction. Similarly, as volatility decreases, theta decreases, since low-volatility stocks have a less change of crossing the strike.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a039e10d0c4d9d7534162540396437ee",
"text": "\"1. (a) \"\"Stephen Kinzer: The True Flag of American Empire #051\"\" by Guadalajara Geopolitics Institute, published on 14 June 2017: http://guadalajarageopolitics.com/2017/06/14/stephen-kinzer-true-flag-american-empire-051/ YouTube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXSMHR-sN1s SoundCloud link: https://soundcloud.com/guadalajara-geopolitics/stephen-kinzer-the-true-flag-of-american-empire-051 Stephen Kinzer: http://stephenkinzer.com (b) Read https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/6feg5x/putin_interview_did_russia_interfere_in_the/dihhtkq (c) \"\"The CIA's Holy War: No espionage operation or covert action was deemed too extreme by a CIA that saw only friends or enemies\"\" by Stephen Kinzer, published in the June 2016 issue of American History: http://watson.brown.edu/news/2016/cias-holy-war-written-stephen-kinzer PDF: [http://watson.brown.edu/files/watson/imce/news/2016/CIA's Holy Cold War Kinzer.pdf](http://watson.brown.edu/files/watson/imce/news/2016/CIA%27s%20Holy%20Cold%20War%20Kinzer.pdf) American History magazine: http://www.historynet.com/magazines/american-history-magazine (d) \"\"Covert Action: A Systems Approach\"\" by Kristen N. Wood, published December 2014: http://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handle/10945/44692/14Dec_Wood_Kristen.pdf Source: http://hdl.handle.net/10945/44692 2. Read https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/5b9bza/the_political_system_of_the_usa_is_characterised/d9mq22q Source: #1 at https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/5bpc5x/an_update_for_my_readers_by_peter_levenda/d9q9006 Via: #26 at https://www.reddit.com/r/Missing411/comments/41oph0/supernatural_abductions_in_japanese_folklore_by/cz3we2z 3. \"\"Jasun Horsley, host of The Liminalist podcast, interviews Peter Levenda about 'The Individuation Chamber' (The Liminalist #11.5), published on 22 April 2015 -- their discussion includes 'Americanism and homogeneity, 'Star Trek' and colonialism, psychology disguised as politics, weaponizing Islam, Eisenhower and Dulles, the sorcerer's apprentice'\"\": #4a at https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/5bpc5x/an_update_for_my_readers_by_peter_levenda/ddlcuvl Weaponizing religion (religion as a weapon), nuclear power/atomic power, atomic/nuclear bomb explosion: Start at 40:20 (40 minutes and 20 seconds) Source + Much More: #7c at https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/5bpc5x/an_update_for_my_readers_by_peter_levenda/dfmc7kj Via: https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/5bpc5x/an_update_for_my_readers_by_peter_levenda/d9q9006 Via: #26 at https://www.reddit.com/r/Missing411/comments/41oph0/supernatural_abductions_in_japanese_folklore_by/cz3we2z 4. Visit (a) https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/6iho4e/a_house_armed_services_panel_intends_to_create_a/dj6bhas (b) https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/6hfhh0/take_a_globe_spin_it_and_point_with_a_finger_to/dixva87 (c) https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/6feg5x/putin_interview_did_russia_interfere_in_the/dihhtkq\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f10343a8acf5d0ed5592b93d1a308df",
"text": "It's ok if you haven't fleshed out the ideas yet. It's partially why I'm asking questions. Something you said seemed incorrect and it's better to verify than assume. I'll check out Friedman's video when I have time, though I've read up on him a bit and find some of his theories hold up and some don't. Can't be specific ATM though.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0044b61fb390a15d42caa49119414285",
"text": "I have had similar thoughts regarding alternative diversifiers for the reasons you mention, but for the most part they don't exist. Gold is often mentioned, but outside of 1972-1974 when the US went off the gold standard, it hasn't been very effective in the diversification role. Cash can help a little, but it also fails to effectively protect you in a bear market, as measured by portfolio drawdowns as well as std dev, relative to gov't bonds. There are alternative assets, reverse ETFs, etc which can fulfill a specific short term defensive role in your portfolio, but which can be very dangerous and are especially poor as a long term solution; while some people claim to use them for effective results, I haven't seen anything verifiable. I don't recommend them. Gov't bonds really do have a negative correlation to equities during periods in which equities underperform (timing is often slightly delayed), and that makes them more valuable than any other asset class as a diversifier. If you are concerned about rate increases, avoid LT gov't bond funds. Intermediate will work, but will take a few hits... short term bonds will be the safest. Personally I'm in Intermediates (30%), and willing to take the modest hit, in exchange for the overall portfolio protection they provide against an equity downturn. If the hit concerns you, Tips may provide some long term help, assuming inflation rises along with rates to some degree. I personally think Tips give up too much return when equity performance is strong, but it's a modest concern - Tips may suit you better than any other option. In general, I'm less concerned with a single asset class than with the long term performance of my total portfolio.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e445a0592214b800d5a666495d7d54d3",
"text": "It's called correlation. I found this: http://www.forexrazor.com/en-us/school/tabid/426/ID/437424/currency-pair-correlations it looks a good place to start Similar types of political economies will correlate together, opposite types won't. Also there are geographic correlations (climate, language etc)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9079ee498ba4f1d27f37c3bc2a997928",
"text": "Someone already mentioned that this is a risk-reversal, but as an aside, in the vol market (delta-hedged options) this is a fundamental skew trade. (buying calls, selling puts or vice versa). Initially vega neutral, the greek that this trade largely isolates is vanna (dvega/dspot or ddelta/dvol).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fdc4bec833f6668910eaae4a1fc0b2ba",
"text": "VXX VZX XVIZ and there are plenty others correlated to market volatility if you want the wildest hedge, use VXX, it is also the most liquid",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
41df0bab5d11a87aecdeefdd547f8a58
|
Why buy bonds in a no-arbitrage market?
|
[
{
"docid": "307191f5ae6dbc398f2cb2c30b15c1b7",
"text": "Rates are a complex field. I will assume that context wise you are talking about rates for a individual saver quantities. The two rates you are asking about are personal bank saving account and exchange traded bonds. The points you want to compare between them are. In general, a bond is what we called a fixed rate instrument. This means that for the life of the product, it will yield a fixed percentage of its face value at a regular period. Baring any extreme circumstances (such as bankruptcy), no external factors will change the payment schedule on a bond. Conversely, by placing your money into a bank, you will accrue interest rate at some value related to some published interest rate. For example, if tomorrow, the Treasury decided to try to stimulate the economy, they could slash the interest rate, this would directly affect the rate at which your savings account would accrue interest. In general, a bond has a maturity date, where the capital is finally released from the bond. Until such date, you cannot access the money directly (you can however sell the bond, but it would likely be at a discounted value). Therefore, in general, you cannot get access to the money whenever you want it. As for a saving account, normally one can access the funds instantly, if not within a few days. This seems to the reason people seem to be focusing on. For each bond, the issuer of the bond is obligated to pay you the holder of the bond fixed payments at an interval, plus the capital at the maturity. However, obligation does not mean guarantee. If the issuer, is unable to make the payments, they may go into bankruptcy to avoid paying you. There are companies setup to advise people on the likelihood of each bond issuer on their ability to honour their debts. For example Standard and Poor issues a rating which goes all the way up to AAA for bonds. Recently, many sovereign countries have lost their AAA rating from S&P. Meaning that S&P feel that the possibility of these countries going bankrupt is non-zero. Conversely, banks may also be unable to give you your money when requested. In the US, the reserve requirements means that at any one time it only holds 10% of the money it owes to its customers. This can mean that if every customer turns up to the bank to demand their money, that bank would be unable to pay. This situation is called a Bank Run. During such a situation, the bank would likely collapse and default. In many modern countries, the government put into place guarantees on the first xxx amount in saving accounts, but otherwise, your savings could be lost. There are many complex reasons to choose one instrument over another (including some I have avoided), even if at the outset, they could appear to have the same rates.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e81e513209a8bafc75b1ded70705dada",
"text": "For safety. If something catastrophic happens to your bank and your money is in there you will lose any not covered by FDIC. 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. I also literally just posted this in another thread: Certain rules and regulations penalize companies or institutions for holding cash, so they are shifting to bonds and bills. Fidelity, for example, is completely converting its $100 billion dollar cash fund to short term bills. Its estimated that over $2 trillion that is now in cash may be converted to bills, and that will obviously put upward preasure on the price of them. The treasury is trying to issue more short term debt to balance out the demand. read more here: http://www.wsj.com/articles/money-funds-clamor-for-short-term-treasurys-1445300813",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d4bd9d7b067b67dad5472849802226cc",
"text": "\"If by \"\"putting money in the bank\"\" you mean regular savings or checking, then the bond locks a rate for a period of time, whereas your savings/checking rate can vary over that period. That variation might go for you or against you. Depending on your situation, you might prefer to take a determined rate to the variations. In addition, some bond types provide tax benefits (e.g. treasuries and municipal bonds) that change the effective return - You cannot just compare the interest rates. Finally, the bonds have \"\"resale\"\" value on the secondary market like stock - Depending on your outlook and strategy, you might by the bond for its value as a security rather than for the interest specifically just like you'd could buy a dividend-paying stock for its value as a security rather than for the dividend. In other words, you might think that bond values are going up, so you buy bonds with the intent of making a capital gain rather than counting on the interest returned. (The bond market does depend on the interest rate, so these are not independent factors.) I see the other answer that mentions the potential for your bank busting and you losing money beyond the FDIC insurance limit. The question doesn't specify U.S. Government bonds though, so I don't think that answer is generally good. It would be good in the case that you had a lot of money (especially an institution or foreign government) and you were specifically interested in U.S. Treasury bonds. Not so much if you invest in corporate bonds where you have no government insurance / assurance of any sort. Municipal bounds are also not backed by the U.S. (federal) government, but they may have some backing at the state level, depending on the state.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e732648b31005f1d4e21e034a068d67",
"text": "There is no single 'market interest rate'; there are myriad interest rates that vary by risk profile & term. Corporate bonds are (typically) riskier than bank deposits, and therefore pay a higher effective rate when the market for that bond is in equilibrium than a bank account does. If you are willing to accept a higher risk in order gain a higher return, you might choose bonds over bank deposits. If you want an even higher return and can accept even higher risk, you might turn to stocks over bonds. If you want still higher return and can bear the still higher risk, derivatives may be more appealing than stocks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e96efcfab2cdc6ccf5a9aaf632736584",
"text": "It is my understanding that banks pay less than the going rate on savings accounts and require that the person who takes out a loan pay more than the going rate. That is how the bank gets its money. Usually the going rate is affected by the current inflation rate (but that has not been true for the last few weeks). So that means that, typically, the money you have in the bank is, gradually, losing purchasing power as the bank typically pays you less than the inflation rate. So if you want your money to keep pace with inflation (or do a bit better) then you should buy bonds.",
"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": "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": "238b8ff8728c9bc18c819b8167faf591",
"text": "\"TL;DR: If your currently held bond's bid yield is smaller than another bonds' ask yield. You can swap your bond for bigger returns. Let's imagine you buy a long bond for $12000 (face value of $10000) and it has 6% coupon. The cash flows will have an internal return rate of 4.37%, this is the published \"\"ask yield\"\" in 2014 of the bond. After six years, prices have fallen, inflation and yields went up. So you can sell it for only $10000. If you would do it, the IRR will be only 2.55%, so there will be less return, than if you keep it. But if you would \"\"undo\"\" the transaction, then the future cash flows would yield 6.38%. This is the \"\"bid yield\"\" in 2020 of the bond. If you can find an offer that yields more than 6.38%, you have better returns if you sell your bond and invest that $10000 in the other bond. But as other answers pointed it out, you rarely have this opportunity as the market is very effective. (Assuming everything else is equal.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c224346604b8d4e798f6453fcb10053b",
"text": "stocks represent ownership in a company. their price can go up or down depending on how much profit the company makes (or is expected to make). stocks owners are sometimes paid money by the company if the company has extra cash. these payments are called dividends. bonds represent a debt that a company owes. when you buy a bond, then the company owes that debt to you. typically, the company will pay a small amount of money on a regular basis to the bond owner, then a large lump some at some point in the future. assuming the company does not file bankrupcy, and you keep the bond until it becomes worthless, then you know exactly how much money you will get from buying a bond. because bonds have a fixed payout (assuming no bankrupcy), they tend to have lower average returns. on the other hand, while stocks have a higher average return, some stocks never return any money. in the usa, stocks and bonds can be purchased through a brokerage account. examples are etrade, tradeking, or robinhood.com. before purchasing stocks or bonds, you should probably learn a great deal more about other investment concepts such as: diversification, volatility, interest rates, inflation risk, capital gains taxes, (in the usa: ira's, 401k's, the mortgage interest deduction). at the very least, you will need to decide if you want to buy stocks inside an ira or in a regular brokerage account. you will also probably want to buy a low-expense ration etf (e.g. an index fund etf) unless you feel confident in some other choice.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "020d22d766952e6008bf848df7c060d2",
"text": "\"I'll answer your question, but first a comment about your intended strategy. Buying government bonds in a retirement account is probably not a good idea. Government bonds (generally) are tax advantaged themselves, so they offer a lower interest rate than other types of bonds. At no tax or reduced tax, many people will accept the lower interest rate because their effective return may be similar or better depending, for example, on their own marginal tax rate. In a tax-advantaged retirement account, however, you'll be getting the lower interest without any additional benefit because that account itself is already tax-advantaged. (Buying bonds generally may be a good idea or not - I won't comment on that - but choose a different category of bonds.) For the general question about the relationship between the Fed rate and the bond rate, they are positively correlated. There's not direct causal relationship in the sense that the Fed is not setting the bond rate directly, but other interest bearing investment options are tied to the Fed rate and many of those interest-bearing options compete for the same investor dollars as the bonds that you're reviewing. That's at a whole market level. Individual bonds, however, may not be so tightly coupled since the creditworthiness of the issuing entity matters a lot too, so it could be that \"\"bond rates\"\" generally are going up but some specific bonds are going down based on something happening with the issuer, just like the stock market might be generally going up even as specific stocks are dropping. Also keep in mind that many bonds trade as securities on a secondary market much like stocks. So I've talked about the bond rate. The price of the bonds themselves on the secondary market generally move opposite to the rate. The reason is that, for example, if you buy a bond at less than face value, you're getting an effective interest rate that's higher because you get the same sized incremental payments of interest but put less money into the investment. And vice versa.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6039901bd125dde0231f61f69b5073ed",
"text": "\"Were you thinking of an annuity? They guarantee regular payments, usually after retirement. In any case, every investment has counterparty risk. Bonds guarantee payout, but the issuer could always default. This is why Treasury bonds have the lowest yields, the Treasury is the world's most trusted borrower. It's also why \"\"junk\"\" bonds have higher yields than investment grade and partially why longer duration bonds have higher yields. As mentioned, there's bank accounts, which gain interest and are insured by FDIC up to $250,000. If the bank folds, they'll be acquired by another and your account balance will simply transfer. Similar to bank accounts are money market funds. These are funds that purchase very short term \"\"paper\"\" (basically <90 day bonds). They maintain a share price of $1 and pay interest in the form of additional shares. These have the risk of \"\"breaking the buck\"\" where they need to sell assets at a loss to meet investor withdrawal demands and NAV drops below $1.00. Fortunately, that's a super rare occurance, but still definitely possible. Finally, there's one guy I've seen on TV pitching a no risk high yield investment. I can't remember the firm, but I am waiting to see them shut down for running a ponzi scheme.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8384d354271018c0de0dce360c7a96e0",
"text": "\"Consider the futures market. Traders buy and sell gold futures, but very few contracts, relatively speaking, result in delivery. The contracts are sold, and \"\"Open interest\"\" dwindles to near zero most months as the final date approaches. The seller buys back his short position, the buyer sells off his longs. When I own a call, and am 'winning,' say the option that cost me $1 is now worth $2, I'd rather sell that option for even $1.95 than to buy 100 shares of a $148 stock. The punchline is that very few option buyers actually hope to own the stock in the end. Just like the futures, open interest falls as expiration approaches.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f5980ed493aedbecbc092add2c4be4dc",
"text": "QE is artificial demand for bonds, but as always when there are more buyers than sellers the price of anything goes up. When QE ends the price of bonds will fall because everyone will know that the biggest buyer in the market is no longer there. So price of bonds will fall. And therefore the interest rate on new bonds must increase to match the total return available to buyers in the secondary market.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fa30e29f8506005c072899b81da89854",
"text": "Let's say today you buy the bond issued by StateX at 18$. Let's say tommorow morning the TV says that StateX is going towards default (if it happens it won't give you back not even the 18$ you invested). You (and others that bought the same bond like you) will get scared and try to sell the bond, but a potential buyer won't buy it for 18$ anymore they will risk maximum couple of bucks, therefor the price of your bond tomorrow is worth 2$ and not 18 anymore. Bond prices (even zero coupon ones) do fluctuate like shares, but with less turbolence (i.e. on the same period of time, ups and downs are smaller in percentage compared to shares) EDIT: Geo asked in the comment below what happens to the bond the FED rises the interest. It' very similar to what I explained above. Let's say today you buy the bond just issued by US treasury at 50$. Today the FED rewards money at 2%, and the bond you bought promised you a reward of 2% per year for 10 years (even if it's zero coupon, it will give you almost the same reward of one with coupons, the only difference is that it will give you all the money back at once, that is when the bond expires). Let's say tommorow morning the TV says that FED decided to rise the interest rates, and now on it lends money rewarding a wonderful 4% to investors. US treasury will also have to issue bonds at 4%. You can obviously keep your bond until expiration (and unless US goes default you will get back all your money until the last cent), but if you decide to sell your bond, you will find out that people won't be willing to pay 50$ anymore because on the market they can now buy the same type of bond (for the same period of time, 10 years) that give them 4% per year and not a poor 2% like yours. So people will be willing to pay maximum 40$ for your bond or less.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "74ede1bfc19a1ebc6de5dec45e802bfd",
"text": "\"[...] are all bonds priced in such a way so that they all return the same amount (on average), after accounting for risk? In other words, do risk premiums ONLY compensate for the amount investors might lose? No. GE might be able to issue a bond with lower yield than, say, a company from China with no previous records of its presence in the U.S. markets. A bond price not only contains the risk of default, but also encompasses the servicability of the bond by the issuer with a specific stream of income, location of main business, any specific terms and conditions in the prospectus, e.g.callable or not, insurances against default, etc. Else for the same payoff, why would you take a higher risk? The payoff of a higher risk (not only default, but term structure, e.g. 5 years or 10 years, coupon payments) bond is more, to compensate for the extra risk it entails for the bondholder. The yield of a high risk bond will always be higher than a bond with lower risk. If you travel back in time, to 2011-2012, you would see the yields on Greek bonds were in the range of 25-30%, to reflect the high risk of a Greek default. Some hedge funds made a killing by buying Greek bonds during the eurozone crisis. If you go through the Efficient frontier theory, your argument is a counter statement to it. Same with individual bonds, or a portfolio of bonds. You always want to be compensated for the risk you take. The higher the risk, the higher the compensation, and vice versa. When investors buy the bond at this price, they are essentially buying a \"\"risk free\"\" bond [...] Logically yes, but no it isn't, and you shouldn't make that assumption.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7752f67b871bc3bc345990de3f5221fa",
"text": "why would anyone buy a long-term bond fund in a market like this one, where interest rates are practically bottomed out? 1) You are making the assumption that interest rates has bottom out hence there is no further possibility of it going down further , i mean who expected Lehman Brother to go bankrupt 2) Long term investors who are able to wait for the bad times of the bond market to end and in the mean time dont mind some dividend payment of 2-3%",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f4dfadeeefad1c3988f5f9ae9342142f",
"text": "Why does selling a bond drive up the yield? The bond will pay back a fixed amount when it comes due. The yield is a comparison of what you pay for the bond and what will be repaid when it matures (assuming no default). Why does the yield go up if the country is economically unstable? If the country's economy is unstable, that increases the chance that they will default and not pay the full value of the bonds when they mature. People are selling them now at a loss instead of waiting for a default later for a greater loss. So if you think Greece is not going to default as it's highly likely a country would completely default, wouldn't it make sense to hold onto the bonds? Only if you also think that they will pay back the full value at maturity. It's possible that they pay some, but not all. It's also possible that they will default. It's also possible that they will get kicked out of the Euro and start printing Drachmas again, and try to pay the bonds back with those which could devalue the bonds through inflation. The market is made of lots of smart people. If they think there are reasons to worry, there probably are. That doesn't mean they can predict the future, it just means that they are pricing the risk with good information. If you are smarter than the herd, by all means, bet against them and buy the bonds now. It can indeed be lucrative if you are right, and they are wrong.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dac42c465bf5780fb4ab730b4f3be366",
"text": "There is another reason why an investor might buy negative yielding bonds: if the investor expects that bond yields will go even further negative, then they are also expecting the price of the bond to go up. They can resell the bond later at a profit. As an example, they may expect an increase in central bank bond purchases to drive yields lower and prices higher.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "238acb579177dbbd1370975042f0620f",
"text": "Usually Bonds are used to raised capital when a lender doesn't want to take on sole risk of lending. If you are looking at raising anything below 10m bonds are not a option because the bank will just extend you a line of credit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "8af32a8a83a77bd924097fd3bf67c2b8",
"text": "Is it possible to move money from NRE to NRO account Yes you can move money from NRE to NRO without any issue. You can't do the other way round. i.e. Move money from NRO to NRE. I would like to move USD earning to NRE Yes you can further move money in NRE to NRO account Yes you can I am planning to give NRO account to HDFC Home loan for EMI processing Yes you can. Depending on your long term plan it may not be a good idea. For example if you were to sell the house you cannot move the funds into NRE and outside of India without some amount of paperwork. However if you pay the EMI via NRE account, on the sale of house, you can transfer the funds into NRE account to the extent of the loan paid and the Original downpayment [if made from NRE account]. also I can deposit money from other savings account to NRO; As an NRI, you can't hold ordinary savings account in India. This is violation of norms. Please have any/all savings account in India converted to NRO at the earliest.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
e5546400a617d146b92d37dd82e41f15
|
What is the risk-neutral probability?
|
[
{
"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": "a82bece8a7b6c04dce89b387fe72c88e",
"text": "To get the probability of hitting a target price you need a little more math and an assumption about the expected return of your stock. First let's examine the parts of this expression. IV is the implied volatility of the option. That means it's the volatility of the underlying that is associated with the observed option price. As a practical matter, volatility is the standard deviation of returns, expressed in annualized terms. So if the monthly standard deviation is Y, then Y*SQRT(12) is the volatility. From the above you can see that IV*SQRT(DaysToExpire/356) de-annualizes the volatility to get back to a standard deviation. So you get an estimate of the expected standard deviation of the return between now and expiration. If you multiply this by the stock price, then you get what you have called X, which is the standard deviation of the dollars gained or lost between now and expiration. Denote the price change by A (so that the standard deviation of A is X). Note that we seek the expression for the probability of hitting a target level, Q, so mathematically we want 1 - Pr( A < Q - StockPrice) We do 1 minus the probability of being below this threshold because cumulative distribution functions always find the probability of being BELOW a threshold, not above. If you are using excel and assuming a mean of zero for returns, the probability of hitting or exceeding Q at expiration, then, is That's your answer for the probability of exceeding Q. Accuracy is in the eye of the beholder. You'd have to specify a criterion by which to judge it to know the answer. I'm sure more sophisticated methods exist that are more unbiased and have less error, but I think it's a fine first approximation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "53119f50382b91202397bc9c9433a5eb",
"text": "This doesn't make sense in an economic context. For justice to provide sufficient deterrent, it needs to be rational to avoid a crime. If your probability of being caught is comparatively lower, the punishment needs to be higher in order to remain a deterrent. Basically, P(get caught) * Punitive Cost > Profit",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "351f89bd9a41b943744b8ce95e967cdb",
"text": "Excellent, very sharp. No it will not be vega neutral exactly! If you think about it, what does a higher vol imply? That the delta of the option is higher than under BS model. Therefore, the vega should also be greater (simplistic explanation but generally accurate). So no, if you trade a 25-delta risky in equal size per leg, the vega will not be neutral. But, in reality, that is a very small portion of your risk. It plays a part, but in general the vanna position dominates by many many multiples. What do you do that you asked such a question, if you don't mind?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "93ac5c7e87fbf813b47b44d966bcd307",
"text": "\"Yes, and the math that tells you when is called the Kelly Criterion. The Kelly Criterion is on its face about how much you should bet on a positive-sum game. Imagine you have a game where you flip a coin, and if heads you are given 3 times your bet, and if tails you lose your bet. Naively you'd think \"\"great, I should play, and bet every dollar I have!\"\" -- after all, it has a 50% average return on investment. You get back on average 1.5$ for every dollar you bet, so every dollar you don't bet is a 0.5$ loss. But if you do this and you play every day for 10 years, you'll almost always end up bankrupt. Funny that. On the other hand, if you bet nothing, you are losing out on a great investment. So under certain assumptions, you neither want to bet everything, nor do you want to bet nothing (assuming you can repeat the bet almost indefinitely). The question then becomes, what percentage of your bankroll should you bet? Kelly Criterion answers this question. The typical Kelly Criterion case is where we are making a bet with positive returns, not an insurance against loss; but with a bit of mathematical trickery, we can use it to determine how much you should spend on insuring against loss. An \"\"easy\"\" way to undertand the Kelly Criterion is that you want to maximize the logarithm of your worth in a given period. Such a maximization results in the largest long-term value in some sense. Let us give it a try in an insurance case. Suppose you have a 1 million dollar asset. It has a 1% chance per year of being destroyed by some random event (flood, fire, taxes, pitchforks). You can buy insurance against this for 2% of its value per year. It even covers pitchforks. On its face this looks like a bad deal. Your expected loss is only 1%, but the cost to hide the loss is 2%? If this is your only asset, then the loss makes your net worth 0. The log of zero is negative infinity. Under Kelly, any insurance (no matter how inefficient) is worth it. This is a bit of an extreme case, and we'll cover why it doesn't apply even when it seems like it does elsewhere. Now suppose you have 1 million dollars in other assets. In the insured case, we always end the year with 1.98 million dollars, regardless of if the disaster happens. In the non-insured case, 99% of the time we have 2 million dollars, and 1% of the time we have 1 million dollars. We want to maximize the expected log value of our worth. We have log(2 million - 20,000) (the insured case) vs 1% * log(1 million) + 99% * log(2 million). Or 13.7953 vs 14.49. The Kelly Criterion says insurance is worth it; note that you could \"\"afford\"\" to replace your home, but because it makes up so much of your net worth, Kelly says the \"\"hit it too painful\"\" and you should just pay for insurance. Now suppose you are worth 1 billion. We have log(1 billion - 20k) on the insured side, and 1%*log(999 million) + 99% * log(1 billion) on the uninsured side. The logs of each side are 21.42 vs 20.72. (Note that the base of the logarithm doesn't matter; so long as you use the same base on each side). According to Kelly, we have found a case where insurance isn't worth it. The Kelly Criterion roughly tells you \"\"if I took this bet every (period of time), would I be on average richer after (many repeats of this bet) than if I didn't take this bet?\"\" When the answer is \"\"no\"\", it implies self-insurance is more efficient than using external insurance. The answer is going to be sensitive to the profit margin of the insurance product you are buying, and the size of the asset relative to your total wealth. Now, the Kelly Criterion can easily be misapplied. Being worth financially zero in current assets can easily ignore non-financial assets (like your ability to work, or friends, or whatever). And it presumes repeat to infinity, and people tend not to live that long. But it is a good starting spot. Note that the option of bankruptcy can easily make insurance not \"\"worth it\"\" for people far poorer; this is one of the reasons why banks insist you have insurance on your proprety. You can use Kelly to calculate how much insurance you should purchase at a given profit margin for the insurance company given your net worth and the risk involved. This can be used in Finance to work out how much you should hedge your bets in an investment as well; in effect, it quantifies how having money makes it easier to make money.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ad95ac2efa8c6f348e8f9de9c1bdc83f",
"text": "Risk and return always go hand by hand.* Risk is a measure of expected return volatility. The best investment at this stage is a good, easy to understand but thorough book on finance. *Applies to efficient markets only.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "52711cc145662d771c2d381f9909a103",
"text": "A number of ways exist to calculate the chances of a particular outcome. Options, for example, use current price, cost of money, and volatility among other factors to price the chance of an underlying asset reaching a certain price in a certain timeframe. A graphical forecast simply puts these calculations into a visual format. That said, it appears the image you offer shows the prediction as it existed in the past along with how the stock has done since. A disclaimer - The odds of a fair die being rolled to a given number are 1 in 6. It's a fact. With stocks, on the other hand, models try to simulate real life and many factors can't be accounted for.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1507aaef499b0cce4fb9076b9116d3d3",
"text": "How about looking into the market price of risk? Ive always wanted to know if risk is or should be priced the same across markets/asset classes/etc. Eh? Let me know what you figure out. Edit: I just realized you people probably consider it to be the Sharpe ratio. That's not what I meant. I meant in the sense of option pricing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf07ec9e09b72c3b44f4c116f1caed05",
"text": "Someone entering a casino with $15 could employ a very simple strategy and have a better-than-90% chance of walking out with $16. Unfortunately, the person would have a non-trivial chance (about one in 14) of walking out with $0. If after losing $15 the person withdrew $240 from the bank and tried to win $16, the person would have a better-than-90% chance of succeeding and ending up ahead (holding the original $15, plus the additional $240, plus $1) but would have at that point about a one in 14 chance from that point of losing the $240 along with the original $15. Measured from the starting point, you'd have about a 199 out of 200 chance of gaining $1, and a one out of 200 chance of losing $240. Market-timing bets are like that. You can arrange things so you have a significant chance of making a small profit, but at the risk of a large downside. If you haven't firmly decided exactly how much downside you are willing to accept, it's very easy to simultaneously believe you don't have much money at risk, but that you'll be able to win back anything you lose. The only way you can hope to win back anything you lose is by bringing a lot more money to the table, which will of course greatly increase your downside risk. The probability of making money for the person willing to accept $15 of downside risk to earn $1 is about 93%. The probability of making money for the person willing to accept $255 worth of risk is about 99.5%. It's easy to see that there are ways of playing which have a 99.5% chance of winning, and that there are ways of playing that only have a 15:1 downside risk. Unfortunately, the ways of playing that have the smaller risk don't have anything near a 99.9% chance of winning, and those that have a better chance of winning have a much larger downside risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "770018f155276945e734c862080a7847",
"text": "\"A subsidy is a benefit. While you're right most of the time it is a crude \"\"transfer of wealth by the US government\"\" the formal intent of a subsidy is to assist so as to confer an advantage or mitigate a disadvantage. If as you say \"\"discounting the risk premium\"\" actively by the US government so as to confer, in the words of Ueda and Di Mauro, a \"\"funding cost advantage [to] SIFIs [of] around 60bp in 2007 and 80bp in 2009\"\" is not a subsidy, then what is it?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a8322b4c03d89bd5951593ec8cc1b48a",
"text": "I would say binomial tree, except your last sentence, > The probabilities of the various outcomes are unknown. causes issues with that. You could do a scenario analysis in which you compare values using different %chances of up vs. down.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c6d90f991f80e65e67aa8585a99deacf",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.richmondfed.org/-/media/richmondfedorg/publications/research/working_papers/2017/pdf/wp17-12.pdf) reduced by 98%. (I'm a bot) ***** > 7 3 Local Dynamics The local dynamics of the simple search and matching model have been studied by Krause and Lubik. > In the previous literature, for example Mendes and Mendes and Bhattacharya and Bunzel, the backward dynamics are defined via the map g by rearranging to isolate &theta;t : \u0010 \u00111/&xi; &theta;t = a&theta;t+1 c&theta;t+1 + d = g. 11 Under risk aversion, the dynamics depend on the time path of output yt. > 4.2 Stability Properties We now study the dynamics of the backward map zt = f. We first establish the properties of the function f. We then study the stability properties of the steady state, where we distinguish between two broad areas of dynamics in the backward map, namely stable and unstable. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/788alk/fed_global_dynamics_in_a_search_and_matching/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~233564 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*: **dynamic**^#1 **model**^#2 **0.1**^#3 **1**^#4 **map**^#5\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d62b517174738aa290ba762275cecc45",
"text": "if I have a asset A with expected return of 100% and risk(measured by standard deviation) 1%, and asset B with expected return of 1% and risk 100%, would it be rational to put asset B into the portfolio ? No, because Modern Portfolio Theory would say that if there is another asset (B2) with the same (or higher) return but less risk (which you already have in asset A), you should invest in that. If those are the only two assets you can choose from, you would invest completely in Asset A. The point of diversification is that, so long as two assets aren't perfectly positively correlated (meaning that if one moves up the other always moves up), then losses in one asset will sometimes be offset by gains in another, reducing the overall risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7da3ed09c146ab37ff05f628df76df15",
"text": "Can you give more detail on the problem? If you can model it with a one step binomial tree, then the price is favourable as long as the chance to multiply is P(S^1 = 10 S^0 ) > 0.1. If you don't know the probabilities, then the usual go-to is to determine what probability space is that would lead to an expected profit (plus an error, and a cushion for risk aversion if the bet is sufficiently large).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "59ee99fc3853372dbb802b2e295679f8",
"text": "Dummy example to explain this. Suppose your portfolio contained just two securities; a thirty year US government bond and a Tesla stock. Both of those position are currently valued at $1mm. The Tesla position however is very volatile with its daily volatility being about 5% (based on the standard deviation of its daily return) whole there bond's daily volatility is 1%. Then the Tesla position is 5/6 of your risk while being only 1/2 of the portfolio. Now if in month the Tesla stock tanks to half is values then. Then it's risk is half as much as before and so it's total contribution to risk has gone down.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
aa2293b67cd33de5f913481d609fc3e6
|
How do banks lose money on foreclosures?
|
[
{
"docid": "f4aa10b157076a2d41f8f8ec9de3d2c1",
"text": "\"The \"\"just accounting\"\" is how money market works these days. Lets look at this simplified example: The bank creates an asset - loan in the amount of X, secured by a house worth 1.25*X (assuming 20% downpayment). The bank also creates a liability in the amount of X to its depositors, because the money lent was the money first deposited into the bank by someone else (or borrowed by the bank from the Federal Reserve(*), which is, again, a liability). That liability is not secured. Now the person defaults on the loan in the amount of X, but at that time the prices dropped, and the house is now worth 0.8*X. The bank forecloses, sells the house, recovers 80% of the loan, and removes the asset of the loan, creating an asset of cash in the value of 0.8*X. But the liability in the amount of X didn't go anywhere. Bank still has to repay the X amount of money back to its depositors/Feds. The difference? 20% of X in our scenario - that's the bank's loss. (*) Federal Reserve is the US equivalent of a central bank.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6de8275802733d88deb52209a02a4bd5",
"text": "\"Someone has to hand out cash to the seller. Even if no physical money changes hands (and I've bought a house; I can tell you a LOT of money changes hands at closing in at least the form of a personal check), and regardless of exactly how the bank accounts for the actual disbursement of the loan, the net result is that the buyer has cash that they give the seller, and are now in debt to the bank for least that amount (but, they now have a house). Now, the bank probably didn't have that money just sitting in its vault. Money sitting in a vault is money that is not making more money for the bank; therefore most banks keep only fractionally more than the percentage of deposit balances that they are required to keep by the Feds. There are also restrictions on what depositors' money can be spent on, and loans are not one of them; the model of taking in money in savings accounts and then loaning it out is what caused the savings and loan collapse in the 80s. So, to get the money, it turns to investors; the bank sells bonds, putting itself in debt to bond holders, then takes that money and loans it out at a higher rate, covering the interest on the bond and making itself a tidy profit for its own shareholders. Banks lose money on defaults in two ways. First, they lose all future interest payments that would have been made on the loan. Technically, this isn't \"\"revenue\"\" until the interest is calculated for each month and \"\"accrues\"\" on the loan; therefore, it doesn't show on the balance sheet one way or the other. However, the holders of those bonds will expect a return, and the banks no longer have the mortgage payment to cover the coupon payments that they themselves have to pay bondholders, creating cash flow problems. The second, and far more real and damaging, way that banks lose money on a foreclosure is the loss of collateral value. A bank virtually never offers an unsecured \"\"signature loan\"\" for a house (certainly not at the advertised 3-4% interest rates). They want something to back up the loan, so if you disappear off the face of the earth they have a clear claim to something that can help them recover their money. Usually, that's the house itself; if you default, they get the house from you and sell it to recover their money. Now, a major cause of foreclosure is economic downturn, like the one we had in 2009 and are still recovering from. When the economy goes in the crapper, a lot of things we generally consider \"\"stores of value\"\" lose that value, because the value of the whatzit (any whatzit, really) is based on what someone else would pay to have it. When fewer people are looking to buy that whatzit, demand drops, bringing prices with it. Homes and real estate are one of the real big-ticket items subject to this loss of value; when the average Joe doesn't know whether he'll have a job tomorrow, he doesn't go house-hunting. This average Joe may even be looking to sell an extra parcel of land or an income property for cash, increasing supply, further decreasing prices. Economic downturn can often increase crime and decrease local government spending on upkeep of public lands (as well as homeowners' upkeep of their own property). By the \"\"broken window\"\" effect, this makes the neighborhood even less desirable in a vicious cycle. What made this current recession a double-whammy for mortgage lenders is that it was caused, in large part, by a housing bubble; cheap money for houses made housing prices balloon rapidly, and then when the money became more expensive (such as in sub-prime ARMs), a lot of those loans, which should never have been signed off on by either side, went belly-up. Between the loss of home value (a lot of which will likely turn out to be permanent; that's the problem with a bubble, things never recover to their peak) and the adjustment of interest rates on mortgages to terms that will actually pay off the loan, many homeowners found themselves so far underwater (and sinking fast) that the best financial move for them was to walk away from the whole thing and try again in seven years. Now the bank's in a quandary. They have this loan they'll never see repaid in cash, and they have this home that's worth maybe 75% of the mortgage's outstanding balance (if they're lucky; some homes in extremely \"\"distressed\"\" areas like Detroit are currently trading for 30-40% of what they sold for just before the bubble burst). Multiply that by, say, 100,000 distressed homes with similar declines in value, and you're talking about tens of billions of dollars in losses. On top of that, the guarantor (basically the bank's insurance company against these types of losses) is now in financial trouble themselves, because they took on so many contracts for debt that turned out to be bad (AIG, Fannie/Freddie); they may very well declare bankruptcy and leave the bank holding the bag. Even if the guarantor remains solvent (as they did thanks to generous taxpayer bailouts), the bank's swap contract with the guarantor usually requires them to sell the house, thus realizing the loss between what they paid and what they finally got back, before the guarantor will pay out. But nobody's buying houses anymore, because prices are on their way down; the only people who'd buy a house now versus a year from now (or two or three years) are the people who have no choice, and if you have no choice you're probably in a financial situation that would mean you'd never be approved for the loan anyway. In order to get rid of them, the bank has to sell them at auction for pennies on the dollar. That further increases the supply of cheap homes and further drives down prices, making even the nicer homes the bank's willing to keep on the books worth less (there's a reason these distresed homes were called \"\"toxic assets\"\"; they're poisonous to the banks whether they keep or sell them). Meanwhile, all this price depression is now affecting the people who did everything right; even people who bought their homes years before the bubble even formed are watching years of equity-building go down the crapper. That's to say nothing of the people with prime credit who bought at just the wrong time, when the bubble was at its peak. Even without an adjusting ARM to contend with, these guys are still facing the fact that they paid top dollar for a house that likely will not be worth its purchase price again in their lifetime. Even with a fixed mortgage rate, they'll be underwater, effectively losing their entire payment to the bank as if it were rent, for much longer than it would take to have this entire mess completely behind them if they just walked away from the whole thing, moved back into an apartment and waited it out. So, these guys decide on a \"\"strategic default\"\"; give the bank the house (which doesn't cover the outstanding balance of course) and if they sue, file bankruptcy. That really makes the banks nervous; if people who did everything right are considering the hell of foreclosure and bankruptcy to be preferable to their current state of affairs, the bank's main threat keeping people in their homes is hollow. That makes them very reluctant to sign new mortgages, because the risk of default is now much less certain. Now people who do want houses in this market can't buy them, further reducing demand, further decreasing prices... You get the idea. That's the housing collapse in a nutshell, and what banks and our free market have been working through for the past five years, with only the glimmer of a turnaround picking up home sales.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "32e935b4339ffb2917c8b86d2b58f554",
"text": "\"During the actual decline, there's very little money to be made and a lot to lose. When housing prices tank, everybody loses; the banks are exposed to higher risk of mortgage defaults, insurers start having to pay out more for \"\"gas leaks\"\" claiming over-leveraged homes, realtors starve because their commissions go down (even as foreclosures put more homes on the market) and people faced with financial uncertainty will stay put in their current homes instead of moving elsewhere. And homebuilders and contractors go broke because nobody wants to spend cash on a new home or major reno that looks like a losing investment. There can be some bright spots. Smaller hardware stores will make money as people do relatively small DIY projects to improve the condition of their current home. The larger stores get this business too, but it tends to be more than offset by the loss of contractor business (FAR more lucrative, and something the ACEs and True-Values don't really get in on). Of course the \"\"grave-robbers\"\" do well; gold buyers, auctioneers, pawn shops, repo firms; these guys eat well when other people are defaulting on loans or have to sell their stuff for fast cash. Most of these businesses are not publicly traded. One thing that was seen was increased revenues at discount retailers like Wal-Mart, Dollar General etc. When things are bad, people in the middle class who had avoided these stores for image or morality reasons learn to swallow their pride and buy discount store brands for half the price of national brand names. That lessens the blow felt by the discount retailers as overall consumer spending decreases; the pie shrinks, but the discount retailers get a bigger slice of the mandatory spending on food, clothing, etc (and the higher-level retailers get it in the shorts). When the pie starts to grow again as consumer spending picks back up, the discount retailers retain their percentage for a while, as the fickle middle class can afford to buy more from the discount retailer but can't yet afford to take their business back to the shopping mall stores. This produces a flatter, \"\"offset\"\" price graph for discount retailers through the business cycle; they don't lose as early or as much as everyone else in a major downturn, and they turn it around sooner while everyone else may still be on the way down, but as everything gets better for everyone on the upswing it's less great for the discount guys, as they start losing customers and their dollars to competitors with better stuff, even as the ones they keep spend more. This doesn't generally manifest as a true negative correlation, but it can be a good hedge. The number one money-making investment in a tanking economy is gold. When things go down the crapper, everyone wants gold, so if you see the train wreck coming far enough in advance, you can make a big move to gold and really make some money off that investment. For instance, when the first whispers about ARM adjustments and mass defaults reached the public consciousness in mid-2005, gold bullion jumped from about $400 to over $700 in a nine-month period. It cooled off again in 06-07 but only to about $600/oz, and then in late 07 it steadily climbed to peak at $1000/oz; even if you got in late, an investment of $1000 in July '07 in \"\"bulk\"\" gold would have netted you $650 in one year; that's a 65% APY. Then the economy hit bottom and a lot of investors ditched gold for investments they thought would pull back out of their holes quickly; For just a little while in '08 gold was down to $700 again. Then came all the government reports; unemployment not budging, home prices still declining, a lot of banks still hiding just how bad their position was. If you had seen that it was going to be bad, bad, bad, like a lot of now-billionaire hedge fund investors did, a $1000 investment in gold in July 05, and then cashing out at the tops of the peaks and buying back in at the major troughs, would be worth almost $4000 today. That's a 400% return over 7 years, or an annual average yield of 57%. There simply hasn't been anything like that in the last 7 years.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "690b591bb9ac43bf175f9ab597744115",
"text": "Banks have huge amounts of foreclosure or pending foreclosure properties on their books that they haven't even listed for sale yet. The ratio is something like 6 to 1. The amount of inventory held on the books, but off the market is larger than the entire MLS market. In a competitive market, a smart bank would try to dump their property now before the other banks do. But instead, all the banks are holding their properties off the market and trickling them out at a slow rate. Collusion?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5d1e46007a73134f5a59e6f5781bd63",
"text": "To supplement existing answers: the appraised value does not necessarily represent the net amount the bank could actually recover with a foreclosure. Let's look at it from the point of view of the bank. Suppose the property appraises at $200,000 and they do what you want: loan you $200,000 with the property as collateral. Now suppose a short time later, you quit paying the mortgage and they have to foreclose. Can the bank get their $200,000 back? An appraisal is only an estimate; nobody can predict perfectly how much a property will sell for. Maybe the appraiser missed something significant, and the property will only fetch $180,000. Even if the appraisal was accurate when it was made, property values may have dropped in the meantime. Maybe a sudden economic crisis is driving real estate prices down across the board. Maybe interest rates have spiked. Maybe the county has changed the zoning regulations to locate a toxic waste dump next door to the property. In any of these cases, the property may again fetch well under $200,000. Maybe the condition of the property has changed. Perhaps you trashed the place and it will take $30,000 to clean it up. (People have a tendency to do things like that when they get foreclosed.) If the bank wants to get full market value for the property, they will incur the usual costs of selling a property: paying a real estate agent's commission, painting, renting furniture to stage the property, and so on. This will eat into the net amount they actually get from the sale. It may take some time (perhaps months) for a property to sell at its full market value. During this time, the bank is out $200,000. That's money they would rather be loaning out at interest to someone else, so this represents lost income. Foreclosing a mortgage is a fairly complicated procedure. The bank has to pay its staff, including lawyers, for a significant number of hours to get the foreclosure done. There will be court filing fees and so on. If you refuse to leave, they may have to get the sheriff to evict you; that has a fee as well. If you fight the foreclosure, that racks up even more legal fees. This too eats into the net proceeds from the sale. So if the bank loans you the full $200,000, they stand a pretty significant risk of not getting all of it back, after expenses. You can understand that risk may not be worth the interest they would get from you on the extra $40,000. On the other hand, if they loan you only 80% of the property's appraised value ($160,000), they effectively shift that risk onto you. Should you default on the loan, and they foreclose, all they have to do is sell the property for $160,000 or a little bit more. That shouldn't be too hard, even if it is not freshly painted or a bit trashed. They probably don't need to hire a real estate agent: just hold a quick auction, maybe first calling up a few investors who might be interested in flipping it. If it happens to sell for more than the outstanding principal of the loan, plus the bank's costs, then they will pay you the difference; but they have no incentive to make that happen, and every incentive to just get it sold quick. So any difference between the property's true value and the actual sale price now represents a loss to you first, not to the bank. So you can see why the bank would rather not loan you the full value of the property. 80% is a somewhat arbitrary figure but it cuts their risk by a lot.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1cb916d0e43a50f25c6741433bb8358f",
"text": "\"Can it be so that these low-interest rates cause investors to take greater risk to get a decent return? With interest rates being as low as they are, there is little to no risk in banking; especially after Dodd-Frank. \"\"Risk\"\" is just a fancy word for \"\"Will I make money in the near/ long future.\"\" No one knows what the actual risk is (unless you can see into the future.) But there are ways to mitigate it. So, arguably, the best way to make money is the stock market, not in banking. There is a great misallocation of resources which at some point will show itself and cause tremendous losses, even maybe cause a new financial crisis? A financial crisis is backed on a believed-to-be strong investment that goes belly-up. \"\"Tremendous Losses\"\" is a rather grand term with no merit. Banks are not purposely keeping interest rates low to cause a financial crisis. As the central banks have kept interest rates extremely low for a decade, even negative, this affects how much we save and borrow. The biggest point here is to know one thing: bonds. Bonds affect all things from municipalities, construction, to pensions. If interest rates increased currently, the current rate of bonds would drop vastly and actually cause a financial crisis (in the U.S.) due to millions of older persons relying on bonds as sources of income.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c1b7910c61fff560df444892317f451c",
"text": "\"If banks really controlled house prices, then why do banks now own a shitload of houses that are no longer being paid for? So many that they can't sell them now because that would drive prices down even more, and they'd lose more. Sigh... go ahead and continue to blame \"\"them\"\" for everything. It's easier that way, because then you will never have to take responsibility for any of your mistakes.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9976b46a505265ecde11fd4c7e9925a7",
"text": "Foreclosure is at a high level the bank declaring that the debtor cannot pay their promissory note (their debt). This is shortly followed by default, which is the removal of debtors rights to the property. After the debtor has defaulted, he either chooses to voluntarily remove himself and his belongings from the property, or is forcibly evicted. In the US eviction is carried out by local law enforcement, such as the sheriff's office. The bank is now the sole owner of the property, and proceeds to sell it, in an attempt to recoup their investment. If the bank cannot recoup their investment by selling the house, the rest may be converted to unsecured debt against the debtor. If the bank chooses to forgive the remaining debt, the debtor may have a tax liability for cancellation of debt. Also the debtor may also be liable for any appreciation the house did before it was sold, but this likely to be nontaxable if the house in question is the debtor's primary residence. They also send the credit bureaus the notice of foreclosure, which is how your credit score is hurt. Private Mortgage Insurance or Lenders Mortgage Insurance will pay the lender some amount back to cover their losses. See Also:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d46a7d2f95353b06f0e2dabc034064ac",
"text": "\"the \"\"consumer relief\"\" only affects people who have mortgages. so people who lost everything don't have mortgages any more and are unaffected by this \"\"consumer relief\"\" the \"\"relief\"\" is not limited to individuals directly harmed by the bank. recipients are chosen by the bank, for the bank's maximum profit extraction.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "464c9b92963363ecd1df7012855d3cf6",
"text": "If the homeowner knows the situation is hopeless, and the end result will be the loss of the home, jumping to the end result can be helpful. It is quicker, they don't spend as much time fighting a losing battle. Deed in Lieu of foreclosure is not so great for the borrower if the bank goes after them for the rest of the money owed. There can also be tax implications if the debt is forgiven. Though these issues also exist when the drawn out foreclosure option is done. For the bank. The longer the process the more the house deteriorates. The borrower may stop maintenance and may even vandalize the house. Getting their lock on the door quickly is important to them. They protect it, clean it, and prep it for sale right away. They also save on lawyer fees. They know that the moment they start the foreclosure process all money from the borrower stops, this can save thousands in carrying costs. One issue will be how the accounting losses will be divided among the servicing company, and the investors. If the servicing company will make more money from the longer process they may not push for the quick settlement. If the opposite is true, they will be quickly on board. For the new buyer, the issue with either foreclosure is that the longer process can result in greater hidden and visible damage. The heat pump may work, but the disgruntled homeowner stopped changing the filters the last six months. They may have also removed and damaged things on the way out. Other than that I don't see a big difference. Because the bank had lower costs involved in the foreclosure they might settle for a lower purchase price, but that might be hard to know.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5c6a870d896ba0f0ddafe2dbe1357b2f",
"text": "Banks don't want to manage property. They despise the fact that they have all of these foreclosures that they can't sell. They just want to loan you the money at X% and collect the fees and interest. The value of a reverse mortgage to the lender is that it's a collateralized loan against a property. When the owner exits the property, it's attached to the property and must be paid back before the property is sold. They carefully consider the age of the recipient, equity in the property, etc. when they decide how much to pay the owner so that the chances of the loan going underwater are minimized.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "033cc75052b075d066d1a2b1420dfe42",
"text": "\"This will happen automatically when you open an interest-bearing account with a bank. You didn't think that banks just kept all that cash in a vault somewhere, did you? That's not the way modern banking works. Today (and for a long, long time) banks will keep only a small fraction of their deposits on hand (called the \"\"reserve\"\") to fund daily withdrawals and other operations. The rest they routinely lend out to other customers, which is how they pay for their operations (someone has to pay all those tellers, branch managers, loan officers) and pay interest on your deposits, as well as a profit for their owners (it's not a charity service). The fees charged for loan origination, as well as the difference between the loan interest rate and the deposit rate, make up the profit. Banks rarely hold their own loans. Instead, they will sell the loans in portfolios to investors, sometimes retaining servicing rights (they continue to collect the payments and pass them on) and sometimes not (the payments are now due to someone else). This allows them to make more loans. Banks may sometimes not have enough capital on hand. In this case, they can make inter-bank loans to meet their short-term needs. In some cases, they'll take those loans from a government central bank. In the US, this is \"\"The Fed\"\", or the Federal Reserve Bank. In the US, back around the late 1920's, and again in the 1980's some banks experienced a \"\"run\"\", or a situation where people lost confidence in the bank and wanted to withdraw their money. This caused the bank to have insufficient funds to support the withdrawals, so not everyone got their money. People panicked, and others wanted to take their money out, which caused the situation to snowball. This is how many banks failed. (In the '80s, it was savings-and-loans that failed - still a kind of \"\"bank\"\".) Today, we have the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) to protect depositors. In the crashes in the early 2000's, many banks closed up one night and opened the next in a conservatorship, and then were literally doing business as a new bank without depositors (necessarily) even knowing. This protected the consumers. The bank (as a company) and its owners were not protected.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "18a79eb08dc3d53a6c2c3ed6f6d25b4b",
"text": "\"Banks make less profit when \"\"long\"\" rates are low compared to \"\"short\"\" rates. Banks lend for long term purposes like five year business loans or 30 year mortgages. They get their funds from (mostly) \"\"short term\"\" deposits, which can be emptied in days. Banks make money on the difference between 5 and 30 year rates, and short term rates. It is the difference, and not the absolute level of rates, that determines their profitability. A bank that pays 1% on CDs, and lends at 3% will make money. During the 1970s, short rates kept rising,and banks were stuck with 30 year loans at 7% from the early part of the decade, when short rates rose to double digits around 1980, and they lost money.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c3c9107673fd5927e3e38d0ef07c60d",
"text": "It was both. CDOs also contributed. Unfortunately, when the bankers kept packing up their loans they lost track of the risk as did the financial institutions offering instruments to deleverage that risk. So when the subprime borrowers began to fail the institutions started getting hit with risk that they hadn't prepared for. Flippers and home owners who used their homes as ATMs then saw their home values crash and it all fell apart. We are seeing some of this again with owners getting more HELOCs but the real concern is with car loans, credit card and student loan debt.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c65e180a03ca3811c59fe7efaec2ad2f",
"text": "\"When a house is sold at a foreclosure auction, the selling bank usually does not provide the guarantees that a normal house seller provides. Furthermore, the previous owner may have neglected the property, and/or spitefully damaged the property. Bank-owned properties are often neglected and/or vandalized. Banks are usually too short-sighted to properly market the real estate they own, and do a poor job of making it easy to buy the property. Thus, foreclosure sales usually happen at a price that is significantly below the \"\"fair market value\"\" of sales between competent households. It is common for a house that is worth $ 125,000 (even in a depressed market) to sell for only $ 100,000 in a short sale or foreclosure. It is possible that this property sold for an even larger discount. It is also possible that the tax assessor is (inadvertently) comparing a run-down property with well-maintained properties that have extra expensive features, without fully adjusting for the properties' conditions and features. In the latter scenario, the property owner can ask the tax assessor to re-consider the assessment. Usually this request is called an \"\"appeal\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b19c0e2592607bf404db322381f746c5",
"text": "I agree with the others that the ROTH is probably better. See this list of benefit/cost comparison (as opposed to rule differences)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_401%28k%29_and_IRA_accounts&oldid=582368417",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a8f65eb80cc5daedce56a113df4da9a6
|
Finance algebra
|
[
{
"docid": "c3d8d070a56a01810b48d789ecb1cddf",
"text": "With the following variables the periodic (annual) repayment is given by The recurrence equation for the balance b at the end of month x is derived from b[x + 1] = b[x] (1 + r) - d where b[0] = s giving The interest portion of the final payment is b[n - 1] r and the total principal repaid at the end of period n - 1 is s - b[n - 1] Solving simultaneously n = 8.9998 and s = 7240 The principal repaid at the end of the first period is s - b[1] or d - r s = 479.74",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "5085b7413e9cb158544dce5b32e82066",
"text": "According to my calculations, you always lose money on group B. x = average monthly balance Income for a year = 0.015 * (12 * x) = 0.18 * x Cost of funds for one month = 0.04 * x Cost of funds for one year = 12 * (0.04 * x) = 0.48 * x Profit? at end of year = income_for_year - cost_of_funds_for_one_year = (0.18 * x) - (0.48 * x) = forever loss",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b5fd19ab54421c37827997573a990684",
"text": "There are really three routes in academic finance. 1) Corporate finance - you probably have enough math for this 2) Market forecasting and modeling - this relies more heavily on econometrics, or more basic math 3) Quantitative valuations - most of the work here is in exotic asymmetric derivatives, which is almost entirely differential equations.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb740ba099d06d877310e698592e265b",
"text": "Finance at the PhD level requires a pretty complete understanding of linear algebra, multivariate calc (cIII), vector calc, stochastic calc, diff eq, and numerical analysis. As someone who had math for one of his majors for undergrad, it's not about the intuitive understanding but the abstract as well. Most of the finance professors that I had and researched under were originally undergrad for math. Very few of them actually started out in business roles/degrees....",
"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": "38a40a042d5b041ca4f66bd1f0adc2b9",
"text": "I work in asset pricing/market microstructure research so I do come across a decent amount of topics at work that utilize my applied math degree. For the topics I'm working on right now on it's usually time series or econometrics stuff like vector autoregression, principal components, regressions, etc. Some of my coworkers are working on papers that use stochastic calculus and other aspects of continuous time finance.",
"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": "1fec42beb84e2821dd90cd035446ea8d",
"text": "Something like cost = a × avg_spreadb + c × volatilityd × (order_size/avg_volume)e. Different brokers have different formulas, and different trading patterns will have different coefficients.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b3c2b1d131d56194f84623d88452dd4",
"text": "I'm a third-year PhD student in Finance at a state university in the Southeast. Accordingly, I do not have time write a detailed answer for you, because I am studying for a test. You can PM me sometime after Thursday, and I can give you my perspective.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "41372fce8481716fd887860e6d3e94db",
"text": "The three places you want to focus on are the income statement, the balance sheet, and cash flow statement. The standard measure for multiple of income is the P/E or price earnings ratio For the balance sheet, the debt to equity or debt to capital (debt+equity) ratio. For cash generation, price to cash flow, or price to free cash flow. (The lower the better, all other things being equal, for all three ratios.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "faa8b56eb94acc86948a4221b8a79aa5",
"text": "Assuming you were immersed in math with your CS degree, the book **'A Non-Random Walk Down Wall Street' by Andrew Lo** is a very interesting book about the random walk hypothesis and it's application to financial markets and how efficient markets might not necessarily imply complete randomness. Lots of higher level concepts in the book but it's an interesting topic if you are trying to branch out into the quant world. The book isn't very specific towards algorithmic trading but it's good for concept and ideas. Especially for general finance, that will give you a good run down about markets and the way we tackle modern finance. **A Random Walk Down Wall Street** (which the book above is named after) by **Burton Malkiel** is also supposed to be a good read and many have suggested reading it before the one I listed above, but there really isn't a need to do so. For investing specifically, many mention **'The Intelligent Investor' by Benjamin Graham** who is the role model for the infamous Warren Buffet. It's an older book and really dry and I think kind of out dated but mostly still relevant. It's more specifically about individual trading rather than markets as a whole or general markets. It sounds like you want to learn more about markets and finance rather than simply trading or buying stocks. So I'd stick to the Andrew Lo book first. --- Also, since you might not know, it would be a good idea to understand the capital asset pricing model, free cash flow models, and maybe some dividend discount models, the last of which isn't so much relevant but good foundations for your finance knowledge. They are models using various financial concepts (TVM is almost used in every case) and utilizing them in various ways to model certain concepts. You'd most likely be immersed in many of these topics by reading a math-oriented Finance book. Try to stay away from those penny stock trading books, I don't think I need to tell a math major (who is probably much smarter than I am) that you don't need to be engaging in penny stocks, but do your DD and come to a conclusion yourself if you'd like. I'm not sure what career path you're trying to go down (personal trading, quant firm analyst, regular analyst, etc etc) but it sounds like you have the credentials to be doing quant trading. --- Check out www.quantopian.com. It's a website with a python engine that has all the necessary libraries installed into the website which means you don't have to go through the trouble yourself (and yes, it is fucking trouble--you need a very outdated OS to run one of the libraries). It has a lot of resources to get into algorithmic trading and you can begin coding immediately. You'd need to learn a little bit of python to get into this but most of it will be using matplotlib, pandas, or some other library and its own personal syntax. Learning about alpha factors and the Pipeline API is also moderately difficult to get down but entirely possible within a short amount of dedicated time. Also, if you want to get into algorithmic trading, check out Sentdex on youtube. He's a python programmer who does a lot of videos on this very topic and has his own tool on quantopian called 'Sentiment Analyzer' (or something like that) which basically quantifies sentiment around any given security using web scrapers to scrape various news and media outlets. Crazy cool stuff being developed over there and if you're good, you can even be partnered with investors at quantopian and share in profits. You can also deploy your algorithms through the website onto various trading platforms such as Robinhood and another broker and run your algorithms yourself. Lots of cool stuff being developed in the finance sector right now. Modern corporate finance and investment knowledge is built on quite old theorems and insights so expect a lot of things to change in today's world. --- With a math degree, finance should be like algebra I back in the day. You just gotta get familiar with all of the different rules and ideas and concepts. There isn't that much difficult math until you begin getting into higher level finance and theory, which mostly deals with statistics anyways like covariance and regression and other statistic-related concepts. Any other math is simple arithmetic.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "70591461ef9fce7e7b32b7b259bf14f6",
"text": "The quant aspect '''''. This is the kind of math I was wondering if it existed, but now it sounds like it is much more complex in reality then optimizing by evaluating different cost of capital. Thank you for sharing",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6f35493317b0fa9767a0827ede4a4505",
"text": "I appreciate it. I didn't operate under selling the asset year five but other than that I followed this example. I appreciate the help. These assignments are just poorly laid out. Financial management also plays on different calculation interactions so it is difficult for me to easily identify the intent at times. Thanks again.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f974af98e04b2d8ee10c98b4d2c5712",
"text": "I ended up writing a simulation in R. Here is my code: It produces a plot like this: This code assumes you have a lump sum and either wish to pay down a loan or invest it all immediately. Feedback welcome.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8782dff9abb053f4a2d9a706b69d94c2",
"text": "I'm not too worried about the math. I can't speak for the calculus, but I seriously doubt the statistics I will use will be more complicated than what I used in Econometrics. Where will calculus come into play? I haven't heard any of my finance major friends talk about using anything more than simple derivation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4cf40930621416f1a038cdfc953e9eb6",
"text": "Average rates of return usually assume compounding, so your formula would be for annual compounding ,or for continuous compounding.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b9850f712dcff328cb6b981a97aeb5e8
|
Is the Canadian Securities Course (CSC) enough to get started in the finance industry in Canada?
|
[
{
"docid": "090860a1c544820a7adb13da0f6f543e",
"text": "\"Wikipedia says \"\"The Canadian Securities Course (CSC) offered by the Canadian Securities Institute (CSI) is the initial course required for becoming licensed to work within the Canadian securities industry (outside Quebec) as a securities dealer or securities agent.\"\" Src: Candian Securities Course EfficientMarket Canada adds \"\" You require it and further courses for other jobs in the investment industry. Generally some work experience is also required. All of this is governed by various self-regulatory agencies. The material in the course is strong on money making products, and fairly weak on material that would actually protect a consumer from harm. Passing the course is very little indication that you understand what's important about investing, for example, you won't be taught much of anything about the theory of investment, or the markets, or things like the efficient market hypothesis.\"\" Src: EfficientMarket.ca on the CSC So it appears that the CSC is necessary to work as certain types of financial agencies. That being said, I doubt it will be enough to get your foot in the door. This seems more like a prerequisite rather than a true qualification, so you'll be competing with MBAs/Finance students and other people who either have experience or training in the financial industry. I'd recommend you look into the Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) certification as that will provide you with a rigorous knowledge of financial theory as well as asset management, which seems more appropriate for what you'd like to do. From there you'll have to network like crazy and leverage your experience to get in at a Canadian financial firm and eventually wealth management. So yes, I suppose a CSC is a good first step but more will certainly be required and I doubt it will be enough to land you a full time position. Another important factor is age - nobody expects undergrads to have extensive certifications or experience, but it's harder for a 35 year old to enter a new industry, especially finance.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "aecd446de2f3b43229db2f93e5ca3553",
"text": "It depends what area of finance, but an ivy league education is not *required*. A good school, probably, but the best thing you can do for yourself is go through the internship program at a bank or financial institution (usually after junior year, but you find the occasional sophomore). There are often many job offers to those that complete it well, and if not, you apply to other firms with your internship as your backing. It would help to know what Gyroisabot asked and know what area and what school you went to.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8537343310c936f25ed36cbeb6d3f3f3",
"text": "There are a lot of certifications/designations you could look into if you're willing to put in the time to study. CFA, FRM, CFP, etc. Most financial companies will recognize these although some carry more weight than others.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "55dd7aebb55d13bda4e7e34f57f75397",
"text": "I agree. The CFA is nice for students who have the time to take the exam, because it could be a year or two before the start working, so it is a reasonable resume padder (especially if your major is engineer, science, or math and you want to do finance). If you are trying to do a career change, it is important to know the material, because if you don't, then you can't do the job even if someone gives it to you. But passing the test isn't as important as actually applying to the jobs and networking. I switched from engineering to finance (buyside equity analyst). Originally I planned to take the CFA exams to help me with my transition. But their new rule required a valid passport, and it takes a while to get one, so I missed the deadline for last December's exam. That turned out to be a good thing because I just started networking, cold calling/emailing, applying to jobs, etc and I got my current job. If I had actually decided to take the CFA, I would have wasted all my time preparing for the exam instead of trying to get the job. Potential employers know if you are good or not after talking to you for 15 minutes. It has nothing to do with being able to memorize a set of formulas, some the last name of some economists and their theories, some oscure accounting differences between GAAP and IFRS, etc. For me it was the fact that I invest my own money and that I am able to explain my own investments very intelligently (aka it needs to be a lot better than what you see on /r/investing). If you know nothing about finance, studying the CFA material and then taking the exam is a good thing. You are going to be studying the material anyways if you are serious about a career change, so might as well take the exam afterwards and get a resume padder. I did end up taking the level 1 this month because my new employer paid for it. I don't think it adds any value once your foot is already in the door, especially since it takes 5 years of experience to get the charter (after that amount of time, it's all about job experience).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "28e7f4feb844230bffd7a3ea29f655c3",
"text": "What area of finance? Institutional finance (equity research, investment banking) is a non-starter with no experience unless you're Jesus. And if CFA level 1 material is intimidating, reconsider, as those are the basics of a finance undergraduate degree. PM me your prospective employer if you like. I'm probably twice your age and have the CFA charter and several other finance qualifications, so I'm not going to be applying there. I will be able to give better insight as to preparation and your chances.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc8572a408a60d00c240318d49ce0372",
"text": "Its really not that hard to get. Takes a month or two to study to pass it. Realize though that if you are going to get the series, you are pegging yourself as a sell side roll. If you are attempting to go buy-side, then you may want to look at different certifications (being a CFA level 1 candidate). If you have time to burn though, get it, its a good education and a good intro to the world of finance and its not that hard to get. Hope this helps. Edit: also realize that if you do get it, and a company sponsors you, if you leave the firm, you have 2 years before the series expires, which means you gotta use it, or lose it. As I recall, I may be wrong...but I have heard you can 'park' your series at a firm which will pay the FINRA / SEC fees for you. But I believe they outlawed this practice.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d44a318b4b64ec24840c1cb7fb2a6ff0",
"text": "You really just need to learn about finance, trading and the markets. I know a chemical engineer that did an IB internship. He joined our universities Investments club and just learned everything from there. He never took a single business class",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cbfd1c4095aaa7fb7d8ce00026bad72a",
"text": "One overarching thing to keep in mind is that wherever you go with Finance if you work hard enough and climb the ladder, you can make decent money. I know CIO's, Market Stragesits and even CFO's, Portfolio Managers and CPA's that all live extremely comfortably, and all of them work outside of the IB industry, basically, IB isn't the end-all for making large sums of money. The main reason why it pays so much upfront is that of the hours you have to work if you look at their salary at an hourly rate, it's around 10-12 bucks an hour. Definitely think about the Double major thing though, or potentially just doing a minor. It would definitely look good on a resume, especially if it's something you also enjoy, but you've gotta keep that GPA high, and getting a 4.0 in CS is quite a challenge, to begin with. Pretty much any of the Series certifications can help you depending on where you want to go career-wise, obviously for some positions have certain series certifications won't be useful at all. It's also worth looking into the CFA program if you plan on doing Financial Analysis, but you'll need a sponsor for this, just like the Series certifications. Happy to help man, if you've got any other questions feel free to reach out. I'm in the same boat just trying to figure out what I want to do with my life to make decent money so I can take care of my friends and family, and live life to the fullest.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6594213e2711631e9e3021ad46c29676",
"text": "When I did my CSC waaaaay back in the day (when there was 1 4 hour exam and 2 assignments, fuck I'm old) this is what I did. I took the week after New Years off, and studied exclusively for the CSC. I did nothing else but study (but I had done a lot of prep before) then I wrote the exam after a week of non-stop study. To be honest, the exam isn't difficult - at least the finance parts. The tricky parts are the pure memorization ones, which are almost all compliance/ethics questions (e.g. how long do you have to notify the OSC of a change in address, etc). Do not ignore these sections as they do test on ethics/compliance a lot.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "53d5e0ecb3c547730065923b14d4ca17",
"text": "Go check out wallstreetoasis.com. There are a lot of people out there like you and that site has a lot of folks in the industry. It's segregated by arms so you'll also probably be able to get a feel for what kind of finance you might or might not be suited for.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e9e42b15eecba8bb1074d1ae6ae6044d",
"text": "Yes. I passed the CFA Level 1 with three months of studying with only a BS in Economics and a career as a Financial Advisor. I took a local review course with my local CFA chapter in San Francisco, then sprang for some test question banks and just plowed through them. Anytime I missed a question, I reread the section on that question, wrote out an index card to drill the concept, drilled the concepts for awhile, and then took the test questions again. Good luck.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "354072d2307e6f6c872942c2f7d431d7",
"text": "Depends on how you supplement the major. I had people taking things like 'marketing' or 'business management' with their finance majors to get good marks, but they didn't get internships like I did because I was willing to take statistics, economics, risk management, accountancy etc... In general you want to have a strong math background, a good understanding of economics, and accountancy. Also if I could go back I would have done computer science at least at first year level to get a feel for coding and modeling. Edit: I should clarify I don't have a permanent job, I'm just speaking from my experience of holiday internships with investment banks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "70f6e839b836a9832aa8dd46732e63f1",
"text": "No way. The CFA is comprehensive, but finance as subject matter isn't very difficult. I am an econ/econometric major in the CFA program with zero finance/accounting background. I started the program without know assets = liabilities + equity. Takes more time, and is a larger commitment, but unless you are working 12 hours a day, if you are diligent, you should have no major issues.",
"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": "48d391288ce8b4c9ec0f9744f83bcef9",
"text": "In general I would recommend to stay away from any video from a successful trader, at least those that claim to share their secrets. If they were that successful, why would they want company? What they have most likely discovered is that they can make more money through videos and seminars than they can through trading. While not a video, GetSmarterAboutMoney has a good basic section on Stock markets without being purely Canada centric (as I see from your profile you are in NY). I know that also in our city, there are continuing education courses that often go over the basics like this, if you have a college nearby they might have something. Cheapest of all would be to hit your local library. The fundamentals don't change that quickly that you need the latest and greatest - those are much more likely to be get-poor-quick schemes. Good Luck",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "772b0416b59da8f49430c9ec76d9f1f3",
"text": "\"Not really. It's good to supplement a shitty school and bad GPA with, a nice thing to pursue and great at teaching you finance if you're not a finance major. It will undeniably look good on a resume, however, it will not make or break you, outside of possibly you being in Top 3 internship candidates and you're the only CFA candidate. It's practically useless for trading, but a friend of mine at a brokerage is getting his so that he can have more \"\"authority\"\" with clients, although, he is at a foreign brokerage and the clients tend to need that assurance that the broker knows what they're doing.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
8232ca8d23997cbc7bf14ee759c8255a
|
Advantage of Financial Times vs. free news sources for improving own knowledge of finance?
|
[
{
"docid": "953998066744ca70bd3d52152d186a3a",
"text": "\"If you are interested in a career in algorithmic trading, I strongly encourage you to formally study math and computer science. Algorithmic trading firms have no need for employees with financial knowledge; if they did, they'd just be called \"\"trading\"\" firms. Rather, they need experts in machine learning, statistical modeling, and computer science in general. Of course there are other avenues of employment at an algorithmic trading firm, such as accounting, clearing, exchange relations, etc. If that's the sort of thing you're interested in, again you'll probably want a formal education in those areas as opposed to just reading about finance in the news. If you edit your question or add a comment below with information about your particular background, I could perhaps advise you in a bit more detail. ::edit:: Given your comment, I would say you have a fine academic background for the industry. When hiring mathematicians, firms care most about the ease with which you can explore and extract features from massive datasets (especially time series) regardless of what the dataset might represent. An intelligent firm will not care whether you arrive at their doorstep with zero finance knowledge; they will want to teach you everything from scratch anyway. Nonetheless, some domain knowledge could be helpful, but you're not going to get \"\"more\"\" of it from reading any mass market news source, whether you have to pay for it or not. That's because Some non-mass-market news sources in the industry are These are subscription-only and actually discuss real information that real professional investors care about. They are loaded with industry jargon, they're extremely opinionated, and (in my opinion) they're useless. I can't imagine trying to learn about the industry from them, but if you want to spend money for news in order to be exposed to the innards of the industry, then either of these is far better than the Financial Times. Despite requiring a subscription, the Financial Times still does not cover the technical details of professional trading. Instead of trying to learn from news, then, I would suggest some old favorites: and, above all else, Read everything in the navigation box on the right side under Financial Markets and Financial Instruments.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "17cf758f8e2e0a11647bb7e31b985214",
"text": "I recommend using Morning Brew. They email you a free daily newsletter with the top financial news stories and earnings events. I have subscribed to the Wall Street Journal and Financial Times before. Morning Brew basically covers all of the headlines you would see on those sites.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "5b00300f2a333c26c62eefd7a6367917",
"text": "When you look at the charts in Google Finance, they put the news on the right hand side. The time stamp for each news item is indicated with a letter in the chart. This often shows what news the market is reacting to. In your example: Clicking on the letter F leads to this Reuters story: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/04/usa-housing-s-idUSWAT01486120110204",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "86b61a90ea52490a30f14b30e5b529ea",
"text": "I really want people to answer this. I need to build my general macro repertoire and good news is key. I was getting the Bridgewater Dailies at my last job and they are *fantastic*. Unfortunately they are super expensive and only businesses can afford them. I read a lot of the general economics output of major banks which is free on their websites. I also read a selection of blogs which have an economics/macro tilt, but tend to be a lot of opinion and academic stuff. This is what I've been reading recently: [Krugman](http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/) [Marginal Revolution](http://marginalrevolution.com/) [Project Syndicate](http://www.project-syndicate.org/) [Noah Smith](http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.jp/) [The Upshot](http://www.nytimes.com/upshot/) I also read Reuters for economics news generally since there is no paywall. Hope this helps, and I really hope there is more quality free stuff out there that I've missed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b2d27d9aa0824213fa71520c93956ae6",
"text": "I'm not familiar enough with finance in any capacity to know what the difference is between financial services or a finance department (beyond what you said); my familiarity of the industry extends to trading, rating, and financial law enforcement. But at a glance on mobile, that looks like pretty much exactly what I was looking for. I have no connect to the industry, but habe been on a Wall St media binge lately, and like to understand powerful/influencial sectors of society anyways. Thanks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe2b4964c94e8abe07e89dd3184434d5",
"text": "A lot of business sites are subscription only. Financial Times is the most obvious example. The Economist is the other. At least The Economist is making a very strong, healthy profit. A lot of other businesses work on a Freemium model, most obviously Bloomberg. The Bloomberg Terminal costs 24k a year to lease, and it has a stronghold on the financial community. But you can get tons of Bloomberg news and data on their site/channel for free. Why? Because having that wide public reach adds value to Bloomberg--they have access to a lot of industry insiders who exchange tips etc. for the ability to leak info to the public, etc. It's a smart business model and works very well. There are other models that work equally well, but I think a lot of people don't really realize this.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b4a2c069e2edc99ea7564268e3c15177",
"text": "ZeroHedge is the best, although it appeals to a particular audience (highly educated economics/business folks with a very negative view of government). They pull articles from all over the web, so you get a really good aggregator with maybe 20 articles/day of high quality work. Bloomberg I read if there's a good topic. That pops up on facebook for me and I read probably 10/day. Wall Street Journal is great if you want mainstream (read: delayed) business news. Most of the things that are truly news are long-term in nature and you'd read about them on ZeroHedge far before the WSJ. I used to read Dealbook a lot, although I've gotten away from it lately due to the lack of mergers & acquisitions activity. Lastly, I used to have a blogroll of maybe 5-10 investment blogs with truly great writers/thinkers, but alas, most have stopped writing now. sorry about the delay. forgot I saw your question.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "77ecf212f4efc907eee18d547f3912ca",
"text": "No career advice or homework help (unless your homework is some kind of big project and you need an explanation on a concept). I want to see financial news, legislation concerning the markets and regulation, self posts about financial concepts, opinion articles about finance from reputable sources, etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f7c88a34a19c3733628f3d876b4824f0",
"text": "My two cents: I, like many people in finance, got into it for the money. However, I like many other people, found myself liking it for intrinsic reasons once I got into it. I genuinely enjoy learning about financial theory, economics, understanding how global markets work, following the different story lines for the EU/US/Asian economies, working on financial models, reading the WSJ, keeping up to date on new earning releases, analyzing investments, learning about companies/industries, etc. But I never would have found out that I liked these things unless I had chosen to study them and the only reason I chose to study them in the first place was because I wanted to make money. I'd take an intro finance class and see if it seems like something that could grow on you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a1e602cc8a0a180de687772c277a3c8b",
"text": "Depends what you mean by business world and finance world. NYTimes Sunday business section is a good start - mostly for large business. The Only Investment Guide You'll Ever Need by Andrew Tobias for how to invest your personal money - and you'll see why no one who says they can predict the market is accurate for very long. INC Magazine for running a small company",
"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": "29a40af24f93fca95608892442b874f3",
"text": "There are all sorts of topics in finance that take a lot of time to learn. You have valuation (time value of money, capital asset pricing model, dividend discount model, etc.), financial statement analysis (ratio analysis, free cash flow & discounted cash flow, etc.) , capital structure analysis(Modgliani & Miller theories of capital structure, weighted average cost of capital, more CAPM, the likes), and portfolio management (asset allocation, security selection, integrates financial statement analysis + other fields like derivatives, fixed income, forex, and commodity markets) and all sorts. My opinion of Investopedia is that there is a lot of wheat with the chaff. I think articles/entries are just user-submitted and there are good gems in Investopedia but a lot of it only covers very basic concepts. And you often don't know what you don't know, so you might come out with a weak understanding of something. To begin, you need to understand TVM and why it works. Time value of money is a critical concept of finance that I feel many people don't truly grasp and just understand you need some 'rate' to use for this formula. Also, as a prereq, you should understand basics of accrual accounting (debits & credits) and how the accounting system works. Don't need to know things like asset retirement obligations, or anything fancy, just how accounting works and how things affect certain financial statements. After that, I'd jump into CAPM and cost of capital. Cost of capital is also a very misunderstood concept since schools often just give students the 'cost of capital' for math problems when in reality, it's not just an explicit number but more of a 'general feeling' in the environment. Calculating cost of capital is actually often very tricky (market risk premium) and subjective, sometimes it's not (LIBOR based). After that, you can build up on those basic concepts and start to do things like dividend discount models (basic theory underlying asset pricing models) and capital asset pricing models, which builds on the idea of cost of capital. Then go into valuation. Learn how to price equities, bonds, derivatives, etc. For example, you have the dividend discount model with typical equities and perpetuities. Fixed income has things like duration & convexity to measure risk and analyze yield curves. Derivatives, you have the Black-Scholes model and other 'derivatives' (heh) of that formula for calculating prices of options, futures, CDOs, etc. Valuation is essentially taking the idea of TVM to the next logical step. Then you can start delving into financial modelling. Free cash flows, discounted cash flows, ratio analysis, pro forma projections. Start small, use a structured problem that gives you some inputs and just do calculations. Bonuses* would be ideas of capital structure (really not necessary for entry level positions) like the M&M theorems on capital structure (debt vs equity), portfolio management (risk management, asset allocation, hedging, investment strategies like straddles, inverse floaters, etc), and knowledge of financial institutions and banking regulations (Basel accords, depository regulations, the Fed, etc.). Once you gain an understanding of how this works, pick something out there and do a report on it. Then you'll be left with a single 'word problem' that gives you nothing except a problem and tells you to find an answer. You'll have to find all the inputs and give reasons why these inputs are sound and reasonable inputs for this analysis. A big part that people don't understand about projections and analysis is that **inputs don't exist in plain sight**. You have to make a lot of judgment calls when making these assumptions and it takes a lot of technical understanding to make a reasonable assumption--of which the results of your report highly depend on. As a finance student, you get a taste for all of this. I'm gonna say it's going to be hard to learn a lot of substantial info in 2 months, but I'm not exactly sure what big business expects out of their grunts. You'll mostly be doing practical work like desk jockey business, data entry, and other labor-based jobs. If you know what you're talking about, you can probably work up to something more specialized like underwriting or risk management or something else. Source: Finance degree but currently working towards starting a (finance related) company to draw on my programming background as well.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "15a8d776bf4427047a8a551633407a1b",
"text": "\"You need to understand how various entities make their money. Once you know that, you can determine whether their interests are aligned with yours. For example, a full-service broker makes money when you buy and sell stocks. They therefore have in interest in you doing lots of buying, and selling, not in making you money. Or, no-fee financial advisors make their money through commissions on what they sell you, which means their interests are served by selling you those investments with high commissions, not the investments that would serve you best. Financial media makes their money through attracting viewers/readers and selling advertising. That is their business, and they are not in the business of giving good advice. There are lots of good investments - index funds are a great example - that don't get much attention because there isn't any money in them. In fact, the majority of \"\"wall street\"\" is not aligned with your interests, so be skeptical of the financial industry in general. There are \"\"for fee\"\" financial advisors who you pay directly; their interests are fairly well aligned with yours. There is a fair amount of good information at The Motley Fool\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b8284a304ec0a33537118b3160d64bd4",
"text": "Imagine an internet where the best content was behind a pay wall while the buzzfeed, gawker, and even yahoo were free. You can get your standard journalism plus clickbait for free, but you could also support the greatest content on the web while providing it greater power by generating it revenue. All by choice, of course. If you don't want a premium product, the best journalism and well constructed opinion pieces, don't pay for it. Of course freemium, such as the way the economist is currently, i.e. 3 free articles a week (or something like that), is the best way to attract new customers. But I strongly feel that the best journalism is worth more than the clickbait garbage despite that I won't click an irrelevant ad simple because I feel the article is better crafted. This, I would be willing to pay more for it even on the internet.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc630ecd66dc499dc67deceaf82681ed",
"text": "\"In addition to the information in the other answer, I would suggest looking at an economic calendar. These provide the dates and values of many economic announcements, e.g. existing home sales, durable orders, consumer confidence, etc. Yahoo, Bloomberg, and the Wall Street Journal all provide such calendars. Yahoo provides links to the raw data where available; Bloomberg and the WSJ provide links to their article where appropriate. You could also look at a global economic calendar; both xe.com and livecharts.co.uk provide these. If you're only interested in the US, the Yahoo, Bloomberg, and WSJ calendars may provide a higher signal-to-noise ratio, but foreign announcements also affect US markets, so it's important to get as much perspective as possible. I like the global economic calendars I linked to above because they rate announcements on \"\"priority\"\", which is a quick way to learn which announcements have the greatest effect. Economic calendars are especially important in the context of an interview because you may be asked a follow-up question. For example, the US markets jumped in early trading today (5/28/2013) because the consumer confidence numbers exceeded forecasts (from the WSJ calendar, 76.2 vs 2.3). As SRKX stated, it's important to know more than the numbers; being able to analyze the numbers in the context of the wider market and being aware of the fundamentals driving them is what's most important. An economic calendar is a good way to see this information quickly and succinctly. (I'm paraphrasing part of my answer to another question, so you may or may not find some of that information helpful as well; I'm certainly not suggesting you look at the website of every central bank in the morning. That's what an economic calendar is for!)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ef08f8282500399d92fa6386732c2dcf",
"text": "as someone who made a fair attempt at understanding money subjects, I'd like some more writing from you. I took high school level Marketing; Business economics; commercial law. it took six months on top of my previous High school ( with high level maths). during those months I got medium grades, and failed in- can you believe it - marketing. I had a go at The intelligent investor. I made it to page 96. But honestly I felt like I needed a lot of background in order for me to understand it. English is my second language. Sure I can understand words like liability vs assets. but to this day i still can't remember the difference between a bull and bearish market. I know its about risk assesment on a national/ global level. So who honestly gave finance a go but got their ass kicked. What would you say? any books?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "058ffccf654e98b93d5ef8a7a883bb9e",
"text": "It depends what you mean by financial knowledge. Often you will work in a group focused on some aspect of the company's business. As an example, I work for a company and my group works on econometric models. Although I have a degree in finance, I don't encounter or talk about corporate or personal finance. I do talk about investing with a friend, but in general, our group is focused on one aspect of finance and economics for the company. From another direction, often financial companies will offer financial literacy training through HR and benefits programs where you can improve your knowledge of finance outside of your groups focus. In the end, you will learn the most by persuing new knowledge through reading on current financial literature. I hope this helps. Edit: If you add some specifics to what you would like to learn about I may be able to point you in the right direction.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a614de632762b5e06242c0c7cb2aa164
|
Car dealers offering lower prices when financing a used car
|
[
{
"docid": "f95bc581a3d4e6fe834469a1a551bbe3",
"text": "\"It is a legitimate practice. The dealers do get the loan money \"\"up front\"\" because they're not holding the loan themselves; they promptly sell it to someone else or (more commonly) just act as salesmen for a lending institution and take their profit as commission or origination fees. The combined deal is often not a good choice for the consumer, though. Remember that the dealer's goal is to close a sale with maximum profit. If they're offering to drop the price $2k, they either didn't expect to actually get that price in the first place, or expect at least $2k of profit from the loan, or some combination of these. Standard advice is to negotiate price, loan, and trade-in separately. First get the dealer's best price on the car, compare it to other dealer and other cars, and walk away if you don't like their offer. Repeat for the loan, checking the dealer's offer against banks/credit unions available to you. If you have an older car to unload, get quotes for it and consider whether you might do better selling it yourself. ========= Standard unsolicited plug for Consumef Reports' \"\"car facts\"\" service, if you're buying a new car (which isn't usually the best option; late-model used is generally a better value). For a small fee, they can tell you what the dealer's real cost of a car is, after all the hidden incentives and rebates. That lets you negotiate directly on how much profit they need on this sale... and focuses their attention on the fact that the time they spend haggling with you is time they could be using to sell the next one. Simply walking into the dealer with this printout in your hand cuts out a lot of nonsense. The one time I bought new, I basically walked in and said \"\"It's the end of the model year. I'll give you $500 profit to take one of those off your hands before the new ones come in, if you've got one configured the way I want it.\"\" Closed the deal on the spot; the only concession I had to make was on color. It doesn't always work; some salesmen are idiots. In that case you walk away and try another dealer. (I am not affiliated in any way with CU or the automotive or lending industries, except as customer. And, yes, this touch keyboard is typo-prone.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d651fd9c2cecbe2d92941c92c58e408",
"text": "With new cars it's usually the other way around: finance at a low APR or get cash back when you buy it outright. With used cars you usually don't know how much they have invested in the car, so it's more difficult to know how low they're willing to go. Regardless, I do think it's odd that they would knock 2K off the price if you finance with them, but not if you pay cash. The only reason they would do that is if they intend to make at least 2K in interest over the life of the loan, but they have no way of guaranteeing you won't refi. Therefore, I suspect they are bluffing and would probably close the deal if you wrote them a check (or put the cash on the table) for 2K less. However, if they won't budge and will only knock off 2K if you finance, you could finance and pay it off in full a week later. Just make sure they don't have any hidden origination fees or pay-off-early fees.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1add9a666c8b481d0ddcca7928f6e38c",
"text": "\"Were you just offered a car loan for 1.4%, or did you sign for a car loan for 1.4%? If you signed, it's too late. If you didn't sign: You should realise that your car loan isn't really 1.4%. Nobody will give you a car loan for less than a mortgage loan. What really happened is that you gave up your chance to get a rebate on the car purchase. A car worth $18,000 will have a price tag of $20,000. You can buy it for cash and haggle the dealer down to $18,000, or you can take that \"\"cheap\"\" 1.4% loan and pay $20,000 for the car. So if at all possible, you would try to get a cheap loan from your bank, possibly through your mortgage, so you can buy the car without taking a loan from the car dealer.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "438bad75d87d85c9b5fcb2144e7da298",
"text": "Ideally you would negotiate a car price without ever mentioning: And other factors that affect the price. You and the dealer would then negotiate a true price for the car, followed by the application of rebates, followed by negotiating for the loan if there is to be one. In practice this rarely happens. The sales rep asks point blank what rebates you qualify for (by asking get-to-know-you questions like where you work or if you served in the armed forces - you may not realize that these are do-you-qualify-for-a-rebate questions) before you've even chosen a model. They take that into account right from the beginning, along with whether they'll make a profit lending you money, or have to spend something to subsidize your zero percent loan. However unlike your veteran's status, your loan intentions are changeable. So when you get to the end you can ask if the price could be improved by paying cash. Or you could try putting the negotiated price on a credit card, and when they don't like that, ask for a further discount to stop you from using the credit card and paying cash.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b31d9b98a4891e6facb0202448d55049",
"text": "\"New car loans, used car loans, and refinances have different rates because they have different risks associated with them, different levels of ability to recoup losses if there is a default, and different customer profiles. (I'm assuming third party lender for all of these questions, not financing the dealer arranges, as that has other considerations built into it.) A new car loan is both safer to some extent (as the car is a \"\"known\"\" risk, having no risk of damage/etc. prior to purchase), but also harder to recoup losses (because new cars immediately devalue significantly, while used cars keep more of their value). Thus the APRs are a little different; in general for the same amount a new car will be a bit lower APR, but of course used car loans are typically lower amounts. Refinance is also different; customer profile wise, the customer who is refinancing in these times is likely someone who is a higher risk (as why are they asking for a loan when they're mostly paid off their car?). Otherwise it's fairly similar to a used car, though probably a bit newer than the average used car.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0abf2d4619c289bdab3c1e7ba705521d",
"text": "\"A repossessed automobile will have lost some value from sale price, but it's not valueless. They market \"\"title loans\"\" to people without good credit on this basis so its a reasonably well understood risk pool.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f78e13b5fa08fd74fc0c5257c84d2820",
"text": "\"Evaluating the total cost of operation and warranty period are indeed important considerations, but the article is specifically about buyers making an expensive car \"\"feel\"\" more affordable to their budget by having smaller payments over a longer term. >“Stretching out loan terms to secure a monthly payment they’re comfortable with is becoming buyers’ go-to way to get the cars they want, equipped the way they want them,” said Jessica Caldwell, Edmunds executive director of industry analysis.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "37049d5b4651ff2d2b07af518e8d9f81",
"text": "You already got good answers on why you can't buy a Toyota from the factory, but my answer is regarding to the implied second part of your question: how to avoid haggling. I found a good way to avoid the haggling at a car dealership can be simply to not haggle. Go in with a different attitude. The main reason car dealers list inflated prices and then haggle is that they expect the customers to haggle. It is fundamentally based on distrust on both sides. Treat the sales person as your advisor, your business partner, as somebody you trust as an expert in his field, and you'll be surprised how the experience changes. Of course, make sure that the trust is justified. Sales reps have a fine line to walk. Of course they like to sell a car for more money, but they also do not want a reputation of overcharging customers. They'd rather you recommend them to your friends and post good reviews on Yelp. In the end, all reputable dealers effectively have a fixed-price policy, or close to it, even those who don't advertise it, and even for used cars. Haggling just prolongs the process to get there. And sales reps are people. Often people who hate the haggling part of their job as much as you do. I was in the market for a new (used) car a few months ago. In the end, it was between two cars (one of them a Toyota), both from the brand-name dealer's respective used car lots. In both cases, I went in knowing in advance what the car's fair market value was and what I was willing to pay (as well as details about the car, mileage, condition etc. - thanks to the Internet). Both cars were marked significantly higher. As soon as the sales rep realized that I wasn't even trying to haggle - the price dropped to the fair value. I didn't even have to ask for it. The rep even offered some extras thrown into the deal, things I hadn't even asked for (things like towing my old car to the junk yard).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9874f6737c29c6ccdcf50be800ba0095",
"text": "You need to do the maths exactly. The cost of buying a car in cash and using a loan is not the same. The dealership will often get paid a significant amount of money if you get a loan through them. On the other hand, they may have a hold over you if you need their loan (no cash, and the bank won't give you money). One strategy is that while you discuss the price with the dealer, you indicate that you are going to get a loan through them. And then when you've got the best price for the car, that's when you tell them it's cash. Remember that the car dealer will do what's best for their finances without any consideration of what's good for you, so you are perfectly in your rights to do the same to them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e136cafcae837d65d87c1e9fd27b5988",
"text": "You can negotiate a no penalty for early payment loan with dealerships sometimes. Dealerships will often give you a better price on the car when you finance through them vs paying cash, so you negotiate in a 48 month finance, after you've settled on the price THEN you negotiate the no penalty for early payment point. They'll be less likely to try to raise the price after you've already come to an agreement. My dad has SAID he does this when buying cars, but that could just be hearsay and bravado. Has said he will negotiate on the basis of a long term lease, nail down a price then throw that clause in, then pay the car off in the first payment. Disclaimer: it's...um not a great way to do business though if you plan to purchase a new car every 2-3 years from the same dealer. Do it once and you'll have a note in their CRM not to either a) offer price reductions for financing or b) offer no penalty early payment financing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f3f2aad762151eb6ec61c7d1dc1e7383",
"text": "If it costs more to fix the car than the car is worth, then those repairs are not worth it. Hit craigslist and look for another junker that runs, but is in your cash price range. Pay to get it looked at by a mechanic as a condition of sale. Use consumer reports to try and find a good model. Somebody in your position does not need a $15K car. You need a series of $2K or $4K cars that you will replace more often, but pay cash for. Car buying, especially from a dealer financed, place isn't how I would recommend building your credit back up. EDIT in response to your updates: Build your credit the smart way, by not paying interest charges. Use your lower limit card, and annually apply for more credit, which you use and pay off each and every month. Borrowing is not going to help you. Just because you can afford to make payments, doesn't automatically make payments a wise decision. You have to examine the value of the loan, not what the payments are. Shop for a good price, shop for a good rate, then purchase. The amount you can pay every month should only be a factor than can kill the deal, not allow it. Pay cash for your vehicle until you can qualify for a low cost loan from a credit union or a bank. It is a waste of money and time to pay a penalty interest rate because you want to build your credit. Time is what will heal your credit score. If you really must borrow for the purchase, you must secure a loan prior to shopping for a car. Visit a few credit unions and get pre-qualified. Once you have a pre-approved loan in place, you can let the deal try and beat your loan for a better deal. Don't make the mistake of letting the dealer do all the financing first.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4441b69379c10474e71ccbef0a200708",
"text": "Carmax will be interested in setting a price that allows them to make money on the reselling of the vehicle. They won't offer you more than that. The determination of the value compared to the BlueBook value is based on condition and miles. The refinancing of the auto loan could lower your monthly payment, but may not save you any money in the short term. The new lender will also want an evaluation of the vehicle, and if it is less than the payoff amount of the current loan they will ask you to make a lump sum payment. This is addition to the cost of getting the new loan setup. If you can pay the delta between the value of the car and loan then do so, when you sell the car. Don't refinance unless you plan on keeping the car for many months, or you are just adding paperwork to the transaction.",
"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": "3f2d7cb8ce82aa73b1882a63e63724e8",
"text": "\"Yea but they might feel swindled and that you pulled a fast one on them, and not be as willing to give you good deals in the future. Like, as a totally non mathematical example, they have a car for $50k. They lower the price to 40k with a financing that will bring total payment to 60k. Their break even on that car is let's say 45k. The financier cuts them a commission on expected profits, of maybe 7k? They made an expected 2k on the car. But if you pay it all off asap, they may lose that commission, be 5k in the hole on the sale, and pretty upset. Even more upset if they finance in house. So when you go back to buy another car they'll say \"\"fuck this guy, we need to recoup past lost profits, don't go below 4K above break even.\"\" I'm not really 100% on how financing workings when it comes to cars but from my background in sales this is the bar I would set for a customer that made me take a loss by doing business with them if they tried to come back in the future. This doesn't take into account how car dealerships don't own their inventory, finance all of their cars and actually ARE willing to take a loss on a car just to get it off the lot some times.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "10b547be9d05268240b4754171364205",
"text": "Any car manufacturer that undercuts their own dealer network would have that network fall apart quickly. Tesla is using a dealer-free distribution model from the start, so they don't have that problem. Toyota doesn't work that way, though. GM imposed a uniform no-haggling policy with their Saturn brand, but that policy was coupled with local monopolies for dealers to make it work. Lexus has also experimented with no-haggling and online ordering (with delivery still taking place at a dealership). The rest of Toyota doesn't work that way, though. Some car manufacturers, such as BMW and Audi, allow you to take delivery of your new car at the factory for a discount. But even then, the transaction still takes place through a dealer. Toyota doesn't work that way, though. For one thing, they work at a different scale. If you buy a Camry in the US, it might be produced in Kentucky, Indiana, or Aichi, depending on business conditions. You say that you want to cut out the middleman, but the fact is that you do require someone to deliver a Toyota to you, like it or not. If you're interested in saving money, consider trying various well documented tips, such as negotiating by e-mail before showing up, pitting dealerships against each other. If you don't want to negotiate, you might be able to take advantage of pre-negotiated dealer prices through Costco. You mentioned that the dealership offered you a 7.99% interest rate for your 710 FICO score. That sounds insanely high — I'd expect deals more like 2% advertised by buyatoyota.com. (Remember, Toyota Motor Credit Corporation exists to help Toyota Motor Corporation sell more cars cheaply.) You can also seek alternate financing online (example) or through your own bank.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "4cf731e00f31def72d93bc1bbdc3cf11",
"text": "I am a carsalesman. Lets get one thing straight, we are not allowed to give people a better deal just because they pay cash, regardless of what some people say. That can be seen a discrimination as not all people are fortunate enough to have cash available. if anything, finance is better for the dealership, as we get finance commission and the finance company DOES pay us the total amount immidiatly",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
28696b5dffe034b1d371fa142d46ade0
|
Figuring flood insurance into financing cost
|
[
{
"docid": "7f927c0b8f2e599be70bb7b3c2b2b86a",
"text": "We recently had a sump pump fail during a rainy weekend. Never had more than an inch or so of water on the floor. Total cost to remove the water, dry out the basement, and repair the damage to the paneling and wallboard: more than $7,000 plus the new sump pump. We are not in a flood zone. In a flood zone the cost of the loss could be total. A flood is also the type of hazard that can also destroy the value of land. No way I would want to self insure for this known hazard.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "44d2e5d67f46181426f05b27bdb1369d",
"text": "Self-insure a $250K+ house that's deemed to be in a flood zone? Wake up, have coffee. If you don't change your mind, have another cup.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "a8ae0bc20cdc126b60553272d13fc94a",
"text": "\"In economics, there is a notion called the Sunk Cost Fallacy. In a nutshell, the sunk cost fallacy says that human beings tend to prefer to \"\"throw good money after bad\"\" because of a strong loss aversion. That, coupled with how we frame an issue, makes it very tempting to say, \"\"if I just add these funds, I'll recoup my loss plus...\"\" In reality, the best best is to ignore sunk costs. (I know, far easier said than done, but bear with me a second.) How much you've invested is really irrelevant. The only question worth asking is this: \"\"Would I invest this money in the asset today?\"\" Put it this way - any money you spend on \"\"rescuing\"\" this upside mortgage is an investment that trades ready funds for a little more equity. Knowing that the mortgage is $100K in excess of the value, why buy that asset? If you could do a HARP, different story - but as you say, you can't. As such, buying into that investment is not the best use of your funds. You are throwing good money after bad. Invest your money where it will earn the best rate of return - not where your heart lead you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4c20acc933c7229ef76d2b45775b2092",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.princeton.edu/rpds/events_archive/repository/Naidu040313/Flood_HN_Jan2013.pdf) reduced by 99%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Outcome Y in county c and year t is regressed on the fraction of county land flooded in 1927, state-by-year fixed effects, and county fixed effects: Yct = &beta;t F ractionF loodc + &alpha;st + &alpha;c + \u0004ct Note that is allowed to vary by year, so each estimated is interpreted as the average difference between flooded counties and non-flooded counties in that year relative to the omitted base year of 1925 or 1920. > 53 In a modified version of equation, the fraction of county flooded is interacted with a dummy variable for whether the county is a &quot;plantation county&quot; and a dummy variable for whether the county is a &quot;nonplantation county. > Column reports the within-state difference for each county characteristic by the fraction of the county flooded in 1927: the coefficients are estimated by regressing the indicated county characteristic on the fraction of the county flooded in 1927 and a state fixed effect, weighting by county size. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6q2327/when_the_levee_breaks_black_migration_and/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~177559 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*: **county**^#1 **ood**^#2 **Black**^#3 **agricultural**^#4 **estimate**^#5\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4cbc08ca586bb6481b02839029c3f7d0",
"text": "What you are looking here is the cost of capital, because that is what you are effectively giving up in order to invest in those loans. In a discounted cash-flow, it would be the *i* in the denominator (1+*i*). For instance, instead of purchasing those loans you could have lent your money at the risk-free rate (not 100% true, but typical assumption), and therefore you are taking a slight risk in those loans for a higher return. There are several ways to compute that number, the one most often used would be the rate if the bank were to lend that money. In this way, it would be the Fed Funds rate plus some additional risk premium.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a44357a6b5943b6df883337c72a62eb3",
"text": "Basically you need to use a time-value-of-money equation to discount the cashflows back to today. The Wikipedia formula will likely work fine for you, then you just need to pick an effective interest rate to use in the calculation. Run each of your amounts and dates though the formula (there are various on-line calculators to pick from, and sum up the values. You did not mention your location or jurisdiction, but a useful proxy for the interest rate would be the average between the same duration mortgage rate and fixed-deposit rate at your bank; it should be close enough for your purposes - although if an actual lawsuit is involved and the sums high enough to have lawyers, it might be worth engaging an accountant as well to defend the veracity of both the calculation and the interest rates chosen.",
"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": "bae259bb05ae74f168c296c5ebcdd6c2",
"text": "Having a highly liquid emergency fund can lubricate the wheels for disaster recovery. For example, several years ago I returned from a vacation to discover that, during my absence, a plumbing fixture had broken and my house was flooded. Since we had sufficient liquidity to cover the cost of the repairs in our emergency fund, the insurance company was much easier to deal with, and the relationships between the contractor, bank, and insurance company were much smoother. The bank was able to approve the insurance in minutes versus days. Ironically, we didn't actually have to touch our emergency fund precisely because we had it. Clarification - I make it a point to have no debt.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "680f18bf6027e733e8d1925af9eb13b8",
"text": "Understandably, it appears as if one must construct the flows oneself because of the work involved to include every loan variation. First, it would be best to distinguish between cash and accrued, otherwise known as the economic, costs. The cash cost is, as you've identified, the payment. This is a reality for cash management, and it's wise that you wish to track it. However, by accruals, the only economic cost involved in the payment is the interest. The reason is because the rest of the payment flows from one form of asset to another, so if out of a $1,000 payment, $100 is principal repayment, you have merely traded $100 of cash for $100 of house. The cash costs will be accounted for on the cash flow statement while the accrued or economic costs will be accounted on the income statement. It appears as if you've accounted for this properly. However, for the resolution that you desire, the accounts must first flow through the income statement followed next instead of directly from assets to liabilities. This is where you can get a sense of the true costs of the home. To get better accrual resolution, credit cash and debit mortgage interest expense & principal repayment. Book the mortgage interest expense on the income statement and then cancel the principal repayment account with the loan account. The principal repayment should not be treated as an expense; however, the cash payment that pays down the mortgage balance should be booked so that it will appear on the cash flow statement. Because you weren't doing this before, and you were debiting the entire payment off of the loan, you should probably notice your booked loan account diverging from the actual. This proper booking will resolve that. When you are comfortable with booking the payments, you can book unrealized gains and losses by marking the house to market in this statement to get a better understanding of your financial position. The cash flow statement with proper bookings should show how the cash has flowed, so if it is according to standards, household operations should show a positive flow from labor/investments less the amount of interest expense while financing will show a negative flow from principal repayment. Investing due to the home should show no change due to mortgage payments because the house has already been acquired, thus there was a large outflow when cash was paid to acquire the home. The program should give some way to classify accounts so that they are either operational, investing, or financing. All income & expenses are operational. All investments such as equities, credit assets, and the home are investing. All liabilities are financing. To book the installment payment $X which consists of $Y in interest and $Z in principal: To resolve the reduction in principal: As long as the accounts are properly classified, GnuCash probably does the rest for you, but if not, to resolve the expense: Finally, net income is resolved: My guess is that GnuCash derives the cash flow statement indirectly, but you can do the entry by simply: In this case, it happily resembles the first accrued entry, but with cash, that's all that is necessary by the direct method.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "237ac6e2a6adcc9579322678030523b6",
"text": "Another fun fact: only ~10% of property southern California is covered by earthquake insurance. Why? Same reason as here. 1) It is a difficult to measure the risk. Think: Texas has experienced 3 100-year floods in 18 months. This amount of rain could have caused a wide range of different outcomes (anywhere from tens of millions to tens of billions in damage) depending on location, soil saturation, structural integrity of dams, wind direction, drainage/sewage systems, etc. Insurers who have covered these types of disasters before have paid out more in claims then they took in premiums. 2) It is expensive. Yes, you can reinsure but most of the reinsures won't take this type of risk in their property portfolio in such a soft market that has persisted for roughly a decade. Consumers don't want to pay for the coverage because it is expensive even with government backstops. The smart money would be in investing in resiliency programs (infrastructure) that would mitigate damage to sensitive areas which would in turn drive down premiums. But that requires governments, citizens, and businesses to engage in long run thinking and execution. Some areas have discussed these types of plans (New Orleans comes to mind) but most of our coastlines need to have plans like this in place given sea level rises, high concentrations of valuable assets on shorelines, and warmer oceans having the potential to generate more intense storms. tl;dr this is not a new problem. It is nobody's fault but everybody's responsibility. Fuck nature, man",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "10c29acb1e57f5365fe7d2de92b118e4",
"text": "\"Every bank/financial institution uses different terms but I read \"\"cost of carry\"\" as the 'risk' cost of the portfolio. that is, what is the equivalent maturity risk-free rate + the principal-weight probability of default (or to make it more complex, loss give default) %. If this summed % is less than the rate earned on the portfolio of loans you would buy loans. The difference is your spread or profit.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "64f48ba5412d255dff4eb0b9d7e4bfa3",
"text": "\"Your mortgage agreement probably gives you three options: Pay off your mortgage in full. Use the insurance company's deck-repair payment to fix your deck to be similar in quality to what it was when you took out the mortgage, allowing for normal wear-and-tear since you took out the mortgage. In other words, you can \"\"restore or repair the property to avoid lessening the Lender's security\"\". According to most American mortgages, if you can make the repairs for less than the insurance settlement, and the lender is happy with the work, you can keep the savings. Hand over the insurance company payment for the deck to your lender, and have them apply that amount toward the principal of your mortgage. If the repairs are not \"\"economically feasible\"\", and you are current with your payments, most American mortgages specify this use of the money. Here are some typical mortgage provisions in this regard. This is an excerpt from the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac form 3048, which is the form used by most banks for mortgages in the state of Washington. (I have added paragraph breaks and bolding for clarity.) Many states have different wording, but the intent is the same: In the event of loss, Borrower shall give prompt notice to the insurance carrier and Lender. Lender may make proof of loss if not made promptly by Borrower. Unless Lender and Borrower otherwise agree in writing, any insurance proceeds, whether or not the underlying insurance was required by Lender, shall be applied to restoration or repair of the Property, if the restoration or repair is economically feasible and Lender's security is not lessened. During such repair and restoration period, Lender shall have the right to hold such insurance proceeds until Lender has had an opportunity to inspect such Property to ensure the work has been completed to Lender's satisfaction, provided that such inspection shall be undertaken promptly. Lender may disburse proceeds for the repairs and restoration in a single payment or in a series of progress payments as the work is completed. Unless an agreement is made in writing or Applicable Law requires interest to be paid on such insurance proceeds, Lender shall not be required to pay Borrower any interest or earnings on such proceeds. Fees for public adjusters, or other third parties, retained by Borrower shall not be paid out of the insurance proceeds and shall be the sole obligation of Borrower. If the restoration or repair is not economically feasible or Lender's security would be lessened, the insurance proceeds shall be applied to the sums secured by this Security Instrument, whether or not then due, with the excess, if any, paid to Borrower. Such insurance proceeds shall be applied in the order provided for in Section 2.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8419e262d2981b22885815b03f1edaff",
"text": "Looked at the luv model quickly. The most likely reason is you calculated a FCF lower than the market. You have FCF decreasing due to shrinking margins over the model period. Your terminal value then has the FCF growing by 2.3% into perpetuity so that doesn't really coincide. I mean, it could but I wouldn't use it. I personally think the shrinking margin assumption going forward is a little much. For your terminal value calc, don't you want that to be the final model year cash flow times 1 plus the terminal growth rate? Also, I find it interesting that the risk free rate is the terminal growth rate. Any particular reasoning behind that? It works now at the 2.3% but probably wouldn't in a different interest rate environment.",
"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": "705edc8917c352edfecb5356b6058ef2",
"text": "I'm not entirely sure about some of the details in your question, since I think you meant to use $10,000 as the value of the futures contract and $3 as the value of the underlying stock. Those numbers would make more sense. That being said, I can give you a simple example of how to calculate the profit and loss from a leveraged futures contract. For the sake of simplicity, I'll use a well-known futures contract: the E-mini S&P500 contract. Each E-mini is worth $50 times the value of the S&P 500 index and has a tick size of 0.25, so the minimum price change is 0.25 * $50 = $12.50. Here's an example. Say the current value of the S&P500 is 1,600; the value of each contract is therefore $50 * 1,600 = $80,000. You purchase one contract on margin, with an initial margin requirement1 of 5%, or $4,000. If the S&P 500 index rises to 1,610, the value of your futures contract increases to $50 * 1,610 = $80,500. Once you return the 80,000 - 4,000 = $76,000 that you borrowed as leverage, your profit is 80,500 - 76,000 = $4,500. Since you used $4,000 of your own funds as an initial margin, your profit, excluding commissions is 4,500 - 4,000 = $500, which is a 500/4000 = 12.5% return. If the index dropped to 1,580, the value of your futures contract decreases to $50 * 1,580 = $79,000. After you return the $76,000 in leverage, you're left with $3,000, or a net loss of (3,000 - 4000)/(4000) = -25%. The math illustrates why using leverage increases your risk, but also increases your potential for return. Consider the first scenario, in which the index increases to 1,610. If you had forgone using margin and spent $80,000 of your own funds, your profit would be (80,500 - 80,000) / 80000 = .625%. This is smaller than your leveraged profit by a factor of 20, the inverse of the margin requirement (.625% / .05 = 12.5%). In this case, the use of leverage dramatically increased your rate of return. However, in the case of a decrease, you spent $80,000, but gained $79,000, for a loss of only 1.25%. This is 20 times smaller in magnitude than your negative return when using leverage. By forgoing leverage, you've decreased your opportunity for upside, but also decreased your downside risk. 1) For futures contracts, the margin requirements are set by the exchange, which is CME group, in the case of the E-mini. The 5% in my example is higher than the actual margin requirement, which is currently $3,850 USD per contract, but it keeps the numbers simple. Also note that CME group refers to the initial margin as the performance bond instead.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f7d9c6d9bd9a85810ebab48a59bacba",
"text": "Because a paying down a liability and thus gaining asset equity is not technically an expense, GnuCash will not include it in any expense reports. However, you can abuse the system a bit to do what you want. The mortgage payment should be divided into principle, interest, and escrow / tax / insurance accounts. For example: A mortgage payment will then be a split transaction that puts money into these accounts from your bank account: For completeness, the escrow account will periodically be used to pay actual expenses, which just moves the expense from escrow into insurance or tax. This is nice so that expenses for a month aren't inflated due to a tax payment being made: Now, this is all fairly typical and results in all but the principle part of the mortgage payment being included in expense reports. The trick then is to duplicate the principle portion in a way that it makes its way into your expenses. One way to do this is to create a principle expense account and also a fictional equity account that provides the funds to pay it: Every time you record a mortgage payment, add a transfer from this equity account into the Principle Payments expense account. This will mess things up at some level, since you're inventing an expense that does not truly exist, but if you're using GnuCash more to monitor monthly cash flow, it causes the Income/Expense report to finally make sense. Example transaction split:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eeaaa8a25d877e0bee9104edeae47c39",
"text": "The periodic rate (here, the interest charged per month), as you would enter into a finance calculator is 9.05%. Multiply by 12 to get 108.6% or calculate APR at 182.8%. Either way it's far more than 68%. If the $1680 were paid after 365 days, it would be simple interest of 68%. For the fact that payment are made along the way, the numbers change. Edit - A finance calculator has 5 buttons to cover the calculations: N = number of periods or payments %i = the interest per period PV = present value PMT = Payment per period FV= Future value In your example, you've given us the number of periods, 12, present value, $1000, future value, 0, and payment, $140. The calculator tells me this is a monthly rate of 9%. As Dilip noted, you can compound as you wish, depending on what you are looking for, but the 9% isn't an opinion, it's the math. TI BA-35 Solar. Discontinued, but available on eBay. Worth every cent. Per mhoran's comment, I'll add the spreadsheet version. I literally copied and pasted his text into a open cell, and after entering the cell shows, which I rounded to 9.05%. Note, the $1000 is negative, it starts as an amount owed. And for Dilip - 1.0905^12 = 2.8281 or 182.8% effective rate. If I am the loanshark lending this money, charging 9% per month, my $1000 investment returns $2828 by the end of the year, assuming, of course, that the payment is reinvested immediately. The 108 >> 182 seems disturbing, but for lower numbers, even 12% per year, the monthly compounding only results in 12.68%",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f2b4a049ce57dc095028472579502a7c
|
How do I know if refinance is beneficial enough to me?
|
[
{
"docid": "bd6b93b94758ae5990326a55b01b59f4",
"text": "When evaluating a refinance, you need to figure out the payback time. Refinancing costs money in closing costs. The payback time is the time it takes to recover the closing costs with the amount of money you are saving in interest. For example, if the closing costs are $2,000, your payback time is 2 years if it takes 2 years to save that amount in interest with the new interest rate vs. the old one. To estimate this, look at the difference in interest rate between your mortgage and the new one, and your mortgage balance. For example, let's say that you have $100,000 left on your mortgage, and the new rate is 1% lower than your current rate. In one year, you will save roughly $1,000 in interest. If your closing costs are $2,000, then your payback time is somewhere around 2 years. If you plan on staying in this house longer than the payback time, then it is beneficial to refinance. There are mortgage refinance calculators online that will calculate payback time more precisely. One thing to watch out for: when you refinance, if you expand the term of your mortgage, you might end up paying more interest over the long term, even though your rate is less and your monthly payment is less. For example, let's say you currently have 8 years left on a 15-year mortgage. If you refinance to a new 15-year mortgage, your monthly payment will go down, but if you only pay the new minimum payment for the next 15 years, you could end up paying more in interest than if you had just continued with your old mortgage for the next 8 years. To avoid this, refinance to a new mortgage with a term close to what you have left on your current mortgage. If you can't do that, continue paying whatever your current monthly payment is after you refinance, and you'll pay your new mortgage early and save on interest.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "00155b67fc1e919484a70eadd7488566",
"text": "It would help if we had numbers to walk you through the analysis. Current balance, rate, remaining term, and the new mortgage details. To echo and elaborate on part of Ben's response, the most important thing is to not confuse cash flow with savings. If you have 15 years to go, and refinance to 30 years, at the rate rate, your payment drops by 1/3. Yet your rate is identical in this example. The correct method is to take the new rate, plug it into a mortgage calculator or spreadsheet using the remaining months on the current mortgage, and see the change in payment. This savings is what you should divide into closing costs to calculate the breakeven. It's up to you whether to adjust your payments to keep the term the same after you close. With respect to keshlam, rules of thumb often fail. There are mortgages that build the closing costs into the rate. Not the amount loaned, the rate. This means that as rates dropped, moving from 5.25% to 5% made sense even though with closing costs there were 4.5% mortgages out there. Because rates were still falling, and I finally moved to a 3.5% loan. At the time I was serial refinancing, the bank said I could return to them after a year if rates were still lower. In my opinion, we are at a bottom, and the biggest question you need to answer is whether you'll remain in the house past your own breakeven time. Last - with personal finance focusing on personal, the analysis shouldn't ignore the rest of your balance sheet. Say you are paying $1500/mo with 15 years to go. Your budget is tight enough that you've chosen not to deposit to your 401(k). (assuming you are in the US or country with pretax retirement account options) In this case, holding rates constant, a shift to 30 years frees up about $500/mo. In a matched 401(k), your $6000/yr is doubled to $12K/year. Of course, if the money would just go in the market unmatched, members here would correctly admonish me for suggesting a dangerous game, in effect borrowing via mortgage to invest in the market. The matched funds, however are tough to argue against.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "71f2cdebbbb5f6503aaaa649b5a86470",
"text": "The proper answer is that you run the numbers and see whether what you'll save in interest exceeds the closing costs by enough to be interesting. Most lenders these days have calculations that can help with this on their websites and/or would be glad to help if asked. Rule of thumb: if you can reduce interest rate by 1% or more it's worth investing.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "849865233681cf162c72b2fb2ed4fc5a",
"text": "\"Do you now own your new home, or are you renting? This is a classic case of a mortgage ready to blow up. These 7/1 interest only would have a low rate, say 3%. So on $200K, the payment is $500/mo, but no principal paydown. Even if the rate were still 3% (it won't be) the 23 yr amortization means a payment of $1004 after the 7 years end. At 4%, it's $1109. 5%, $1221. I would take this all into account as you decide what to do. If you now own a new house, you should consider the morally questionable walk-away. I believe you were sold an unethical product. mb wrote \"\"shoot up considerably.\"\" This is still an understatement. A product whose payment is certain to double in a fixed time is 'bad.' 'Bad' in the biblical sense. You have no obligation to keep any deal with the devil, which is exactly what you have. There are some banks offering FHA products that might help you. I just received an offer from the bank holding a mortgage on my rental property. It's 4.5% for a refinance up to 125% of current value. There's a cost of $1800, but I owe so little, and am paying it off faster than the time left, I'm not bothering. You may benefit from such a program, but I'd still question if you can make a go of a house that even 2% underwater. Do some math, and see if you started now with a 30 year loan how the numbers work out. (Forgive my soapbox stance on this. There are those who criticize the strategic defaulters. I think you fall into a group of innocent victims who were sold a product that was nothing less than a financial time bomb. I am very curious to know the original \"\"interest only\"\" rate, and the index/margin for the rate upon adjustment. If you include the original balance, I can tell you the exact payments based on the new rates pretty easily.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d4800724455146c2e8d4292336105ef8",
"text": "There is another factor to consider when refinancing is the remaining term left on your loan. If you have 20 years left, and you re-fi into another 30 year loan that extends the length that you will be paying off the house for another 10 years. You are probably better off going with 20, or even 15. If this is a new loan, that is less of an issue, although if you moving and buying a house in a similar price range it is still something to consider. My goal is to have my house paid off before I retire (hopefully early semi-retirement around 55).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6ea4d3a923c2639ab701f7799273b1a1",
"text": "\"@Alex B already answered the first question. I want to respond to the second and third: I have heard the term \"\"The equity on your home is like a bank\"\". What does that mean? I suppose I could borrow using the equity in my home as collateral? Yes, you can borrow against the equity in your home. What you should keep in mind is that you can only borrow against the amount that you've paid on your house. For example, if you've paid $100,000 against your house, you can then borrow $100,000 (assuming the value hasn't changed). The argument that this is a good deal misses the obvious alternative: If you didn't spend that $100,000 on a house, then you'd still have it and wouldn't need to take out a loan at all. Of course, equity still has value, and you should consider it when doing the cost/benefit analysis, but make sure to compare your equity to savings you could have from renting. Are there any other general benefits that would drive me from paying $800 in rent, to owning a house? Economically: As you'll notice from my parenthetical remarks, this is extremely situational. It might be good to come up with a spreadsheet for your situation, taking all of the costs into account, and see if you end up better or worse. Also, there's nothing wrong with buying a house for non-economic reasons if that's what you want. Just make sure you're aware of the real cost before you do it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "66002fb9387b1f794929de8adce812a2",
"text": "\"This summer I used a loan from my 401(k) to help pay for the down payment of a new house. We planned on selling a Condo a few months later, so we only needed the loan for a short period but wanted to keep monthly payments low since we would be paying two mortgages for a few months. I also felt like the market might take a dip in the future, so I liked the idea of trying to cash out high and buy back low (spoiler alert: this didn't happen). So in July 2017 I withdrew $17,000 from my account (Technically $16,850.00 principal and $150 processing fee) at an effective 4.19% APR (4% rate and then the fee), with 240 scheduled payments of $86.00 (2 per month for 10 years). Over the lifetime of the loan the total finance charge was $3,790, but that money would be paid back into my account. I was happy with the terms, and it helped tide things over until the condo was sold a few months later. But then I decided to change jobs, and ended up having to pay back the loan ~20 weeks after it was issued (using the proceeds from the sale of the condo). During this time the market had done well, so when I paid back the funds the net difference in shares that I now owned (including shares purchased with the interest payments) was $538.25 less than today's value of the original count of shares that were sold to fund the loan. Combined with the $150 fee, the overall \"\"cost\"\" of the 20 week loan was about 4.05%. That isn't the interest rate (interest was paid back to my account balance), but the value lost due to the principal having been withdrawn. On paper, my account would be worth that much more if I hadn't withdrawn the money. Now if you extrapolate the current market return into 52 weeks, you can think of that loan having an APR \"\"cost\"\" of around 10.5% (Probably not valid for a multi year calculation, but seems accurate for a 12 month projection). Again, that is not interest paid back to the account, but instead the value lost due to the money not being in the account. Sure, the market could take a dip and I may be able to buy the shares back at a reduced cost, but that would require keeping sizable liquid assets around and trying to time the market. It also is not something you can really schedule very well, as the loan took 6 days to fund (not including another week of clarifying questions back/forth before that) and 10 day to repay (from the time I initiated the paperwork to when the check was cashed and shares repurchased). So in my experience, the true cost of the loan greatly depends on how the market does, and if you have the ability to pay back the loan it probably is worth doing so. Especially since you may be forced to do so at any time if you change jobs or your employment is terminated.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "726a20f47f3f5bf128c943ade3684687",
"text": "If you can deal with phone calls instead of a face to face meeting, for the average person with an average refinance online tools just offer another way to shop for deals. For new mortgages, I think having a person you can meet face to face will avoid problems, but for just a simple refi, online is one of the places you should check. Compete your current mortgage company, your bank (hopefully credit union), a local broker or two and the online places. The more competition you have, the more power you have in making a good choice.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "391d1f65bedfa76774a59755cade9172",
"text": "Yes. Borrowing more against your home means you will pay more interest for your home. Specifically: Does this increase the amount of interest on my home loan by $144.56 per month to start with? Yes, that is exactly what it means. As to whether or not that is a good use of the money, I can't say. You're making various assumptions here... They could be accurate or, if this is your first rental home, they could be wildly optimistic (100% occupancy rate? that won't last). Additionally, houses are physical goods which depreciate. Put another way, they fall apart, and you (as the owner) are responsible for fixing it. You have the basic idea right, I just think you should plan for a worst-case scenario, and it looks like you're planning for the best.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d817f6cb1f1364cab201499b3f973c01",
"text": "You don't say what the time remaining on the current mortgage is, nor the expense of the refi. There are a number of traps when doing the math. Say you have 10 years left on a 6% mortgage, $200K balance. I offer you a 4% 30 year. No cost at all. A good-intentioned person would do some math as follows: Please look at this carefully. 6% vs 4%. But you're out of pocket far more on the 4% loan. ?? Which is better? The problem is that the comparison isn't apples to apples. What did I do? I took the remaining term and new rate. You see, so long as there are no prepayment penalties, this is the math to calculate the savings. Here, about $195/mo. That $195/mo is how you judge if the cost is worth it or the break-even time. $2000? Well, 10 months, then you are ahead. If you disclose the time remaining, I am happy to edit the answer to reflect your numbers, I'm just sharing the correct process for analysis. Disclosure - I recently did my last (?) refi to a 15yr fixed 3.5%. The bank let the HELOC stay. It's 2.5%, and rarely used.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3cdef35aaac0973a4b5f0e3b3484258",
"text": "\"The usual rule of thumb is that you should start considering refinance when you can lower the effective interest rate by 1% or more. If you're now paying 4.7% this would mean you should be looking for loans at 3.7% or better to find something that's really worth considering. One exception is if the bank is willing to do an \"\"in-place refinance\"\", with no closing costs and no points. Sometimes banks will offer this as a way of retaining customers who would otherwise be tempted to refinance elsewhere. You should still shop around before accepting this kind of offer, to make sure it really is your best option. Most banks offer calculators on their websites that will let you compare your current mortgage to a hypothetical new one. Feed the numbers in, and it can tell you what the difference in payment size will be, how long you need to keep the house before the savings have paid for the closing costs, and what the actual savings will be if you sell the house in any given year (or total savings if you don't sell until after the mortgage is paid off). Remember that In addition to closing costs there are amortization effects. In the early stages of a standard mortgage your money is mostly paying interest; the amount paying down the principal increases over the life of the loan. That's another of the reasons you need to run the calculator; refinancing resets that clock.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "de136f29d9892b752067d59d4b2f60b1",
"text": "Purchase loans tend to be more challenging to get the best possible rate, because you have to balance closing the loan and getting the contract. So there isn't as much time to shop around as when you do a refinance. I disagree with the sentiment to go with your local bank. Nothing wrong with asking at your local bank and using their numbers as a baseline, but chances are they won't be competitive. There are many reputable online mortgage originators that will show accurate fees and rates upfront assuming you provide accurate information. In the past there were a lot of issue with Good Faith Estimates being pretty much worthless. There were a fair number of horror stories about people showing up to closing and finding out fee or rates had increased dramatically. There was a law passed after the housing debacle that severely limits the shenanigans that lenders can do at closing and so there is less risk when going with a lesser known lender. In fact I would say the only real risk with a lender now days is choosing one that happens to be overloaded and or just has poor customer service in general. Personally I have found the most competitive rates from Zillow's mortgage service and the now defunct Google mortgage. The lenders tend to be smaller, but highly efficient. They are very much dependent on their online reputations. I have heard good things about a number of larger online lenders, but I don't have personal experience so I will leave them off. I personally wouldn't worry much about whether the loan is sold or not. Outside of refinancing I don't think I have ever talked to the bank servicing my mortgage about my mortgage. There just isn't much need to talk to them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b068ed80d2622176669138ee89886956",
"text": "\"Your Spidey senses are good. A good friend would not put you in such a position. It's simple, to skirt some issue (we'll get to that in a second) you are being asked to lie. All for a 15% return on your $$$$. <<< How much is that? You can easily lend him the money, and have a better paper trail. But the bank is not going to like that, and requires this money from friends or family to be a gift. I've heard mortgage guys at the bank say \"\"It's just a formality, we need this paperwork to sell the loan to the investors.\"\" These bankers belong in jail, or at least fired and barred from the industry. They broke the economy in 2008, and should be stopped from doing it again.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ef88fda581b8247321f9fd356dccdaf7",
"text": "With an annual income of $120,000 you can be approved for a $2800 monthly payment on your mortgage. The trickier problem is that you will save quite a bit on that mortgage payment if you can avoid PMI, which means that you should be targeting a 20% down-payment on your next purchase. With a $500,000 budget for a new home, that means you should put $100,000 down. You only have $75,000 saved, so you can either wait until you save another $25,000, or you can refinance your current property for $95k+ $25k = $120k which would give you about a $575 monthly payment (at 30 years at 4%) on your current property. Your new property should be a little over $1,900 per month if you finance $400,000 of it. Those figures do not include property tax or home owners insurance escrow payments. Are you prepared to have about $2,500 in mortgage payments should your renters stop paying or you can't find renters? Those numbers also do not include an emergency fund. You may want to wait even longer before making this move so that you can save enough to still have an emergency fund (worth 6 months of your new higher expenses including the higher mortgage payment on the new house.) I don't know enough about the rest of your expenses, but I think it's likely that if you're willing to borrow a little more refinancing your current place that you can probably make the numbers work to purchase a new home now. If I were you, I would not count on rental money when running the numbers to be sure it will work. I would probably also wait until I had saved $100,000 outright for the down-payment on the new place instead of refinancing the current place, but that's just a reflection of my more conservative approach to finances. You may have a larger appetite for risk, and that's fine, then rental income will probably help you pay down any money you borrow in the refinancing to make this all worth it.",
"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": "ee130539baebd437a80d1acf6b6fc3e5",
"text": "The reason for borrowing instead of paying cash for major renovations should be the same for the decision about whether to borrow or pay cash for the home itself. Over history, borrowing using low, tax-deductible interest while increasing your retirement contributions has always yielded higher returns than paying off mortgage principal over the long term. You should first determine how much you need to save for retirement, factor that into your budget, then borrow as much as needed (and can afford) to live at whatever level of home you decide is important to you. Using this same logic, if interest rates are low enough, it would behoove you to refinance with cash out leveraging the cash to use as additional retirement savings.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f7f844f13bbe8794629c48811ecb040c",
"text": "It depends on how long it will take you to pay off the personal loan, the rate for the personal loan, the refi rate you think you can get, how much principal you will have to add to get the refi (may have gone up since then). Since you did not provide all the necessary details, the general answer is to sketch out your total payments (mortgage + personal loan) with and without the refi over the life of the mortgage and see if you end up with more money in your pocket with the refi. My overall impression based on the details you did provide is that you will probably find it worthwhile to do the refi.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dae81c7ab53e9b7f0d2472613c19cd5c",
"text": "Streamline refinance is the way to go. You don't have to stay with the same bank to do so either. The big advantage of the streamline is the original appraisal is used for the refinance, so as long as you didn't have negative amortization(impossible in FHA anyways), you're good to go. It will be much less paperwork and looser credit standards. The ONLY downside is that upfront and monthly FHA mortgage insurance ticked up from where it was 2 years ago. If you're under a 80% LTV however you won't have to worry about it.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
6fe5368721889824ab6b5e9246b1504d
|
What's the most correct way to calculate market cap for multi-class companies?
|
[
{
"docid": "f678cba5b45561cd1e6bdf087202978e",
"text": "From their 10-K pulled directly from Edgar: As of October 22, 2015, there were 291,327,781 shares of Alphabet Inc.’s (the successor issuer pursuant to Rule 12g-3(a) under the Exchange Act as of October 2, 2015) (Alphabet) Class A common stock outstanding, 50,893,362 shares of Alphabet's Class B common stock outstanding, and 345,504,021 Alphabet's Class C capital stock outstanding. From here just do the math. The shares outstanding are listed on the first page of the 10-Q and 10-K reports. Edit: I believe Class B shares in this instance are not traded on the market and therefore would not be included.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7dc3912bdb7e7a71ae405133330accb6",
"text": "\"Some companies issue multiple classes of shares. Each share may have different ratios applied to ownership rights and voting rights. Some shares classes are not traded on any exchange at all. Some share classes have limited or no voting rights. Voting rights ratios are not used when calculating market cap but the market typically puts a premium on shares with voting rights. Total market cap must include ALL classes of shares, listed or not, weighted according to thee ratios involved in the company's ownership structure. Some are 1:1, but in the case of Berkshire Hathaway, Class B shares are set at an ownership level of 1/1500 of the Class A shares. In terms of Alphabet Inc, the following classes of shares exist as at 4 Dec 2015: When determining market cap, you should also be mindful of other classes of securities issued by the company, such as convertible debt instruments and stock options. This is usually referred to as \"\"Fully Diluted\"\" assuming all such instruments are converted.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "656459e97b584bde9d9f9867b0ba41b5",
"text": "Go to bankrate dot com. They will have a lot of metrics there that might give you an idea and rate each category. Capitalization and profitability metrics. May not be as granular as what you are looking for though.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a54e2f82908bea2ab9e34d7ae21e0a6",
"text": "Enterprise Value is supposed to be the price you would be willing to pay to acquire the company. Typically, companies are delivered debt-free and cash-free, so the cash on the balance sheet at the time of the transaction is distributed to the original owners. So, for instance, a company like Apple would have a lower EV than Market Value because the cash on the balance sheet is not going to be included in an acquisition. And you are right, there are plenty of instances where you see Enterprise Value lower than Market Value (Cap). If you are solely looking at equity valuation (equity investing), then use market cap. If you are looking at firm valuation for M&A, then EV is more important.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e91d8c0dcb863fc4b14459f62a081534",
"text": "\"Complex matter that doesn't boil down to a formula. The quant aspect could be assessed by calculating WACCs under various funding scenarii and trying to minimize, but it is just one dimension of it. The quali aspects can vary widely depending on the company, ownership structure, tax environment and business needs and it really can't be covered even superficially in a reddit comment... Few examples from the top of my mind to give you a sense of it: - shareholders might be able to issue equity but want to avoid dilution, so debt is preferred in the end despite cost. Or convertible debt under the right scenario. - company has recurring funding needs and thinks that establishing a status on debt market is worth paying a premium to ensure they can \"\"tap\"\" it whenever hey need to. - adding debt is a way to leverage and enhance ROI/IRR for certain types of stakeholders (think LBOs) - etc etc etc Takes time and a lot of experience/work to be able to figure out what's best and there isn't always a clear answer. Source: pro buy side credit investor with experience and sizeable AuMs.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "26add6882c3b0f92d535fd869f8d55ee",
"text": "\"Market caps is just the share price, multiplied by the number of shares. It doesn't represent any value (if people decide to pay more or less for the shares, the market cap goes up or down). It does represent what people think the company is worth. NAV sounds very much like book value. It basically says \"\"how much cash would we end up with if we sold everything the company owns, paid back all the debt, and closed down the business? \"\" Since closing down the business is rarely a good idea, this underestimates the value of the business enormously. Take a hairdresser who owns nothing but a pair of scissors, but has a huge number of repeat customers, charges $200 for a haircut, and makes tons of money every year. The business has a huge value, but NAV = price of one pair of used scissors.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dfa933229cc96a45eb5007baee03701a",
"text": "The difference between the two numbers is that the market size of a particular product is expressed as an annual number ($10 million per year, in your example). The market cap of a stock, on the other hand, is a long-term valuation of the company.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "757ae34017097661e6373b817280c474",
"text": "In market cap weighted index there is fairly heavy concentration in the largest stocks. The top 10 stocks typically account for about 20% of the S&P 500 index. In Equal Weight this bias towards large caps is removed. The Market Cap method would be good when large stocks drive the markets. However if the markets are getting driven by Mid Caps and Small caps, the equal weight wins. Historically most big companies start out small and grow big fast in a short span of time. Thus if we were to do Market cap one would have purchased smaller number of shares of the said company as its cap/weight would have been small and when it becomes big we would have purchased the shares at a higher price. However if we were to do equal weight, then as the company grows big one would have more share at a cheaper price and would result in better returns. There is a nice article on this, also gives the comparision of the returns over a period of 10 years, where equal weight index has done good. It does not mean that it would continue. http://www.investopedia.com/articles/exchangetradedfunds/08/index-debate.asp#axzz1RRDCnFre",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bca5b955ad21c09521f36d07d7b490dd",
"text": "Sure let's say we're starting with the equity value of a public company. Fully diluted shares times market price. We add debt and subtract all cash to give us enterprise value. Calculate a multiple on that. Look what we did up there, we subtracted out all cash. The DCF approach assumes we have an operating level of cash when it calculates a value. You're saying that the DCF spits out an enterprise value. It cannot be an enterprise value if the DCF approach assumes we hold cash. We would have to subtract out an operating level of cash from the DCF concluded value to compare it apples to apples to the cashless enterprise values we derived from the market approach multiples.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "41372fce8481716fd887860e6d3e94db",
"text": "The three places you want to focus on are the income statement, the balance sheet, and cash flow statement. The standard measure for multiple of income is the P/E or price earnings ratio For the balance sheet, the debt to equity or debt to capital (debt+equity) ratio. For cash generation, price to cash flow, or price to free cash flow. (The lower the better, all other things being equal, for all three ratios.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ed7d0dd3883b4cfda3a827e5d994464",
"text": "\"The quickest way to approach this question is to first understand that it compares flows vs. levels. Market size is usually stated as an annual or other period figure, e.g. \"\"The market size of refrigerators will be $10mn in 2019.\"\" This is a flow figure. Market capitalization is a level figure at any given point in time, e.g. \"\"The market cap of the company was $20 million at the end of its last fiscal quarter.\"\" Confusion sometimes occurs when levels and flows are used loosely for comparisons. It is common for media to make statements such as \"\"Joe Billionaire is worth more than the GDP of Roselandia.\"\" That is comparing a current level (net worth) with an annual flow (GDP). With this in mind, there are a variety of conditions where a company's equity market value will exceed its market size. The most extreme example is an innovating, development-stage enterprise, say, a biotech company, developing a new market for a new product; the current market size may be nil while the enterprise is worth something greater. The primary reason however for situations where a company's equity market cap is greater than its market size is usually that the financial market expects the enterprise (and oftentimes its market, though this isn't necessary) to grow substantially over time and hence the discounted value of the company may be greater than the current or near future market size. A final example: US annual GDP (which comprises of much more than corporate incomes and profits) for 2014 was about $17.4tn while the nation's total equity market value in 2014 was $25.1tn, both according to the World Bank. That latter figure also doesn't include the trillions of corporate debts these companies have issued so the total market cap of US, Inc. is substantially greater than $25.1tn.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a1f8e1e935ad365e016e2e6468cf4797",
"text": "Adding assets (equity) and liabilities (debt) never gives you anything useful. The value of a company is its assets (including equity) minus its liabilities (including debt). However this is a purely theoretical calculation. In the real world things are much more complicated, and this isn't going to give you a good idea of much a company's shares are worth in the real world",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "33e1168b647035deb672a2797e3a6afe",
"text": "\"Your company actually will most likely use some sort of options pricing model, either a binomial tree or black-scholes to determine the value for their accounting and, subsequently, for their issuance and realization. First, market value of equity will be determined. Given you're private (although \"\"pre-IPO could mean public tomorrow,\"\"), this will likely revolve around a DCF and/or market approaches. Equity value will then be compared to a cap table to create an equity waterfall, where the different classes of stock and the different options will be valued along tranches. Keep in mind there might be liquidation preferences that would make options essentially further out of the money. As such, your formulae above do not quite work. However, as an employee, it might be difficult to determine the necessary inputs to determine value. To estimate it, however, look for three key pieces of information: 1. Current equity value 2. Option strike price 3. Maturity for Options If the strike is close to the current equity value, and the maturity is long enough, and you expect the company to grow, then it would look like the options have more value than not. Equity value can be derived from enterprise value, or by directly determining it via a DCF or guideline multiples. Reliable forecasts should come from looking at the industry, listening to what management is saying, and then your own information as an insider.\"",
"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": "7aec2e5d1480a09c5e8c8671d32c6e8d",
"text": "\"A bit strange but okay. The way I would think about this is again that you need to determine for what purpose you're computing this, in much the same way you would if you were to build out the model. The IPO valuation is not going to be relevant to the accretion/dilution analysis unless you're trying to determine whether the transaction was net accretive at exit. But that's a weird analysis to do. For longer holding periods like that you're more likely to look at IRR, not EPS. EPS is something investors look at over the short to medium term to get a sense of whether the company is making good acquisition decisions. And to do that short-to-medium term analysis, they look at earnings. Damodaran would say this is a shitty way of looking at things and that you should probably be looking at some measure of ROIC instead, and I tend to agree, but I don't get paid to think like an investor, I get paid to sell shit to them (if only in indirect fashion). The short answer to your question is that no, you should not incorporate what you are calling liquidation value when determining accretion/dilution, but only because the market typically computes accretion/dilution on a 3-year basis tops. I've never put together a book or seen a press release in my admittedly short time in finance that says \"\"the transaction is estimated to be X% accretive within 4 years\"\" - that just seems like an absurd timeline. Final point is just that from an accounting perspective, a gain on a sale of an asset is not going to get booked in either EBITDA or OCF, so just mechanically there's no way for the IPO value to flow into your accretion/dilution analysis there, even if you are looking at EBITDA/shares. You could figure the gain on sale into some kind of adjusted EBITDA/shares version of EPS, but this is neither something I've ever seen nor something that really makes sense in the context of using EPS as a standardized metric across the market. Typically we take OUT non-recurring shit in EPS, we don't add it in. Adding something like this in would be much more appropriate to measuring the success of an acquisition/investing vehicle like a private equity fund, not a standalone operating company that reports operational earnings in addition to cash flow from investing. And as I suggest above, that's an analysis for which the IRR metric is more ideally situated. And just a semantic thing - we typically wouldn't call the exit value a \"\"liquidation value\"\". That term is usually reserved for dissolution of a corporate entity and selling off its physical or intangible assets in piecemeal fashion (i.e. not accounting for operational synergies across the business). IPO value is actually just going to be a measure of market value of equity.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a26da9e8aaa057b993b4972726e78b83",
"text": "For each class A share (GOOGL) there's a class C share (GOOG), hence the missing half in your calculation. The almost comes from the slightly higher market price of the class A shares (due to them having voting powers) over class C (which have no voting powers). There's also class B share which is owned by the founders (Larry, Sergei, Eric and perhaps some to Stanford University and others) and differs from class A by the voting power. These are not publicly traded.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9fd43b5cb4ac9297a55a72b3fca65663",
"text": "cash isn't part of changes in working capital calculation - dont include it in current assets. *edit - Also to answer a question you didn't ask, subtracting cash doesn't skew the multiples. If cash really is that excess, the market cap will reflect a large cash position, thus adding it all back into EV. Think of apple as a good example. If they theoretically would dividend out all the cash, market cap would drop and so would EV.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
d46f0813abc0211c2e012e4f68636897
|
Why does Yahoo miss some mutual fund dividends/capital gains?
|
[
{
"docid": "aade973ed2fc9f2d0cc26bc56b1d2607",
"text": "This looks more like an aggregation problem. The Dividends and Capital Gains are on quite a few occassions not on same day and hence the way Yahoo is aggregating could be an issue. There is a seperate page with Dividends and capital gains are shown seperately, however as these funds have not given payouts every year, it seems there is some bug in aggregating this info at yahoo's end. For FBMPX http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=FBMPX&b=2&a=00&c=1987&e=17&d=01&f=2014&g=v https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/fees-and-prices/316390681 http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=FBMPX",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "9d9cfa352ce07f9aa89d06d2a710373e",
"text": "I don't see it in any of the exchange feeds I've gone through, including the SIPs. Not sure if there's something wrong with Nasdaq Last Sale (I don't have that feed) but it should be putting out the exact same data as ITCH.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "48b4e2517cbe8d5b60b2ee9a37950b0d",
"text": "MoneyChimp is great for this. It only offers full year returns, but it compounds the results correctly, including dividends. For mid year results, just adjust a bit based on the data you can find from Google or Yahoo to add some return (or loss) for the months.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "56475031e78d998077ce521912f667eb",
"text": "\"I would suggest the following rationale : This appears to be a most unsatisfactory state of affairs, however, you can bet that this is how things are handled. As to who receives the dividend you have payed, this will be whoever the counter-party (or counter-parties) are that were assigned the exercise. EDIT Looking at the Dec16 SPY options, we see that the expiry date is 23 Dec. Therefore, your options have been exercised prior to expiry. The 3AM time stamp is probably due to the \"\"overnight batch processing\"\" of your brokers computer system. The party exercising the options will have chosen to exercise on the day prior to ex-dividend in order to receive the dividends.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6579527da0c9cfbe380c490ca49de854",
"text": "\"It depends. Dividends and fees are usually unrelated. If the ETF holds a lot of stocks which pay significant dividends (e.g. an S&P500 index fund) these will probably cover the cost of the fees pretty readily. If the ETF holds a lot of stocks which do not pay significant dividends (e.g. growth stocks) there may not be any dividends - though hopefully there will be capital appreciation. Some ETFs don't contain stocks at all, but rather some other instruments (e.g. commodity-trust ETFs which hold precious metals like gold and silver, or daily-leveraged ETFs which hold options). In those cases there will never be any dividends. And depending on the performance of the market, the capital appreciation may or may not cover the expenses of the fund, either. If you look up QQQ's financials, you'll find it most recently paid out a dividend at an annualized rate of 0.71%. Its expense ratio is 0.20%. So the dividends more than cover its expense ratio. You could also ask \"\"why would I care?\"\" because unless you're doing some pretty-darned-specific tax-related modeling, it doesn't matter much whether the ETF covers its expense ratio via dividends or whether it comes out of capital gains. You should probably be more concerned with overall returns (for QQQ in the most recent year, 8.50% - which easily eclipses the dividends.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "26e829b6a7db54e5cf3756d79e49b8d8",
"text": "Should be noted that pacoverflow's answer is wrong. Yahoo back-adjusts all the previous (not current or future) values based on a cumulative adjustment factor. So if there's a dividend ex-date on December 19, Yahoo adjusts all the PREVIOUS (December 18 and prior) prices with a factor which is: 1 - dividend / Dec18Close",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2f3e9c74845865a96e9d863870771b7e",
"text": "Two more esoteric differences, related to the same cause... When you have an outstanding debit balance in a margin the broker may lend out your securities to short sellers. (They may well be able to lend them out even if there's no debit balance -- check your account agreement and relevant regulations). You'll never know this (there's no indication in your account of it) unless you ask, and maybe not even then. If the securities pay out dividends while lent out, you don't get the dividends (directly). The dividends go to the person who bought them from the short-seller. The short-seller has to pay the dividend amount to his broker who pays them to your broker who pays them to you. If the dividends that were paid out by the security were qualified dividends (15% max rate) the qualified-ness goes to the person who bought the security from the short-seller. What you received weren't dividends at all, but a payment-in-lieu of dividends and qualified dividend treatment isn't available for them. Some (many? all?) brokers will pay you a gross-up payment to compensate you for the extra tax you had to pay due to your qualified dividends on that security not actually being qualified. A similar thing happens if there's a shareholder vote. If the stock was lent out on the record date to establish voting eligibility, the person eligible to vote is the person who bought them from the short-seller, not you. So if for some reason you really want/need to vote in a shareholder vote, call your broker and ask them to journal the shares in question over to the cash side of your account before the record date for determining voting eligibility.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ebd7b8b4d4c3a2ee667131466eae36f4",
"text": "I second @DumbCoder, every company seems to have its own way of displaying the next dividend date and the actual dividend. I keep track of this information and try my best to make it available for free through my little iphone web app here http://divies.nazabe.com",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "86065a94b974b282b797961feefbdebc",
"text": "Vanguard (and probably other mutual fund brokers as well) offers easy-to-read performance charts that show the total change in value of a $10K investment over time. This includes the fair market value of the fund plus any distributions (i.e. dividends) paid out. On Vanguard's site they also make a point to show the impact of fees in the chart, since their low fees are their big selling point. Some reasons why a dividend is preferable to selling shares: no loss of voting power, no transaction costs, dividends may have better tax consequences for you than capital gains. NOTE: If your fund is underperforming the benchmark, it is not due to the payment of dividends. Funds do not pay their own dividends; they only forward to shareholders the dividends paid out by the companies in which they invest. So the fair market value of the fund should always reflect the fair market value of the companies it holds, and those companies' shares are the ones that are fluctuating when they pay dividends. If your fund is underperforming its benchmark, then that is either because it is not tracking the benchmark closely enough or because it is charging high fees. The fact that the underperformance you're seeing appears to be in the amount of dividends paid is a coincidence. Check out this example Vanguard performance chart for an S&P500 index fund. Notice how if you add the S&P500 index benchmark to the plot you can't even see the difference between the two -- the fund is designed to track the benchmark exactly. So when IBM (or whoever) pays out a dividend, the index goes down in value and the fund goes down in value.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "38bdbd4c2225ed3344f2d36eb24aa6d8",
"text": "You can use a tool like WikiInvest the advantage being it can pull data from most brokerages and you don't have to enter them manually. I do not know how well it handles dividends though.",
"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": "3451c2779bca4a3422a1edf0de832b52",
"text": "At this time, Google Finance doesn't support historical return or dividend data, only share prices. The attributes for mutual funds such as return52 are only available as real-time data, not historical. Yahoo also does not appear to offer market return data including dividends. For example, the S&P 500 index does not account for dividends--the S&P ^SPXTR index does, but is unavailable through Yahoo Finance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd1c51438c9aaf8e14aa77f9887fc3c7",
"text": "This is just a shot in the dark but it could be intermarket data. If the stock is interlisted and traded on another market exchange that day then the Yahoo Finance data feed might have picked up the data from another market. You'd have to ask Yahoo to explain and they'd have to check their data.",
"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": "0f25b9fbec9ffacf7aed54f24f4be5ec",
"text": "In the absence of a country designation where the mutual fund is registered, the question cannot be fully answered. For US mutual funds, the N.A.V per share is calculated each day after the close of the stock exchanges and all purchase and redemption requests received that day are transacted at this share price. So, the price of the mutual fund shares for April 2016 is not enough information: you need to specify the date more accurately. Your calculation of what you get from the mutual fund is incorrect because in the US, declared mutual fund dividends are net of the expense ratio. If the declared dividend is US$ 0.0451 per share, you get a cash payout of US$ 0.0451 for each share that you own: the expense ratio has already been subtracted before the declared dividend is calculated. The N.A.V. price of the mutual fund also falls by the amount of the per-share dividend (assuming that the price of all the fund assets (e.g. shares of stocks, bonds etc) does not change that day). Thus. if you have opted to re-invest your dividend in the same fund, your holding has the same value as before, but you own more shares of the mutual fund (which have a lower price per share). For exchange-traded funds, the rules are slightly different. In other jurisdictions, the rules might be different too.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d423ee78b68467721af9eb9d16c3d672",
"text": "This is really an extended comment on the last paragraph of @BenMiller's answer. When (the manager of) a mutual fund sells securities that the fund holds for a profit, or receives dividends (stock dividends, bond interest, etc.), the fund has the option of paying taxes on that money (at corporate rates) and distributing the rest to shareholders in the fund, or passing on the entire amount (categorized as dividends, qualified dividends, net short-term capital gains, and net long-term capital gains) to the shareholders who then pay taxes on the money that they receive at their own respective tax rates. (If the net gains are negative, i.e. losses, they are not passed on to the shareholders. See the last paragraph below). A shareholder doesn't have to reinvest the distribution amount into the mutual fund: the option of receiving the money as cash always exists, as does the option of investing the distribution into a different mutual fund in the same family, e.g. invest the distributions from Vanguard's S&P 500 Index Fund into Vanguard's Total Bond Index Fund (and/or vice versa). This last can be done without needing a brokerage account, but doing it across fund families will require the money to transit through a brokerage account or a personal account. Such cross-transfers can be helpful in reducing the amounts of money being transferred in re-balancing asset allocations as is recommended be done once or twice a year. Those investing in load funds instead of no-load funds should keep in mind that several load funds waive the load for re-investment of distributions but some funds don't: the sales charge for the reinvestment is pure profit for the fund if the fund was purchased directly or passed on to the brokerage if the fund was purchased through a brokerage account. As Ben points out, a shareholder in a mutual fund must pay taxes (in the appropriate categories) on the distributions from the fund even though no actual cash has been received because the entire distribution has been reinvested. It is worth keeping in mind that when the mutual fund declares a distribution (say $1.22 a share), the Net Asset Value per share drops by the same amount (assuming no change in the prices of the securities that the fund holds) and the new shares issued are at this lower price. That is, there is no change in the value of the investment: if you had $10,000 in the fund the day before the distribution was declared, you still have $10,000 after the distribution is declared but you own more shares in the fund than you had previously. (In actuality, the new shares appear in your account a couple of days later, not immediately when the distribution is declared). In short, a distribution from a mutual fund that is re-invested leads to no change in your net assets, but does increase your tax liability. Ditto for a distribution that is taken as cash or re-invested elsewhere. As a final remark, net capital losses inside a mutual fund are not distributed to shareholders but are retained within the fund to be written off against future capital gains. See also this previous answer or this one.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
7ab2049d75980f7ba8b46f40a89ee24d
|
Fetching technical indicators from yahoo api
|
[
{
"docid": "d3b2860b2a0cb99380d086fe2d4ba081",
"text": "Still working on exact answer to question....for now: (BONUS) Here is how to pull a graphical chart with the required data: Therefore: As r14 = the indicator for RSI. The above pull would pull Google, 6months, line chart, linear, large, with a 50 day moving average, a 200 day exponential moving average, volume, and followed up with RSI. Reference Link: Finance Yahoo! API's",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "ce9728af04a4323265db53597886dff5",
"text": "\"Yahoo Finance: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=VFINX+Profile Under \"\"Management Information\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b79cfb6a07c02193c16374f60169c313",
"text": "Hi all - I'm a UX designer working on a design challenge as part of an interview. I'm looking to learn more about how traders select securities to monitor and how they create alerts to track values of interest. If you could walk me through the last time you: - Decided on a security you wanted to monitor and set up a system to monitor the security - Which fields (e.g., last price, volume, etc) you were most interested in tracking for that security - If you created alerts for any fields (e.g., price) - If you did create an alert: what the alert was for, the steps you took to create it, and how the alert notified you of a change Any information you can provide would be super helpful! Please include your current role and the number of years you have experience trading. Even if you're not currently a trader or relatively new/in school any answers would be helpful!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca430bc67e3cd2cb7fcd0213cf3240c7",
"text": "You can't. Even as a technical trader you should know what events are coming up and be prepared. You can't prepare for everything but you should know when the earnings dates are. You should also pay attention to the market in general. Stocks also have personalities and you should get to know that personality. Most important thing in trading is deciding when to get out before buying and stick to it when it goes against you. It is also one of the hardest things to do.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b809e27c7650e4615cd9a31b7744ab4f",
"text": "From my 15 years of experience, no technical indicator actually ever works. Those teaching technical indicators are either mostly brokers or broker promoted so called technical analysts. And what you really lose in disciplined trading over longer period is the taxes and brokerages. That is why you will see that teachers involved in this field are mostly technical analysts because they can never make money in real markets and believe that they did not adhere to rules or it was an exception case and they are not ready to accept facts. The graph given above for coin flip is really very interesting and proves that every trade you enter has 50% probability of win and lose. Now when you remove the brokerage and taxes from win side of your game, you will always lose. That is why the Warren Buffets of the world are never technical analysts. In fact, they buy when all technical analysts fails. Holding a stock may give pain over longer period but still that is only way to really earn. Diversification is a good friend of all bulls. Another friend of bull is the fact that you can lose 100% but gain any much as 1000%. So if one can work in his limits and keep investing, he can surely make money. So, if you have to invest 100 grand in 10 stocks, but 10 grand in each and then one of the stocks will multiply 10 times in long term to take out cost and others will give profit too... 1-2 stocks will fail totally, 2-3 will remain there where they were, 2-3 will double and 2-3 will multiply 3-4 times. Investor can get approx 15% CAGR earning from stock markets... Cheers !!!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d13f8e4bcea8a0b51ada8d4e37ab1fc",
"text": "One could use technical indicators in any number of ways...they aren't rigidly defined for use in any particular way. If they were, only computers would use them. Having said that, moving averages are frequently used by people operating on the assumption that short-term price movements will soon be reverted back to a longer-term mean. So if the price shoots up today, traders who use moving averages may believe it will come back down pretty soon. If this is the belief (and it usually is for this type of trader), a price significantly above a moving average could indicate an overpriced stock. A price below the moving average could indicate an underpriced stock. Similarly, a short-term moving average above the long-term moving average may indicate an overpriced stock. When you are dealing with more than one frequency, though, there is more disagreement about how to use technical indicators. Some traders would probably say the opposite: that a short term average above the long term average indicates an upward movement that will continue because they believe the stock has momentum. Note that I am not saying I believe in using these averages to predict mean reversion or momentum effects, just that traders who rely on moving averages frequently do.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c59792a3b619c30ebb503a7a4d5dd871",
"text": "I found one such tool here: Point-to-Point Returns tool",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ca4aa43255f1b1f575ff0e602651839",
"text": "\"Remember that in most news outlets journalists do not get to pick the titles of their articles. That's up to the editor. So even though the article was primarily about ETFs, the reporter made the mistake of including some tangential references to mutual funds. The editor then saw that the article talked about ETFs and mutual funds and -- knowing even less about the subject matter than the reporter, but recognizing that more readers' eyeballs would be attracted to a headline about mutual funds than to a headline about ETFs -- went with the \"\"shocking\"\" headline about the former. In any case, as you already pointed out, ETFs need to know their value throughout the day, as do the investors in that ETF. Even momentary outages of price sources can be disastrous. Although mutual funds do not generally make transactions throughout the day, and fund investors are not typically interested in the fund's NAV more than once per day, the fund managers don't just sit around all day doing nothing and then press a couple buttons before the market closes. They do watch their NAV very closely during the day and think very carefully about which buttons to press at the end of the day. If their source of stock price data goes offline, then they're impacted almost as severely as -- if less visibly than -- an ETF. Asking Yahoo for prices seems straightforward, but (1) you get what you pay for, and (2) these fund companies are built on massive automated infrastructures that expect to receive their data from a certain source in a certain way at a certain time. (And they pay a lot of money in order to be able to expect that.) It would be quite difficult to just feed in manual data, although in the end I suspect some of these companies did just that. Either they fell back to a secondary data supplier, or they manually constructed datasets for their programs to consume.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c043eae8ce68058c54aca7a490fff9c7",
"text": "I assume you're after a price time series and not a list of S&P 500 constituents? Yahoo Finance is always a reasonable starting point. Code you're after is ^GSPC: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/%5EGSPC/history?p=^GSPC There's a download data button on the right side.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "efd0097229164057ef16b3e11f442cf7",
"text": "The closest I can think of from the back of my head is http://finviz.com/map.ashx, which display a nice map and allows for different intervals. It has different scopes (S&P500, ETFs, World), but does not allow for specific date ranges, though.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7d027612ddcd870c80169012f36ef6d5",
"text": "In general, the short answer is to use SEDAR, the Canadian database that compiles financial statements for Canadian companies. The financial statements for Pacific Rubiales Energy Corp can be found here. The long answer is that the data might be missing because in Canada, each province has their own agency to regulate securities. Yahoo might not compile information from such a wide array of sources. If other countries also have a decentralized system, Yahoo might not take the time to compile financial information from all these sources. There are a myriad of other reasons that could cause this too, however. This is why SEDAR is useful; it 's the Canadian equivalent of the SEC's EDGAR database, and it maintains a sizeable database of financial statements.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b1c3ef346e865a00ed0f22d1e57bf6c2",
"text": "You might have better luck using Quandl as a source. They have free databases, you just need to register to access them. They also have good api's, easier to use than the yahoo api's Their WIKI database of stock prices is curated and things like this are fixed (www.quandl.com/WIKI ), but I'm not sure that covers the London stock exchange. They do, however, have other databases that cover the London stock exchange.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8479415d2f76ac41122f65caeebe24b2",
"text": "Yahoo Finance's Historical Prices section allows you to look up daily historical quotes for any given stock symbol, you don't have to hit a library for this information. Your can choose a desired time frame for your query, and the dataset will include High/Low/Close/Volume numbers. You can then download a CSV version of this report and perform additional analysis in a spreadsheet of your choice. Below is Twitter report from IPO through yesterday: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=TWTR&a=10&b=7&c=2013&d=08&e=23&f=2014&g=d",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ff7f871a450e24d96f85664029365357",
"text": "Investopedia has one and so does marketwatch I've always used marketwatch, and I have a few current competitions going on if you want me to send the link They recently remodeled the website so it works on mobile and not as well on desktop Don't know anything about the investopedia one though",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "420f4726f5eff4d17dbcf18d85d62d3b",
"text": "Google Finance and Yahoo Finance have been transitioning their API (data interface) over the last 3 months. They are currently unreliable. If you're just interested in historical price data, I would recommend either Quandl or Tiingo (I am not affiliated with either, but I use them as data sources). Both have the same historical data (open, close, high, low, dividends, etc.) on a daily closing for thousands of Ticker symbols. Each service requires you to register and get a unique token. For basic historical data, there is no charge. I've been using both for many months and the data quality has been excellent and API (at least for python) is very easy! If you have an inclination for python software development, you can read about the drama with Google and Yahoo finance at the pandas-datareader group at https://github.com/pydata/pandas-datareader.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "efebd66b19b609175d94d25078c301d4",
"text": "Generally, the answer to the availability of holdings of a given mutual fund on a daily basis is no. Thus, an API is non-existent. The reasons for the lack of transparency on a daily basis is that it could/would impact the portfolio managers ability to trade. While this information would not necessarily permit individuals from front running the fund manager's trades, it does give insight in to the market outlook and strategy the fund is employing. The closest you'll be able to get to obtaining a list of holdings is by reading the most recent annual report and the quarterly filings each fund is required to file with the SEC.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
97ada09216d5bb11105f81dc40e9422c
|
Last trade is bought? or sold?
|
[
{
"docid": "3cf826e207e5f01ea2e94f901200987e",
"text": "\"When there is a trade the shares were both bought and sold. In any trade on the secondary market there has to be both a buyer and a seller for the trade to take place. So in \"\"lasttradesize\"\" a buyer has bought the shares from a seller.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "a2e2659fbb6f56f7fab735ca812cc1df",
"text": "\"Assuming that no one else has hit the ask, and the asks are still there, yes, you will fill $54.55 as long as you didn't exhaust that ask. Actually, there is no \"\"current price at which the stock is exchanging hands\"\"; in reality, it is \"\"the last price traded\"\". The somebody who negotiated prices between buyers & sellers is the exchange through their handling of bids & asks. The real negotiation comes between bids & asks, and if they meet or cross, a trade occurs. It's not that both bid & ask should be $54.55, it's that they were. To answer the title, the reasons why the bid and ask (even their midpoint) move away from the last price are largely unknown, but at least for the market makers, if their sell inventory is going away (people are buying heavily and they're running out of inventory) they will start to hike up their asks a lot and their bids a little because market makers try to stay market neutral, having no opinion on whether an asset will rise or fall, so with stocks, that means having a balanced inventory of longs & shorts. They want to (sometimes have to depending on the exchange) accommodate the buying pressure, but they don't want to lose money, so they simply raise the ask and then raise the bid as people hit their asks since their average cost basis has risen. In fact (yahoo finance is great about showing this), there's rarely 1 bid and 1 ask. Take a look at BAC's limit book: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ecn?s=BAC+Order+Book You can see that there are many bids and many asks. If one ask is exhausted, the next in line is now the highest. The market maker who just sold at X will certainly step over the highest bid to bid at X*0.9 to get an 11% return on investment.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "83cd105788a910eaa841c6a840d0b346",
"text": "The same as when you are buying a car. If a dealer quotes 10k and you quote 8k. 8k is the buy price and 10k is the sell price. Somebody might quote 8.5k and another dealer might quote 9.5k. The the new price that you see on your screen is 8.5k(Best buy price) and 9.5k(Best sell price). When the buyer and seller agree to an amount, the car(In your case stock) is traded.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "54de8f950e5eb26faf4845ac8f2c2bc7",
"text": "From your question, I am guessing that you are intending to have stoploss buy order. is the stoploss order is also a buy order ? As you also said, you seems to limit your losses, I am again guessing that you have short position of the stock, to which you are intending to place a buy limit order and buy stoploss order (stoploss helps when when the price tanks). And also I sense that you intend to place buy limit order at the price below the market price. is that the situation? If you place two independent orders (one limit buy and one stoploss buy). Please remember that there will be situation where two orders also get executed due to market movements. Add more details to the questions. it helps to understand the situation and others can provide a strategic solution.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5db2500544c713428b4b849702c8e351",
"text": "In order to see whether you can buy or sell some given quantity of a stock at the current bid price, you need a counterparty (a buyer) who is willing to buy the number of stocks you are wishing to offload. To see whether such a counterparty exists, you can look at the stock's order book, or level two feed. The order book shows all the people who have placed buy or sell orders, the price they are willing to pay, and the quantity they demand at that price. Here is the order book from earlier this morning for the British pharmaceutical company, GlaxoSmithKline PLC. Let's start by looking at the left-hand blue part of the book, beneath the yellow strip. This is called the Buy side. The book is sorted with the highest price at the top, because this is the best price that a seller can presently obtain. If several buyers bid at the same price, then the oldest entry on the book takes precedence. You can see we have five buyers each willing to pay 1543.0 p (that's 1543 British pence, or £15.43) per share. Therefore the current bid price for this instrument is 1543.0. The first buyer wants 175 shares, the next, 300, and so on. The total volume that is demanded at 1543.0p is 2435 shares. This information is summarized on the yellow strip: 5 buyers, total volume of 2435, at 1543.0. These are all buyers who want to buy right now and the exchange will make the trade happen immediately if you put in a sell order for 1543.0 p or less. If you want to sell 2435 shares or fewer, you are good to go. The important thing to note is that once you sell these bidders a total of 2435 shares, then their orders are fulfilled and they will be removed from the order book. At this point, the next bidder is promoted up the book; but his price is 1542.5, 0.5 p lower than before. Absent any further changes to the order book, the bid price will decrease to 1542.5 p. This makes sense because you are selling a lot of shares so you'd expect the market price to be depressed. This information will be disseminated to the level one feed and the level one graph of the stock price will be updated. Thus if you have more than 2435 shares to sell, you cannot expect to execute your order at the bid price in one go. Of course, the more shares you are trying to get rid of, the further down the buy side you will have to go. In reality for a highly liquid stock as this, the order book receives many amendments per second and it is unlikely that your trade would make much difference. On the right hand side of the display you can see the recent trades: these are the times the trades were done (or notified to the exchange), the price of the trade, the volume and the trade type (AT means automatic trade). GlaxoSmithKline is a highly liquid stock with many willing buyers and sellers. But some stocks are less liquid. In order to enable traders to find a counterparty at short notice, exchanges often require less liquid stocks to have market makers. A market maker places buy and sell orders simultaneously, with a spread between the two prices so that they can profit from each transaction. For instance Diurnal Group PLC has had no trades today and no quotes. It has a more complicated order book, enabling both ordinary buyers and sellers to list if they wish, but market makers are separated out at the top. Here you can see that three market makers are providing liquidity on this stock, Peel Hunt (PEEL), Numis (NUMS) and Winterflood (WINS). They have a very unpalatable spread of over 5% between their bid and offer prices. Further in each case the sum total that they are willing to trade is 3000 shares. If you have more than three thousand Dirunal Group shares to sell, you would have to wait for the market makers to come back with a new quote after you'd sold the first 3000.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba35bb7a4512b50fd8ff9c4c03c3af8d",
"text": "You don't see Buying and Selling. You see Bid and Ask. Best Bid--Highest Price someone is willing to pay to buy a stock. Best Ask - Lowest price someone is willing to accept to sell a stock. As for your second question, if you can look up Accumulation/Distribution Algorithm and Iceberg Order, you will get basic idea.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4ea841a886f99c080c0a203878911d1e",
"text": "Market price simply depends on your order side. If you are placing a buy order the market price is the lowest ask, if you are placing a sell order the market price is the highest bid. If your order is larger than the volume then you'd need to also consider the next lowest ask or next highest bid until you've fulfilled your order volume.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "728e392d990ee0646c3ba5fc4c399afe",
"text": "\"You might consider learning how the \"\"matching\"\" or \"\"pairing\"\" system in the market operates. The actual exchange only happens when both a buyer and a seller overlap their respect quotes. Sometimes orders \"\"go to market\"\" for a particular volume. Eg get me 10,000 Microsoft shares now. which means that the price starts at the current lowest seller, and works up the price list until the volume is met. Like all market it trades, it has it's advantages, and it's dangers. If you are confident Microsoft is going to bull, you want those shares now, confident you'll recoup the cost. Where if you put in a priced order, you might get only none or some shares. Same as when you sell. If you see the price (which is the price of the last completed \"\"successful\"\" trade. and think \"\"I'm going to sell 1000 shares\"\". then you give the order to the market (or broker), and then the same as what happened as before. the highest bidder gets as much as they asked for, if there's still shares left over, they go to the next bidder, and so on down the price... and the last completed \"\"successful\"\" trade is when your last sale is made at the lowest price of your batch. If you're selling, and selling 100,000 shares. And the highest bidder wants 1,000,000 shares you'll only see the price drop to that guys bid. Why will it drop (off the quoted price?). Because the quoted price is the LAST sale, clearly if there's someone still with an open bid on the market...then either he wants more shares than were available (the price stays same), or his bid wasn't as high as the last bid (so when you sale goes through, it will be at the price he's offering). Which is why being able to see the price queues is important on large traders. It is also why it can be important put stops and limits on your trades, een through you can still get gapped if you're unlucky. However putting prices (\"\"Open Orders\"\" vs \"\"(at)Market Orders\"\") can mean that you're sitting there waiting for a bounce/spike while the action is all going on without you). safer but not as much gain (maybe ;) ) that's the excitement of the market, for every option there's advantages...and risks... (eg missing out) There are also issues with stock movement, shadowing, and stop hunting, which can influence the price. But the stuff in the long paragraphs is the technical reasons.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1f473b458132ee191e69ad853f17ad66",
"text": "\"In the United States, regulation of broker dealer credit is dictated by Regulation T, that for a non-margin account, 100% of a trade must be funded. FINRA has supplemented that regulation with an anti-\"\"free rider\"\" rule, Rule 4210(f)(9), which reads No member shall permit a customer (other than a broker-dealer or a “designated account”) to make a practice, directly or indirectly, of effecting transactions in a cash account where the cost of securities purchased is met by the sale of the same securities. No member shall permit a customer to make a practice of selling securities with them in a cash account which are to be received against payment from another broker-dealer where such securities were purchased and are not yet paid for. A member transferring an account which is subject to a Regulation T 90-day freeze to another member firm shall inform the receiving member of such 90-day freeze. It is only funds from uncleared sold equities that are prohibited from being used to purchase securities. This means that an equity in one's account that is settled can be sold and can be purchased only with settled funds. Once the amount required to purchase is in excess of the amount of settled funds, no more purchases can be made, so an equity sold by an account with settled funds can be repurchased immediately with the settled funds so long as the settled funds can fund the purchase. Margin A closed position is not considered a \"\"long\"\" or \"\"short\"\" since it is an account with one loan of security and one asset of security and one cash loan and one cash liability with the excess or deficit equity equal to any profit or loss, respectively, thus unexposed to the market, only to the creditworthiness of the clearing & settling chain. Only open positions are considered \"\"longs\"\" or \"\"shorts\"\", a \"\"long\"\" being a possession of a security, and a \"\"short\"\" being a liability, because they are exposed to the market. Since unsettled funds are not considered \"\"longs\"\" or \"\"shorts\"\", they are not encumbered by previous trades, thus only the Reg T rules apply to new and current positions. Cash vs Margin A cash account cannot purchase with unsettled funds. A margin account can. This means that a margin account could theoretically do an infinite amount of trades using unsettled funds. A cash account's daily purchases are restricted to the amount of settled funds, so once those are exhausted, no more purchases can be made. The opposite is true for cash accounts as well. Unsettled securities cannot be sold either. In summation, unsettled assets can not be traded in a cash account.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5736909215adf5d1d035a59be1b91867",
"text": "\"As others have noted, your definition of \"\"market price\"\" is a bit loose. Really whatever price you get becomes the current market price. What you usually get quoted are the current best bid and ask with the last transaction price. For stocks that don't trade much, the last transaction price may not be representative of the current market value. Your question included regulation (\"\"standards bureau\"\"), and I don't think the current answers are addressing that. In the US, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) provides some regulation regarding execution price. It goes by the designation Regulation NMS, and, very roughly, it says that each transaction has to take the best available price at the time that it is executed. There are some subtleties, but that's the gist of it. No regulation ensures that there will be a counterparty to any transaction that you want to make. It could happen, for example, that you have shares of some company that you're never able to sell because no one wants them. (BitCoin is the same in this regard. There is a currently a market for BitCoin, but there's no regulation that ensures there will be a market for it tomorrow.) Outside of the US, I don't know what regulation, if any, exists.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "373870f36e0e786e2363317fec02a8a8",
"text": "In the world of stock exchanges, the result depends on the market state of the traded stock. There are two possibilities, (a) a trade occurs or (b) no trade occurs. During the so-called auction phase, bid and ask prices may overlap, actually they usually do. During an open market, when bid and ask match, trades occur.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "408604a92de5c1ef2ea8333597a02c7b",
"text": "\"A straddle is an options strategy in which one \"\"buys\"\" or \"\"sells\"\" options of the same maturity (expiry date) that allow the \"\"buyer\"\" or \"\"seller\"\" to profit based on how much the price of the underlying security moves, regardless of the direction of price movement. IE: A long straddle would be: You buy a call and a put at the same strike price and the same expiration date. Your profit would be if the underlying asset(the stock) moves far enough down or up(higher then the premiums you paid for the put + call options) (In case, one waits till expiry) Profit = Expiry Level - Strike Price - (Premium Paid for Bought Options) Straddle\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d589182b01015240f2be382c8bbf3cf",
"text": "\"This is a misconception. One of the explanations is that if you buy at the ask price and want to sell it right away, you can only sell at the bid price. This is incorrect. There are no two separate bid and ask prices. The price you buy (your \"\"bid\"\") is the same price someone else sells (their \"\"sell\"\"). The same goes when you sell - the price you sell at is the price someone else buys. There's no spread with stocks. Emphasized it on purpose, because many people (especially those who gamble on stock exchange without knowing what they're doing) don't understand how the stock market works. On the stock exchange, the transaction price is the match between the bid price and the ask price. Thus, on any given transaction, bid always equals ask. There's no spread. There is spread with commodities (if you buy it directly, especially), contracts, mutual funds and other kinds of brokered transactions that go through a third party. The difference (spread) is that third party's fee for assuming part of the risk in the transaction, and is indeed added to your cost (indirectly, in the way you described). These transactions don't go directly between a seller and a buyer. For example, there's no buyer when you redeem some of your mutual fund - the fund pays you money. So the fund assumes certain risk, which is why there's a spread in the prices to invest and to redeem. Similarly with commodities: when you buy a gold bar - you buy it from a dealer, who needs to keep a stock. Thus, the dealer will not buy from you at the same price: there's a premium on sale and a discount on buy, which is a spread, to compensate the dealer for the risk of keeping a stock.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4c23a61f572194b420b110c7a2af7c62",
"text": "\"This is called \"\"change\"\" or \"\"movement\"\" - the change (in points or percentage) from the last closing value. You can read more about the ticker tape on Investopedia, the format you're referring to comes from there.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "796e59cd78f34a9c70642f63ecf4b371",
"text": "\"Buying (or selling) a futures contract means that you are entering into a contractual agreement to buy (or sell) the contracted commodity or financial instrument in the contracted amount (the contract size) at the price you have bought (or sold) the contract on the contract expire date (maturity date). It is important to understand that futures contracts are tradeable instruments, meaning that you are free to sell (or buy back) your contract at any time before the expiry date. For example, if you buy 1 \"\"lot\"\" (1 contract) of a gold future on the Comex exchange for the contract month of December 2016, then you entering into a contract to buy 100 ounces (the contract size) of gold at the price at which you buy the contract - not the spot price on the day of expiry when the contract comes to maturity. The December 2016 gold futures contract has an expiry date of 28 December. You are free to trade this contract at any time before its expiry by selling it back to another market participant. If you sell the contract at a price higher than you have purchased it, then you will realise a profit of 100 times the difference between the price you bought the contract and the price you sold the contract, where 100 is the contract size of the gold contract. Similarly, if you sell the contract at a price lower than the price you have purchased it, then you will realise a loss. (Commissions paid will also effect your net profit or loss). If you hold your contract until the expiry date and exercise your contract by taking (or making) delivery, then you are obliged to buy (or sell) 100 ounces of gold at the price at which you bought (or sold) the contract - not the current spot price. So long as your contract is \"\"open\"\" (i.e., prior to the expiry date and so long as you own the contract) you are required to make a \"\"good faith deposit\"\" to show that you intend to honour your contractual obligations. This deposit is usually called \"\"initial margin\"\". Typically, the initial margin amount will be about 2% of the total contract value for the gold contract. So if you buy (or sell) one contract for 100 ounces of gold at, say, $1275 an ounce, then the total contract value will be $127,500 and your deposit requirement would be about $2,500. The initial margin is returned to you when you sell (or buy) back your futures contract, or when you exercise your contract on expiry. In addition to initial margin, you will be required to maintain a second type of margin called \"\"variation margin\"\". The variation margin is the running profit or loss you are showing on your open contract. For the sake of simplicity, lets look only at the case where you have purchased a futures contract. If the futures price is higher than your contract (buy) price, then you are showing a profit on your current position and this profit (the variation margin) will be used to offset your initial margin requirement. Conversely, if the futures price has dropped below your contracted (buy) price, then you will be showing a loss on your open position and this loss (the variation margin) will be added to your initial margin and you will be called to put up more money in order to show good faith that you intend to honour your obligations. Note that neither the initial margin nor the variation margin are accounting items. In other words, these are not postings that are debited or credited to the ledger in your trading account. So in some sense \"\"you don't have to pay anything upfront\"\", but you do need to put up a refundable deposit to show good faith.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0fcc289f55e8fd85bb987f6f218ff4fe",
"text": "If you are solvent enough, and organised enough to pay your credit card bill in full each month, then use the credit card. There are no disadvantages and several plus points, already mentioned. Use the debit card when you would be surcharged for using the credit card, or where you can negotiate a discount for not subjecting the vendor to credit card commission.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ce6b2acae7491e3fc500e66adc438512
|
What kinds of information do financial workers typically check on a daily basis?
|
[
{
"docid": "2011683a7282591b7487b02e7d336fa2",
"text": "I think it depends where you live in the world, but I guess the most common would be: Major Equity Indices I would say major currency exchange rate: And have a look at the Libors for USD and EUR. I guess the intent of the question is more to see how implicated you are in the daily market analysis, not really to see if you managed to learn everything by heart in the morning.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc630ecd66dc499dc67deceaf82681ed",
"text": "\"In addition to the information in the other answer, I would suggest looking at an economic calendar. These provide the dates and values of many economic announcements, e.g. existing home sales, durable orders, consumer confidence, etc. Yahoo, Bloomberg, and the Wall Street Journal all provide such calendars. Yahoo provides links to the raw data where available; Bloomberg and the WSJ provide links to their article where appropriate. You could also look at a global economic calendar; both xe.com and livecharts.co.uk provide these. If you're only interested in the US, the Yahoo, Bloomberg, and WSJ calendars may provide a higher signal-to-noise ratio, but foreign announcements also affect US markets, so it's important to get as much perspective as possible. I like the global economic calendars I linked to above because they rate announcements on \"\"priority\"\", which is a quick way to learn which announcements have the greatest effect. Economic calendars are especially important in the context of an interview because you may be asked a follow-up question. For example, the US markets jumped in early trading today (5/28/2013) because the consumer confidence numbers exceeded forecasts (from the WSJ calendar, 76.2 vs 2.3). As SRKX stated, it's important to know more than the numbers; being able to analyze the numbers in the context of the wider market and being aware of the fundamentals driving them is what's most important. An economic calendar is a good way to see this information quickly and succinctly. (I'm paraphrasing part of my answer to another question, so you may or may not find some of that information helpful as well; I'm certainly not suggesting you look at the website of every central bank in the morning. That's what an economic calendar is for!)\"",
"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": "9b42ee8b333f4eda0048aaa07d6c5a1c",
"text": "Edgar Online is the SEC's reporting repository where public companies post their forms, these forms contain financial data Stock screeners allow you to compare many companies based on many financial metrics. Many sites have them, Google Finance has one with a decent amount of utility",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1215709f7759651dfa4fa316b87bc917",
"text": "The websites of the most publicly traded companies publish their quarterly and annual financials. Check the investor relations sections out at the ones you want to look at.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "25ef0b9b824fa8eae7d0213073362469",
"text": "Yeah his card doesn't explain much, but I'm guessing he'll explain everything at the interview. Im more so interested in if there was anything that could be known universally amongst financial jobs that would be beneficial to know. I'm extremely organized and my interpersonal skills I think are what got me the opportunity in the first place, but I'm jw if there are any key financial terms/ processes that would help me go above and beyond.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a4c651b113f4bbcad8715b0faeacc2df",
"text": "This is interesting. The application I'm putting together is more along the lines of automating the research process for a financial professional using a personal algorithm of his. The end goal is to provide him an alert to email when a new report is filed and if his criteria are met based on that report and past reports. Thanks anyway.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "39efebb7c6e866b8c97268e70ed69f1e",
"text": "I'm trying to organize my financial papers as well. I have a Fujitsu ScanSnap and it's tearing through my papers like a hot knife through butter (i.e. awesome). Here's how I'm addressing organizing the paper. I'm organizing mine a little bit organically. Here are the main parts: So anyway, all that to say that it's not necessary to organize the files to the hilt. If you want to, that's fine too, but it's a tradeoff: up-front organization for possibly some time savings later. The search function available is decreasing the advantage of organizing your files carefully. If throwing all of your files in a digital pile makes your skin crawl, then I won't force you otherwise, but I'm not worried about it for the time being. What you're doing with the other tracking sounds fine to me. Others may have different insights there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0507b77c98c3fcf6da71fa48b8d2b9c8",
"text": "My bank will let me download credit card transactions directly into a personal finance program, and by assigning categories to stores I can get at least a rough overview of that sidd of things, and then adjust categories/splits when needed. Ditto checks. Most of my spending is covered by those. Doesn't help with cash transactions, though; if I want to capture those accurately I need to save receipts. There are ocr products which claim to help capture those; haven't tried them. Currently, since my spending is fairly stable, I'm mostly leaving those as unknown; that wouldn't work for you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f0e9db69eef27c1bdf95c462af1dc428",
"text": "Bloomberg Professional seems to be very popular. It provides any kind of data you can imagine. Analysis is a subjective interpretation of the data.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f560d0543b1e788b8411f60aa7523c2b",
"text": "Got a degree in finance and I'll talk about simple ways to really improve your learning experience: excel will be your best friend. Get comfortable with it. Learn; pivot tables, formulas, formatting, and macros. Learn to type at a decent speed. Many students still type slow. It will hinder you Current events is the best way to stay informed. Always be reading up on business information. Pretty much twice a day. Join a free stock market game and track how you do. Get on it twice a week and make trades frequent based on what you think. I can elaborate more if you have any more questions !",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c26a5e2dddf7b541aa164a827c226383",
"text": "This is a daily paper released by 1lamp1. It contains all current news events relative to Business but not the ones you would usually expect. Once you have read it you will not want to be without it You can follow 1lamp1 on Twitter – 1lamp1",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "90f3ac4042a941d61e7a35f1938326dc",
"text": "\"The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) publishes these and other relevant data on their Statistics page, in the \"\"Treasury & Agency\"\" section. The volume spreadsheet contains annual and monthly data with bins for varying maturities. These data only go back as far as January 2001 (in most cases). SIFMA also publishes treasury issuances with monthly data for bills, notes, bonds, etc. going back as far as January 1980. Most of this information comes from the Daily Treasury Statements, so that's another source of specific information that you could aggregate yourself. Somewhere I have a parser for the historical data (since the Treasury doesn't provide it directly; it's only available as daily text files). I'll post it if I can find it. It's buried somewhere at home, I think.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "77ecf212f4efc907eee18d547f3912ca",
"text": "No career advice or homework help (unless your homework is some kind of big project and you need an explanation on a concept). I want to see financial news, legislation concerning the markets and regulation, self posts about financial concepts, opinion articles about finance from reputable sources, etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d24544b24a78a804b1c491efb8fba0e1",
"text": "Aside from the averages mentioned by Jahlapenoez, it may also be useful to group depositors into different categories based on account size and transaction history (# of deposits, # of withdrawals, size of each, etc.) then track how those numbers change on whatever time periods you need to capture. Analysts can use that to see what's going on with outliers as well and assign profitability metrics for the different groupings. It really helps to have the data structured in a way that allows analysts to ask these questions and retrieve them easily. So the data discovery process will be helped or hindered a lot by the maturity of the bank's data warehouse as well as the tools used for data analysis.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a55c561f1b764a53cd32c5d652555a73",
"text": "This is correct. The most rapidly expanding areas in finance resemble computer science more than they resemble traditional finance. The compliance and legal side of things, however, is only getting more and more complicated. At my firm, the compliance personnel outnumber the traders three to one.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5571f9036e7c42555e0de2cabec4d54d",
"text": "I work for a hedge fund, not wealth management, but I assume that client information is treated similarly. Misplacing it is a huge deal. The company will probably need to formally investigate it and inform all the clients involved. Even if they can prove that no one looked at the information it's going to make clients question the company's procedures. I could see it being a firing offense,depending on how many clients were affected and the nature of the data. Sorry if that's not what you wanted to hear.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f5f54af20589d8b843e3019749c8be70",
"text": "Theoretically, it could be daily, but depending upon the number of companies in the index, it could be anywhere between daily or once a month or so. Apart from that, there is a periodic index review that happens once every quarter. The methodology for each index is also different, and you need to be aware of it (we had positions on literally hundreds of indices, and I knew the methodology of almost each of them). If you have say, 2 billion dollars tracking a certain index, even a miniscule change in the composition would be substantial for you. But for certain others, you may just need to buy and sell $10k worth of stocks, and we would not even bother.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
45370fd29206eaecc669b8b4fe715135
|
My Co-Signer is the Primary Account Holder for my Car Loan - Does this affect my credit?
|
[
{
"docid": "87201af6685b597d3ff47bfff8ea40fd",
"text": "It sounds like your father got a loan and you are making the payments. If your name and SSN are not on the loan then you are not getting credit for making the payments your father is. So it will not affect your credit. If you are on the loan as a secondary borrower it will affect your credit but not substantially on the positive but could affect it substantially on the negative side. Since your father is named as the primary borrower you will probably need to talk with him about it first. If this is a mistake the 2 of you will need to work together with the bank to get it corrected. Since your father is currently listed first the bank is probably going to be unable(even if they are willing) to make a change to the loan now with out his explicit permission. In addition if the loan is in your fathers name, if it is a vehicle loan, then the car is most likely in your fathers name as well. Most states require that the primary signatory on a vehicle loan also be the primary owner on the title to the vehicle. If your fathers name is the primary name on the title then you would have to retitle the car to refinance in your name.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "56b3f2e8678f37a2950221facf30df56",
"text": "Is it difficult to ask the credit card issuer for two cards, even if the account belongs to one person? You can most definitely get two cards for one account. People do it all the time. You just have to add her on as an authorized user. Would it be better for me to apply for the card on my own, or would there be an advantage to having her co-sign? It depends. If she co-signed, then that means she is also responsible for the credit card payments - which can help her credit score. If its is just you applying, then you are the only one responsible. If you don't want her lower credit score to impact what you could be approved for, then only you should apply. However, if you are the sole account holder, then you are responsible for the payments, which means, if in the event you guys break up and she maxes out the card before you cancel it, then you are on the hook for what she spend. As for improving her credit score, I do know that some banks report to the credit bureaus for the authorized user as well, so that could help her out too.",
"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": "be2d7fa01fe5a2e48f5e6a4a268f77ab",
"text": "\"You are co-signer on his car loan. You have no ownership (unless the car is titled in both names). One option (not the best, see below) is to buy the car from him. Arrange your own financing (take over his loan or get a loan of your own to pay him for the car). The bank(s) will help you take care of getting the title into your name. And the bank holding the note will hold the title as well. Best advice is to get with him, sell the car. Take any money left after paying off the loan and use it to buy (cash purchase, not finance) a reliable, efficient, used car -- if you truly need a car at all. If you can get to work by walking, bicycling or public transit, you can save thousands per year, and perhaps use that money to start you down the road to \"\"financial independence\"\". Take a couple of hours and research this. In the US, we tend to view cars as necessary, but this is not always true. (Actually, it's true less than half the time.) Even if you cannot, or choose not to, live within bicycle distance of work, you can still reduce your commuting cost by not financing, and by driving a fuel efficient vehicle. Ask yourself, \"\"Would you give up your expensive vehicle if it meant retiring years earlier?\"\" Maybe as many as ten years earlier.\"",
"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": "d90b5501dc00d0d5a1a79c878c6279d1",
"text": "Several factors are considered in loans as significant as a home mortgage. I believe the most major factors are 1) Credit report, 2) Income, and 3) Employment status If you borrow jointly, all joint factors are included, not just the favorable ones. Some wrinkles this can cause may include: Credit Report - The second person on the loan may have poor credit or no credit. This can/will hurt your rate or even prevent them from being listed on the loan at all, which will also mean you can't include their income. In addition, there are future consequences: that any late payments, default, foreclosure, etc. will be listed on all borrower's reports. If you both have solid work history, great credit, and want to jointly own the home, then there shouldn't be any negatives. If this is not the case, compare both cases (fully, not just rates, as some agents could sneakily say you can get the same rate either way but then not tell you closing costs in one scenario are higher), and pick the one that is best overall. This is just information from my recollection so make sure to verify and ask plenty of questions, don't go forward on assumptions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "06b62f2e839c4409e58c08dab7ad9f74",
"text": "1) How long have you had the car? Generally, accounts that last more than a year are kept on your credit report for 7 years, while accounts that last less than a year are only kept about 2 years (IIRC - could someone correct me if that last number is wrong?). 2) Who is the financing through? If it's through a used car dealer, there's a good chance they're not even reporting it to the credit bureaus (I had this happen to me; the dealer promised he'd report the loan so it would help my credit, I made my payments on time every time, and... nothing ever showed up. It pissed me off, because another positive account on my credit report would have really helped my score). Banks and brand name dealers are more likely to report the loan. 3) What are your expected long term gains on the stocks you're considering selling, and will you have to pay capital gains on them when you do sell them? The cost of selling those stocks could possibly be higher than the gain from paying off the car, so you'll want to run the numbers for a couple different scenarios (optimistic growth, pessimistic, etc) and see if you come out ahead or not. 4) Are there prepayment penalties or costs associated with paying off the car loan early? Most reputable financiers won't include such terms (or they'll only be in effect during the first few months of the loan), but again it depends on who the loan is through. In short: it depends. I know people hate hearing answers like that, but it's true :) Hopefully though, you'll be able to sit down and look at the specifics of your situation and make an informed decision.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e47987fedce704887117e8a35ac05629",
"text": "\"Credit reports have line items that, if all is well, say \"\"paid as agreed.\"\" A car loan almost certainly gets reported. In your case it probably says the happy \"\"paid as agreed.\"\" It will continue to say that if you pay it off in full. You can get the happy \"\"paid as agreed\"\" from a credit card too. You can get it by paying the balance by the due date every month, or paying the mininum, or anything in between, on time. But you'll blow less money in interest if you pay each bill in full each month. You don't have to carry a balance. In the US you can get a free credit report once a year from each of the three credit bureaus. Here's the way to do that with minimal upsell/cross-sell hassles. https://www.annualcreditreport.com/ In your situation you'd probably be smart to ask for a credit report every four months (from each bureau in turn) so you can see how things are going. They don't give you your FICO score for free, but you don't really care about that until you're going for a big loan, like for a condo. It might be good to take a look at one of those free credit reports real soon, as you prepare to close out your car loan. If you need other loans, consider working with a credit union. They sometimes offer better interest rates, and they often are diligent about making credit bureau reports for their good customers; they help you build credit. You mentioned wanting to cut back on insurance coverage. It's a worthy goal, but it's generally called \"\"self-insuring\"\" in the business. If you cancel your collision coverage and then wreck your car, you absorb the cost of replacing it. So think about your personal ability to handle that kind of risk.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "02c78bcfa77c8f9dce19cef17e2a50db",
"text": "It will not affect your tax bracket so long as he files his taxes. It will not affect your credit negatively so long as the joint account takes out no debts. If it does take out debts, then someone would need to pay them to avoid negative credit. Ideally debts should take signatures from both of you (ask the bank). The IRS will not automatically assume that the only reason that two people might have a joint account is illegal activities. If he withdraws money from the account in such a way to cause an overdraft, you might be responsible for it. However, it sounds like he isn't supposed to be withdrawing money from that account. So that's a potential problem but not a guaranteed problem. Make sure that you have the power to close the account without him (so if you break up later, you can take your name off unilaterally). Realize that you might have to pay a little to close the account if he overdraws it. If possible, have the bank refuse overdrafts. Consider a savings account rather than a checking account. The rules may better fit what you want to do. In particular, if you are limited to transfers, that's safer than checks. Schedule a time to talk to someone at the bank about the account. Ask them to leave plenty of time because you have questions. Explain what you want and let them tell you how to structure the account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "76384f87eaa0952d8425ce9d84c3dd45",
"text": "\"You have figured out most of the answers for yourself and there is not much more that can be said. From a lender's viewpoint, non-immigrant students applying for car loans are not very good risks because they are going to graduate in a short time (maybe less than the loan duration which is typically three years or more) and thus may well be leaving the country before the loan is fully paid off. In your case, the issue is exacerbated by the fact that your OPT status is due to expire in about one year's time. So the issue is not whether you are a citizen, but whether the lender can be reasonably sure that you will be gainfully employed and able to make the loan payments until the loan is fully paid off. Yes, lenders care about work history and credt scores but they also care (perhaps even care more) about the prospects for steady employment and ability to make the payments until the loan is paid off. Yes, you plan on applying for a H1-B visa but that is still in the future and whether the visa status will be adjusted is still a matter with uncertain outcome. Also, these are not matters that can be explained easily in an on-line application, or in a paper application submitted by mail to a distant bank whose name you obtained from some list of \"\"lenders who have a reliable track record of extending auto loans to non-permanent residents.\"\" For this reason, I suggested in a comment that you consider applying at a credit union, especially if there is an Employees' Credit Union for those working for your employer. If you go this route, go talk to a loan officer in person rather than trying to do this on the phone. Similarly, a local bank,and especially one where you currently have an account (hopefully in good standing), is more likely to be willing to work with you. Failing all this, there is always the auto dealer's own loan offers of financing. Finally, one possibility that you might want to consider is whether a one-year lease might work for you instead of an outright purchase, and you can buy a car after your visa issue has been settled.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "512d7c4e1f8831007a9b824440f78073",
"text": "Only if (or to put it even more bluntly, when) they default. If your friend / brother / daughter / whoever needs a cosigner on a loan, it means that people whose job it is to figure out whether or not that loan is a good idea have decided that it isn't. By co-signing, you're saying that you think you know better than the professionals. If / when the borrower defaults, the lender won't pursue them for the loan if you can pay it. You're just as responsible for the loan payments as the original borrower, and given that you were a useful co-signer, probably much more likely to be able to come up with the money. The lender has no reason to go after the original borrower, and won't. If you can't pay, the lender comes after both of you. To put it another way: Don't think of cosigning as helping them get a loan. Think of it as taking out a loan and re-loaning it to them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1be205a66cc2223a2ca6a8586e4ef545",
"text": "I have to second what the poster said above me. The person at the dealership is outright lying to you, and I really don't know where the misconception comes from. I work in finance and specialize in credit. Credit is your ability to repay. Simple as that. To lenders, constant carrying a balance on your credit cards looks like your don't have the ability/discipline to repay your debt and will look bad in the future if you are ever trying to borrow more.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab26a4fd6f538c04bfc2f5b70df5e51d",
"text": "Personally, I don't think that the interest from the car loan is worth the credit history you're building through it. There are other ways to build credit that don't require you to pay interest, like the credit card you mentioned (so long as you keep paying off the balance). So I'd go that route: ditch the auto loan and replace it with a line of consumer credit. Just be careful not to overspend because the card will likely have a higher interest rate than your loan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c1e070296b81b6c3baa14905b3d3a636",
"text": "Generally if there are enough details, they would match this up with your loan account and pass appropriate credit. The worst that can happen is; In either case, watch your Loan account statement and it should show you the credit. If this does not then ask the company and they should be able to trace it and rectify. Under no scenario you would lose money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1a914e12c374ee70e913e72ea1fc9d9e",
"text": "There may be issue if you need a replacement card, as the bank may not be willing to post the card to you outside of the UK.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
40a5dee1d58f07e5ea79e117f83dd363
|
Do governments support their own bonds when their value goes down?
|
[
{
"docid": "2f8cad6ee9f617527d2b37879cb2660b",
"text": "Companies do not support their stock. Once the security is out on the wild (market), its price fluctuates according to what investors think they are worth. Support is a whole different concept, financially speaking: Support or support level refers to the price level below which, historically, a stock has had difficulty falling. It is the level at which buyers tend to enter the stock. So it is the lowest assumed price for that stock. Once it reaches its price, buyers will rush to the stock, raising its price. The company wants to keep the stock price at acceptable levels, as it can be seen as the general view of the company's health. Also several employees/executives in the company have stock or stock options, so it is in their interest to keep their stock price up. A bond that goes down in value may indicate a believe the bond issuer (government in this case) won't honor the bond when it matures. As for bonds, there is a wealth of reading in this site: Can someone explain how government bonds work? Who sets the prices on government bonds? Basic understanding of bonds, values, rates and yields",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7bd114ba8024fb450b6316413d117d97",
"text": "who issued stock typically support it when the stock price go down. No, not many company do that as it is uneconomical for them to do so. Money used up in buying back equity is a wasteful use of a firm's capital, unless it is doing a buyback to return money to shareholders. Does the same thing happen with government bonds? Not necessarily again here. Bond trading is very different from equities trading. There are conditions specified in the offer document on when an issuer can recall bonds(to jack up the price of an oversold bond), even government bonds have them. The actions of the government has a bigger ripple effect as compared to a firm. The government can start buying back bonds to increase it's price, but it will stoke inflation because of the increase in the supply of money in the market, which may or mayn't be desirable. Then again people holding the bond would have to incentivized to sell the bond. Even during the Greek fiasco, the Greek government wasn't buying Greek bonds as it had no capital to buy. Printing more euros wasn't an option as no assets to back the newly printed money and the ECB would have stopped them from being accepted. And generally buying back isn't useful, because they have to return the principal(which might run into billions, invested in long term projects by the government and cannot be liquidated immediately) while servicing a bond is cheaper and investing the proceeds from the bond sale is more useful while being invested in long term projects. The government can just roll over the bonds with a new issue and refrain from returning the capital till it is in a position to do so.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "13ede27f0c9b40ca18f3c17d00ab7071",
"text": "Without getting to hung-up on terminology here, the management of a company will often attempt to keep stock prices high because of a number of reasons: Ideally companies keep prices up through performance. In some cases, you'll see companies do other things spending cash and/or issuing bonds to continue to pay dividends (e.g. IBM), or spending cash and/or issuing bonds to pay for stock buybacks (e.g. IBM). These methods can work for a time but are not sustainable and will often be seen as acts of desperation. Companies that have a solid plan for growth will typically not do much of anything to directly change stock prices. Bonds are a bit different because they have a fairly straight-forward valuation model based on the fact that they pay out a fixed amount per month. The two main reason prices in bonds go down are: The key here is that bonds pay out the same thing per month regardless of their price or the price of other bonds available. Most stocks do not pay any dividend and for much of those that do, the main factor as to whether you make or lose money on them is the stock price. The price of bonds does matter to governments, however. Let's say a country successfully issued some 10 year bonds last year at the price of 1000. They pay 1% per month (to keep the math simple.) Every month, they pay out $10 per bond. Then some (stupid) politicians start threatening to default on bond payments. The bond market freaks and people start trying to unload these bonds as fast as they can. The going price drops to $500. Next month, the payments are the same. The coupon rate on the bonds has not changed at all. I'm oversimplifying here but this is the core of how bond prices work. You might be tempted to think that doesn't matter to the country but it does. Now, this same country wants to issue some more bonds. It wants to get that 1% rate again but it can't. Why would anyone pay $1000 for a 1% (per month) bond when they can get the exact same bond with (basically) the same risks for $500? Instead they have to offer a 2% (per month) rate in order to match the market price. A government (or company) could in fact put money into the bond market to bolster the price of it's bonds (i.e. keep the rates down.) The problem is that if you are issuing bonds, it's generally (caveats apply) because you need cash that you don't have so what money are you going to use to buy these bonds? Or in other words, it doesn't make sense to issue bonds and then simply plow the cash gained from that issuance back into the same bonds you are issuing. The options here are a bit more limited. I have to mention though that the US government (via a quasi-governmental entity) did actually buy it's own bonds. This policy of Quantitative Easing (QE) was done for more complicated reasons than simply keeping the price of bonds up.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "98b361fce03eb6c8c2291c71e74e3e5e",
"text": "Sure thing - Treasuries Bonds/Bills are what the US Gov uses to borrow. However it's slightly different than taking out a loan. It's basically an agreement to give (repay) a set sum of money at a certain time in the future in exchange for a sum of funding that's determined by market forces (supply & demand). The difference between today's price and the payment in the future is the interest. For example (completely made up numbers): - Today is 08/05/2017 - The government issues a bond that say it will pay who ever owns this bond $105 on 08/05/**2018** - The market decides that $105 from the US government paid a year from now is worth $100 today. In other words the US Government is borrowing for one year at a rate of 5% (105 - 100) / 100 = .05 = 5% Now consider Saudi Arabia's petroleum company, Aramco. Because petroleum is traded in dollars, when Aramco makes a sale, its paid in USD. Some of that is going to be reinvested into the company, some paid out in dividends to share holders but inevitably some of that will be saved someplace where it can make interest. Because treasuries are traded/issued in dollars and because Aramco's businesses deals primarily in dollars, treasuries are the natural place to store that savings, especially because the market considers them extremely safe. If they exchange the USD into the Saudi currency to store the money in Saudi assets, Aramco is subject to *exchange rate risk*. If the riyal depreciates relative to the dollar, Aramco will lose wealth on the exchange back to dollars when they go to move those funds back into their business. It's in their interest to deal with assets denominated in USD (i.e. T-Bonds) in order to avoid this. So now because the Saudis want T-Bonds as well, the additional demand pushes the market price of our bond from $100 to $102. And the effective one year borrowing rate for the Government goes from 5% to 2.9%. (105 - 102)/102 = .029411 = 2.9% And there you have it, cheaper borrowing. It's also worth noting how this encourages business around the world to deal in dollars which are directly controlled by the federal reserve. This makes the US's position extremely powerful.",
"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": "7e087c06ec9a617707d80075a5f8175b",
"text": "It depends on what actions the European Central Bank (ECB) takes. If it prints Euros to bail out the country then your Euros will decline in value. Same thing with a US state going bankrupt. If the FED prints dollars to bailout a state it will set a precedent that other states can spend carelessly and the FED will be there to bail them out by printing money. If you own bonds issued by the bankrupting state then you could lose some of your money if the country is not bailed out.",
"title": ""
},
{
"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": "37e3a40c3110ead79b3ce6cf7e63ac5e",
"text": "\"This is an easy question - The US government has demonstrated, repeatedly, that it **will** bail out the \"\"established\"\" auto industry. Tesla is very very cool, and may well bury the rest of the auto industry eventually, but they're not viewed as \"\"too big to fail\"\". Thus, Ford's bonds, even if *practically* \"\"junk\"\", are essentially backed by US Treasury; that's a pretty good deal, if you're looking for ultra low risk.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b33cbf727f004a084bf7f74b3a932a74",
"text": "\"Bingo, great question. I'm not the original poster, \"\"otherwiseyep\"\", but I am in the economics field (I'm a currency analyst for a Forex broker). I also happen to strongly disagree with his posts on the origin of money. To answer your question: the villagers are forced to use the new notes by their government, which demands that their income taxes be paid with the new currency. This is glossed over by otherwiseyep, which is unfortunate because it misleads people who are new to economics into believing the system of fiat money we have now is natural/emergent (created from the bottom-up) and not enforced from the top-down. Legal tender laws enforced in each nation's courts mean that all contracts can be settled in the local fiat currency, regardless of whether the receiver of the money wants a different currency. These laws (and the income tax) create an artificial \"\"root demand\"\" for the fiat currency, which is what gives it its value. We don't just *decide* that green paper has value. We are forced to accumulate it by the government. Fiat currencies are not money. We call them money, but in fact they are credit derivatives. Let me explain: A currency's value is inextricably tied to the nation's bond market. When investors buy a nation's bonds, they are loaning that nation money. The investor expects to receive interest payments on the bonds. The interest rate naturally rises as the bonds are perceived to be more-risky, and naturally falls as the bonds are perceived to be less-risky. The risk comes from the fact that governments sometimes get really close to not being able to pay their interest payments. They get into so much debt, and their tax-revenue shrinks as their economy worsens. That drives up the interest rate they must pay when they issue new bonds (ie add debt). So the value of a currency comes from tax revenue (interest payments). If a government misses an interest payment, or doesn't fully pay it, the market considers this a \"\"credit event\"\" and investors sell their bonds and freak out. Selling bonds has the effect of driving interest rates even higher, so it's a vicious cycle. If the government defaults, there's massive deflation because all debt denominated in that currency suddenly skyrockets due to the higher interest rates. This creates a chain of cascading defaults - one person defaults, which leads another person, and another, and so on. Everyone was in debt to everyone else, somewhere along the chain. In order to counteract this deflation (which ultimately leads to the kind of depression you saw in 1930's US), governments will print print print, expanding the credit supply via the banks. So this is what you see happening today - banks are constantly being bailed out all over the Western world, governments are cutting programs to be able to meet their interest payments, and central banks are expanding credit supplies and bailing out their buddies. Real money has ZERO counterparty risk. What is counterparty risk? It's just the risk that the guy who owes you something won't honor his debt. Gold and silver and salt and oil aren't IOU's. So they can be real money.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a62c1a1a6e6730478c6baf65f0c70e36",
"text": "\"If Illinois cannot go bankruptcy This is missing a few, very important words, \"\"...under current law.\"\" The United States changed the law so as to allow Puerto Rico to go into a form of bankruptcy. So you cannot rely on a lack of legal support for bankruptcy to protect any bond investments you might make in Illinois. It is entirely possible for the federal government to add a law enabling a state to discharge its debts through a bankruptcy process. That's why the bonds have been downgraded. They are still fine now, but that could change at any time. I don't want to dive too deep into the politics on this stack, but I could quite easily see a bargain between US President Donald Trump and Democrats in Congress where he agreed to special privileges for pension debts owed to former employees in exchange for full discharge of all other debts. That would lead to a complete loss of value for the bonds that you are considering. There still seem to be other options now, but they seem to be getting closer and closer to that.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d996dffe8ff062a55256fe700838aff1",
"text": "\"Usually when the government defaults, the currency gets devalued. So as a debtor, that's a good thing -- your debt gets devalued. The \"\"catch\"\" is that your income and buying power is also devalued. So unless you happen to own the type of assets that become more valuable during those circumstances (real property, farms, utilities, certain industrial things, etc) you're looking at tough times ahead.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b6750598140bf9aaf3175d376b470278",
"text": "How would you compute the earnings for governments that are some of the main issuers of bonds and debt? When governments run deficits they would have a negative earnings ratio that makes the calculation quite hard to evaluate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c480cc34018d4f6ac8d9e295e42efa98",
"text": "It is different this time. But I think the risk of asset prices rising is almost as equal as them falling. QE caused asset price inflation, but QE was only to calm/support the market. They're probably not going to stuff that QE money back into the central bank for a very long time either. Maybe, they'll just keep rolling over the bonds out to maturity, while relying on deficits to inflate away the assets at the Fed. https://youtu.be/o8LAUQwv77Q My bet is the main risks going forward are political risks, and continued modest inflation among things not measured by CPI.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d37196a48b37a2316c05a349ab0af9cf",
"text": "\"So how does one of these get set up exactly? If a private company wants to backstop their ability to repay bond obligations with public funds, doesn't an agreement like that have to go through something like a city council meeting before it's approved? If it does, and that happened in these cases, then the municipalities made a bad decision on an \"\"investment\"\" that included some level of risk, just like any other investment they make. If it doesn't work out, it shouldn't be a surprise who's on the hook for the payment.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "97d48afb79e4ae56b8d2b14a65b44ce4",
"text": "There is a large market where notes/bills/bonds are traded, so yes you can sell them later. However, if interest rates go up, the value of any bond that you want to sell goes down, because you now have to compete with what someone can get on a new issue, so you need to 'discount' the principal value of your bond in order for someone to want to buy it instead of a new bond that has a higher interest rate. The reverse applies if interest rates fall (although it's hard to get much lower than they are now). So someone wanting to make money in bonds due to interest rate changes, generally wants to buy at higher interest rates, and then sell their bonds after rates have gone down. See my answer in this question for more detail Why does interest rate go up when bond price goes down? To answer 'is that good' the answer depends on perspective:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4b4ac6d21b3e809e741841ba81cd1cf1",
"text": "This article is 100% incorrect. The governments main concern is to PREVENT depositors and tax payers from losing funds in the case of bank default. How? By having debt holders being forced to converted into equity to create a capital buffer to keep a bank solvent which will help protect depositors and prevent tax payers from having to bail the banks out. Please ask me more questions on this as I have done a lot of work on this topic as of late.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b5482cbff8fcd2891bf54fedfd90023",
"text": "The math that works at the nation-scale doesn't work the same for an individual or even smaller companies (even though larger companies actually dwarf many whole *countries*). So while US Treasuries are a good investment for many foreign governments, that isn't universally true for all investors.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc3566ab57f88d8d038aa825c268d2a6",
"text": "I always find this funny. How can government bonds be in attractive and currency be attractive? With monetary policy America guarantees that it can't default on debt. The only thing that can happen which breaks this is if the government prints itself out of debt. In which case not only will you bonds be worthless but so will your cash. So to all the investors with boats of cash, you are trading one problem for the same problem. The only difference is you can hold the second problem in your hands. Fools.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a8c7e2f72b284361a53b48eb3fc0c21e
|
Equity market inflow meaning
|
[
{
"docid": "a46c33002c40f62862d7f5150d43ce12",
"text": "Suppose I purchase $10,000 worth of a particular share today. If the person(s) I am purchasing the shares from paid $9,000 for those shares, then I replacing their $9,000 investment with my $10,000 investment. This is a net inflow of $1,000 into the market. Similarly, if the person(s) I am purchasing the shares from paid $11,000 for those shares, then their $11,000 investment is being replace by my $10,000 investment. This is a net outflow of $1,000 out of the market. The aggregate of all such inflows and outflows in the net inflow/outflow into the market over a given period of time. (Here we are ignoring the effects of new share issues.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "840670b05e19d04c14f40f93e6b87831",
"text": "If for every buyer, there's a seller, doesn't that also mean that there were $25B in outflows in the same time period? Yes for every buyer there is a seller. The inflows are not being talked in that respect. about there being $25B in inflows to US equity markets since the election...what does that mean? Lets say the index was at X. After a month the index is at X+100. So lets say there are only 10 companies listed. So if the Index has moved X to X+100, then share price S1 has moved to S1+d1. So if you sum all such shares/trades that have increased in value, you will get what in inflow. In the same period there could be some shares that have lost value. i.e. the price or another share was S2 and has moved to S2-d2. The sum of all such shares/trades that have decreased in value, you will get outflow. The terms are Gross outflow, Gross inflow. In Net terms for a period, it can only be Inflow or outflow; depending on the difference between inflow and outflow. The stats are done day to day and aggregated for the time period required. So generally if the index has increased, it means there is more inflow and less outflow. At times this analysis is also done on segments, FI's inflow is more compared to outflow or compared to inflow of NBFI or Institutional investors or Foreign participants etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b75f0705566b077e94ec8e033f33d09e",
"text": "Inflows to the US equity market can come from a variety of sources; for instance: You were paid a year-end bonus and decided to invest it in US equities instead of foreign equities, bonds, savings or debt reduction. You sold foreign equities, bonds, or other non-US equities and decided to invest in US equities. You decided a better use of cash in a savings account, CD or money market fund, was to invest in US equities. If for every buyer, there's a seller, doesn't that also mean that there were $25B in outflows in the same time period? Not necessarily. Generally, the mentions we see of inflows and outflows are net; that is, the gross investment in US equities, minus gross sales of US equities equals net inflows or outflows. The mere fact that I sold my position in, say, Caterpillar, doesn't mean that I had to re-invest in US equities. I may have bought a bond or a CD or a house. Because of fluctuations in existing stocks market value, bankruptcies and new issues, US equities never are and never will be a zero-sum game.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "0d004b1d7e0b8e2309af0ee4e6b08f4d",
"text": "Volumes are used to predict momentum of movement, not the direction of it. Large trading volumes generally tend to create a price breakout in either positive or negative direction. Especially in relatively illiquid stocks (like small caps), sudden volume surges can create sharp price fluctuations.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca9ff7c27a27a446f5031e35247d5294",
"text": "Asset prices are inversely related to interest rates. If you're valuing a business or a bond, if you use a lower interest rate you get a higher valuation. Historic equity returns benefit from a falling interest rate environment which won't be repeated as interest rates can only go so low. edit: typo",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "84dff56f83956ebf94373a33ec1a8346",
"text": "That makes sense. So yeah it basically sounds like a speculative bubble based on limited supply and high demand, but without any significant change to the market itself. What's kind of neat is that bitcoin seems to be closer to a commodity than a currency",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b027f0a256497e1482eeda873c4335b",
"text": "Full disclosure: I’m an intern for EquityZen, so I’m familiar with this space but can speak with the most accuracy about EquityZen. Observations about other players in the space are my own. The employee liquidity landscape is evolving. EquityZen and Equidate help shareholders (employees, ex-employees, etc.) in private companies get liquidity for shares they already own. ESOFund and 137 Ventures help with option financing, and provide loans (and exotic structures on loans) to cover costs of exercising options and any associated tax hit. EquityZen is a private company marketplace that led the second wave of VC-backed secondary markets starting early 2013. The mission is to help achieve liquidity for employees and other private company shareholder, but in a company-approved way. EquityZen transacts with share transfers and also a proprietary derivative structure which transfers economics of a company's shares without changing voting and information rights. This structure typically makes the transfer process cheaper and faster as less paperwork is involved. Accredited investors find the process appealing because they get access to companies they usually cannot with small check sizes. To address the questions in Dzt's post: 1). EquityZen doesn't take a 'loan shark' approach meaning they don't front shareholders money so that they can purchase their stock. With EquityZen, you’re either selling your shares or selling all the economic risk—upside and downside—in exchange for today’s value. 2). EquityZen only allows company approved deals on the platform. As a result, companies are more friendly towards the process and they tend to allow these deals to take place. Non-company approved deals pose risks for buyers and sellers and are ultimately unsustainable. As a buyer, without company blessing, you’re taking on significant counterparty risk from the seller (will they make good on their promise to deliver shares in the future?) or the risk that the transfer is impermissible under relevant restrictions and your purchase is invalid. As a seller, you’re running the risk of violating your equity agreements, which can have severe penalties, like forfeiture of your stock. Your shares are also much less marketable when you’re looking to transact without the company’s knowledge or approval. 3). Terms don't change depending an a shareholder's situation. EquityZen is a professional company and values all of the shareholders that use the platform. It’s a marketplace so the market sets the price. In other situations, you may be at the mercy of just one large buyer. This can happen when you’re facing a big tax bill on exercise but don’t have the cash (because you have the stock). 4). EquityZen doesn't offer loans so this is a non issue. 5). Not EquityZen! EquityZen creates a clean break from the economics. It’s not uncommon for the loan structures to use an interest component as well as some other complications, like upside participation and and also a liquidation preference. EquityZen strives for a simple structure where you’re not on the hook for the downside and you’ve transferred all the upside as well.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f88856dbbc3fe0d416396b92487da2d",
"text": "\"Well, everyone knows that a lot of funds have a strict policy to own a market-cap based part of shares from all listed companies above a certain threshold. Now, if I would go and inflate my share price and market cap, they would be forced to buy in; you can argue that this is \"\"just exploiting a weakness of the market\"\", but for me that's simply fraud.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "daff22609d39d7ef7c465090f1d9b402",
"text": "\"Are you talking long-term institutional or retail investors? Long-term *retail* investors look for *orderly markets*, the antithesis of HFT business models, which have a direct correlation between market volatility and profits. To a lesser extent, some \"\"dumb money\"\"/\"\"muppet\"\" institutionals do as well. HFT firms tout they supply liquidity into markets, when in fact the opposite is true. Yes, HFTs supply liquidity, *but only when the liquidity's benefits runs in their direction*. That is, they are applying the part of the liquidity definition that mentions \"\"high trading activity\"\", and conveniently ignoring the part that simultaneously requires \"\"*easily* buying *or* selling an asset\"\". If HFT's are the new exchange floor, then they need to be formalized as such, *and become bound to market maker responsibilities*. If they are actually supplying liquidity, like real Designated Market Makers in the NYSE for example, they become responsible to supply a specified liquidity for specified ticker symbols in exchange for their informational advantage on those tickers. The indisputable fact is that HFT cannot exist at their current profit levels without the information advantage they gain with preferential access to tick-by-tick data unavailable to investors who cannot afford the exchange fees ($1M per exchange 10 years ago, more now). Restrict the entire market, including HFTs, to only second-by-second price data without the tick-by-tick depth, and they won't do so well. Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking HFTs *per se*; I think they are a marvelous development, so long as they really do \"\"supply liquidity\"\". Right now, they aren't doing so, and especially in an orderly manner. If you want retail investors to keep out of the water as they are doing now, by all means let HFT (and regulatory capture, and a whole host of other financial service industry ills) run as they are. There are arguments to be made about \"\"only let the professionals play the market\"\", where there is no role for retail and anyone who doesn't know how to play the long-term investment game needs to get out of the kitchen. But if you are making such an argument, come out and say so.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "31e6bf09f431ab5959949c087591b78b",
"text": "Is it possible that mutual funds account for a significant portion of this volume. Investors may decide to buy or sell anytime within a 24 hour period, but the transaction only happened at the close of the market. Therefore at 3:59 pm the mutual fund knows if they will be buying or selling stocks that day. As nws pointed out the non-market hours are longer and therefore accumulate more news event. Some financial news is specifically given during the time the market is closed. Therefore the reaction to that news has to either be in the morning when the market opens or in the late afternoon if they are trying to anticipate the news. Also in the US market the early morning trader may be reacting to European market activities.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6ac3519ec4e4ad117851fa273152d4b3",
"text": "\"It may be margin loans or credit lines given to brokerages. I have no idea what a loan book is though so don't I don't really know. Also no one \"\"plays\"\" in equity markets with borrowed money unless they know for sure what they are doing or they have collateral as in the case of margin.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4c0181979f92ee71a72352910947e00d",
"text": "\"The \"\"random walk\"\" that you describe reflects the nature of the information flow about the value of a stock. If the flow is just little bits of relatively unimportant information (including information about the broader market and the investor pool), you will get small and seemingly random moves, which may look like a meander. If an important bit of information comes out, like a merger, you will see a large and immediate move, which may not look as random. However, the idea that small moves are a meander of search and discovery and large moves are immediate agreements is incorrect. Both small moves and large moves are instantaneous agreements about the value of a stock in the form of a demand/supply equilibrium. As a rule, neither is predictable from the point of view of a single investor, but they are not actually random. They look different from each other only because of the size of the movement, not because of an underlying difference in how the consensus price is reached.\"",
"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": "9725dfecb969bc5950e8b6f1bf04ad6c",
"text": "\"The Auction Market is where investors such you and me, as well as Market Makers, buy and sell securities. The Auction Markets operate with the familiar bid-ask pricing that you see on financial pages such as Google and Yahoo. The Market Makers are institutions that are there to provide liquidity so that investors can easily buy and sell shares at a \"\"fair\"\" price. Market Makers need to have on hand a suitable supply of shares to meet investor demands. When Market Makers feel the need to either increase or decrease their supply of a particular security quickly, they turn to the Dealer Market. In order to participate in a Dealer Market, you must be designated a Market Maker. As noted already, Market Makers are dedicated to providing liquidity for the Auction Market in certain securities and therefore require that they have on hand a suitable supply of those securities which they support. For example, if a Market Maker for Apple shares is low on their supply of Apple shares, then will go the Dealer Market to purchase more Apple shares. Conversely, if they are holding what they feel are too many Apple shares, they will go to the Dealer Market to sell Apple shares. The Dealer Market does operate on a bid-ask basis, contrary to your stated understanding. The bid-ask prices quoted on the Dealer Market are more or less identical to those on the Auction Market, except the quote sizes will be generally much larger. This is the case because otherwise, why would a Market Maker offer to sell shares to another Market Maker at a price well below what they could themselves sell them for in the Auction Market. (And similarly with buy orders.) If Market Makers are generally holding low quantities of a particular security, this will drive up the price in both the Dealer Market and the Auction Market. Similarly, if Market Makers are generally holding too much of a particular security, this may drive down prices on both the Auction Market and the Dealer Market.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d48c4b3aaf50d2d72dc08602dc09a848",
"text": "Just so everyone knows. A core model refers to a forecast of the Balance Sheet, income statement, and Statement of Cash Flows. From this you can solve for Free Cash Flow to Equity and solve for some more price values, like Sum of Parts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb40365ea193ef944818cd92378da144",
"text": "He said he's using MSCI World as a benchmark. MSCI World is not an exchange. The point is the same security listed in different places has different prices, so how do you describe the equity beta of the company to MSCI World if you have multiple and different return streams? This is a real problem to consider and you just dismiss it entirely.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4289b7bb5ea91d1017834c973289a724",
"text": "In simple terms : Equity Loan is money borrowed from the bank to buy assets which can be houses , shares etc Protected equity loan is commonly used in shares where you have a portfolio of shares and you set the minimum value the portfolio can fall to . Anything less than there may result in a sell off of the share to protect you from further capital losses. This is a very brief explaination , which does not fully cover what Equity Loan && Protected Equity Loan really mean",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5fc6449416d4cd15fa5c851bc0040ca0",
"text": "If the equity market in the USA crashed, its very likely equity markets everywhere else would crash. The USA has a high number of the world's largest businesses and there are correlations between equity markets. So you need to think of equities as a global asset class, not regional. Your question is then a question about the correlation between equity markets and currency markets. Here's a guess: If equity markets crashed, you would see a lot of panic selling of stocks denominated in many currencies, but probably the most in USD, due to the large number of the world's largest businesses trading on US stock exchanges. Therefore, when the rest of the world sells US equities they receive cash USD, which they might sell for their local currency. That selling pressure would cause USD to fall. But, when equity markets crash there's a move to safety of the bond markets. The world's largest bond markets are denominated in which currency? Probably USD. So those who receive USD for their equities are going to spend that USD on bonds. In which case there is probably no correlation between equity markets and currency markets at all. A quick google search shows this kind of thing",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a60d8083a9067c10a940672cb297af98
|
what does “private equity structures” mean?
|
[
{
"docid": "e0d5da798f1bcf302989d8b0d01cc12e",
"text": "\"Private equity firms have a unique structure: The general partners (GP's) of the firm create funds and manage the investments of those funds. Limited partners (LP's) contribute the capital to the funds, pay fees to the GP's, and then make money when the funds' assets grow. I believe the article is saying that ultra high net worth individuals participate in the real estate market by hiring someone to act as a general partner and manage the real estate assets. They and their friends contribute the cash and get shares in the resulting fund. Usually this GP/LP structure is used when the funds purchase or invest in private companies, which is why it is referred to as \"\"private equity structure,\"\" but the same structure can be used to purchase and manage pools of real estate or any other investment asset.\"",
"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": "3c3623605989b5c930a54bf89e907c7f",
"text": "\"Lots of questions: In general, no. Market Capitalization and Equity represent 2 different things. Equity first, the equity of a firm is the value of the assets (what it owns) less its liabilities (what it owes) and consists (broadly) of two components - share capital (what the firm gets when it sells to investors as part of an IPO or subsequent share issue) and retained earnings (what the firm has as a result of making profits and not paying them out as dividends). This is the theoretical liquidation value of the firm - what it is worth if it stops trading, sells all its assets and pays all its debts. Market Capitalization is the current value of the future cash flow of the firm as perceived by the market - the value today of all the dividends that the firm will pay in the future for as long as it exists. This is the theoretical going concern value of the firm - what it is worth as a functioning business. In general, Market Capitalization is bigger than Equity - if it isn't the firm is worth more as scrap than as an operating business. Um ... no. If you don't have any shares then you are by definition not an owner. Having shares is what makes you an owner. What I think you mean is, is it possible for the owner(s) of a private company to sell all of its shares when it goes public? The answer is yes. It is uncommon for a start-up owner to do this but it is standard practice for \"\"corporate raiders\"\" who buy failing companies, take them private, restructure them and then take them public again - they have done their job and they are not interested in maintaining an ownership stake. Nope. See above and below. Not at all, equity is an accounting construct and market capitalization is about market sentiment. Consider the following hypothetical firm: It has $1m in equity, it makes $4m in profit and will do for the foreseeable future, it pays all of that $4m out as dividends - if we work on a simple ROI of 10% then this firm is worth $40m dollars - way more than its equity.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ada391b851e4f03449e58bdfff9259c",
"text": "\"Many thanks for thedetailed response, appreciate it. But I am still not clear on the distinction between a public company and the equity holders. Isn't a public company = shareholders + equity holders? Or do you mean \"\"company\"\" = shareholders+equity holders + debt holders?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b027f0a256497e1482eeda873c4335b",
"text": "Full disclosure: I’m an intern for EquityZen, so I’m familiar with this space but can speak with the most accuracy about EquityZen. Observations about other players in the space are my own. The employee liquidity landscape is evolving. EquityZen and Equidate help shareholders (employees, ex-employees, etc.) in private companies get liquidity for shares they already own. ESOFund and 137 Ventures help with option financing, and provide loans (and exotic structures on loans) to cover costs of exercising options and any associated tax hit. EquityZen is a private company marketplace that led the second wave of VC-backed secondary markets starting early 2013. The mission is to help achieve liquidity for employees and other private company shareholder, but in a company-approved way. EquityZen transacts with share transfers and also a proprietary derivative structure which transfers economics of a company's shares without changing voting and information rights. This structure typically makes the transfer process cheaper and faster as less paperwork is involved. Accredited investors find the process appealing because they get access to companies they usually cannot with small check sizes. To address the questions in Dzt's post: 1). EquityZen doesn't take a 'loan shark' approach meaning they don't front shareholders money so that they can purchase their stock. With EquityZen, you’re either selling your shares or selling all the economic risk—upside and downside—in exchange for today’s value. 2). EquityZen only allows company approved deals on the platform. As a result, companies are more friendly towards the process and they tend to allow these deals to take place. Non-company approved deals pose risks for buyers and sellers and are ultimately unsustainable. As a buyer, without company blessing, you’re taking on significant counterparty risk from the seller (will they make good on their promise to deliver shares in the future?) or the risk that the transfer is impermissible under relevant restrictions and your purchase is invalid. As a seller, you’re running the risk of violating your equity agreements, which can have severe penalties, like forfeiture of your stock. Your shares are also much less marketable when you’re looking to transact without the company’s knowledge or approval. 3). Terms don't change depending an a shareholder's situation. EquityZen is a professional company and values all of the shareholders that use the platform. It’s a marketplace so the market sets the price. In other situations, you may be at the mercy of just one large buyer. This can happen when you’re facing a big tax bill on exercise but don’t have the cash (because you have the stock). 4). EquityZen doesn't offer loans so this is a non issue. 5). Not EquityZen! EquityZen creates a clean break from the economics. It’s not uncommon for the loan structures to use an interest component as well as some other complications, like upside participation and and also a liquidation preference. EquityZen strives for a simple structure where you’re not on the hook for the downside and you’ve transferred all the upside as well.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4cec3ef51a22422e79fd6f350848ec70",
"text": "Reading the descriptions on Amazon.com it appears Investments is a graduate text and Elements of Investments is the undergraduate version of the text.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ffa49547ede3ac0898ebc62bf9ffbc6",
"text": "Yep, a lot of startup funding these days is called equity, which makes for nice valuation, but there are often so many extra stipulations (I've even read of caps on upside; wish I could find the Matt Levine column on it now) that it really is effectively debt.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bee554ce343c9497d46a77371b98b111",
"text": "I know this has already been answered and I know its frowned upon to dump a link, however, when it comes to investments it's best to get data from an 'official' source to avoid misinterpretations and personal opinions. The attached pdf is from the S&P and provides detailed, but not overwhelming, information regarding the types of preferreds, the risks & common terminology: http://us.spindices.com/documents/education/practice-essentials-us-preferreds.pdf Page 1: PREFERRED SECURITIES DEFINED Borrowing from two worlds, a preferred security has both equity and fixed income characteristics. As such, the preferred structure offers a flexible approach to structuring a preferred offering for an issuer. Companies have many reasons to issue preferred securities. Financial institutions, for example, need to raise capital. Many times they will use the preferred market because of any required regulatory requirements, in addition to cost considerations. Banks and financial institutions are required to maintain a certain level of Tier 1 capital—which includes common equity and perpetual non-cumulative preferreds—as protection against the bank’s liabilities. Issuing more common equity comes at a cost, including the dilution of existing shares, which a company may not want to bear. Preferred securities are a cheaper alternative approach to raising the capital. Companies often use preferred stock for strategic reasons. Some of these uses include:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3ac2bcd3dbc3e67598efa988acae9373",
"text": "Why would you bet it’s Sun Capital Partners? OP said it’s a firm that specializes in buying software companies. Sun is a generalist investor. Tech-specific funds include, but are not limited to: Vista, Thoma Bravo, Insight Venture Partners, JMI Equity, etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "74a6a11df8141bf6906945103103b30f",
"text": "Right, I understand minority interest but it is typically reported as a positive under liabilities instead of a negative. For example, when you are calculating the enterprise value of a company, you add back in the minority interest. Enterprise Value= Market Share +Pref Equity + Min Interest+ Total Debt - Cash and ST Equivalents. EV is used to quantify the total price of a company's worth. If you have negative Min Interest on your books, that will make your EV less than it should be, creating an incorrect valuation. This just doesn't make any sense to me. Does it mean that the subsidiary that they had a stake in had a negative earning?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "352ae947ee14abf843efbfb223061a42",
"text": "This would clear out a lot more. 1) Leverage is the act of taking on debt in lieu of the equity you hold. Not always related to firms, it applies to personal situations too. When you take a loan, you get a certain %age of the loan, the bank establishes your equity by looking at your past financial records and then decides the amount it is going to lend, deciding on the safest leverage. In the current action leverage is the whole act of borrowing yen and profiting from it. The leverage factor mentions the amount of leverage happening. 10000 yen being borrowed with an equity of 1000 yen. 2) Commercial banks: 10 to 1 -> They don't deal in complicated investments, derivatives except for hedging, and are under stricter controls of the government. They have to have certain amount of liquidity and can loan out the rest for business. Investment banks: 30 to 1 -> Their main idea is making money and trade heavily. Their deposits are limited by the amount clients have deposited. And as their main motive is to get maximum returns from the available amount, they trade heavily. Derivatives, one of the instruments, are structured on underlyings and sometimes in multiple layers which build up quite a bit of leverage. And all of the trades happen on margins. You don't invest $10k to buy $10k of a traded stock. You put in, maybe $500 to take up the position and borrow the rest of the amount per se. It improves liquidity in the markets and increases efficiency. Else you could do only with what you have. So these margins add up to the leverage the bank is taking on.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d6a5c5df9cb8565dd591940be0b2d64f",
"text": "International means from all over the world. In the U.S. A Foreign Equity fund would be non-US stocks. There's an odd third choice I'm aware of, a fund of US companies that derive their sales from overseas, primarily.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f422fed82b5d6c8e6e19ddbb10d3fed2",
"text": "\"Well, this sub is generally pretty darn good. Among us are investment bankers, private equity analysts, valuation analysts, portfolio managers, traders, brokers, bachelors, masters, and doctorate students, etc. We're helpful, though sometimes snarky, and have an exceedingly low tolerance for bullshit. I love it here. And while your logic is sound, we can actually explore private equity directly, as while private and public equity are related, they are different enough to study separately, in my opinion. Private equity deals with private companies. By definition, these investments are illiquid (they cannot be easily sold like public stocks), and unmarketable (there is no ready market to trade these investments, like stock). They are generally held for longer time periods. At its earliest stage, private equity is synonymous with \"\"initial investment\"\" or \"\"seed funding.\"\" This includes (if we are maybe slightly liberal with our definition), the initial investment an entrepreneur makes into his business. At this stage, friends and family, angel investors and venture capital are present. At different points of a company lifecycle, different financiers become interested/applicable (mezzanine investors, etc.). The investment made into a company allocates a certain percentage of the ownership of the company to the investor in exchange for cash (usually). This cash is used to cover expenses and take on capital projects. The goal of these investments is to directly make the company (and its value, and thus the investor's value) grow. At some points in time, a new investor will show up and either invest directly in the company (same as before) or buy another investor's holding in the company (in which case, cash goes to *that specific investor* and *not* the company). At every stage of investment leading up to IPO, the deals are negotiated between the parties. The results of a given negotiation determines the value of that company's equity. For example, if I pay you $100 for 50% of your company, the company's implied worth is $200. If two days later, Joe comes and offers to buy 33% of the company for $100, the Company is worth $300. (Special note: these percentages are assumed to be the allocation of equity **after** the deal. In this last case, the ownership of your company would be 33% you, 33% me, and 33% Joe. This illustrates something called *dilution,* which is very important to investors as it effects their eventual potential payoff later down the road, along with some other things). At this point, do you have any questions?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5e94e5d41bae9c399526f9811866f985",
"text": "It's quite alright, it's been over a decade since he passed so I'm not particularly sensitive about it any more. I'll have a look at investopedia, but what I'm mainly interested in is private equity. I wanted to ask directly about that, but I feel that I need a frame of reference to understand what's going on. As in, I doubt I'd be able to really get private equity without first having an understanding of public trading. Is this subreddit really that reputable? I've learned to not really trust reddit, for the most part. Is there some kind of curation here?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8dd14465a90edf3ad4f5450dd7ba028f",
"text": "Just from my experience and observation... VC there are spikes of activity. Where many deals are closing and board meetings and issues pile up on top of each other and happen all at once. But VC there are lulls where not much is going on. PE is more consistent and predictable in general. Yes of course exceptions arise but I found PE to be more 9 to 5 ish.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "66bf45f6087c29960afe97f1a27cf57a",
"text": "Most of the money gained through PE is done through financial engineering/deal structuring. There are funds that are operationally focused which do make changes on the portfolio company level. From what I have seen, most people who are operationally focused do not achieve that much in the way of results. Picture it as consulting, except that the results of your initiatives are actually important. As for turn-arounds, there are funds that specialize in that. Golden Gate Capital comes to mind. These are far more exciting investments, but can be very frustrating. If you want to look at it in terms of the public markets, turnarounds in PE are essentially levered value investments. It is likely that you aren't going to change the business much, but are actually just buying an out-of-favor business and waiting on the industry to bounce back. The argument that PE funds just gut companies and sell with the new higher operating profitability is somewhat flawed. There is really only so much cost cutting you can do, once you have fired staff or corrected a mistake you won't likely have more chances to gain from that original problem. What people should be criticizing is that funds often cut capex and reinvestment to increase results at the expense of the future profitability of the company.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
883efd5a8d35ce6b58b70d4c5d1755e8
|
How does a TFSA work? Where does the interest come from?
|
[
{
"docid": "ab42ac4c2bed63438d52716bde6d5ff5",
"text": "\"A TFSA is a tax free savings account. It is a type of account where you can buy various investments like stocks, bonds, or funds (mutual, exchange traded, and money market). There are some other options but it's best to see what your bank or broker will allow. You probably specified the type of investment when you opened the account. You can look at your statements or maybe online to see what you're invested in. My guess is some kind of HISA (high interest savings account). This is kind of the default option for banks. The government created these accounts for a variety of reasons. The main stated reason was to encourage people to save. Obviously they also do things to get votes. There was an outcry after the change to a type of investment called \"\"investment trusts\"\". This could be seen as a consolation prize. These can be valuable to seniors for many reasons and they tend to vote more often. There was also an election promise to eliminate capital gains taxes in some fashion. It's not profitable for the government, in fact it supposedly cost the federal government $410 million in 2013. Banks make money by investing your deposit or by charging fees. You can see what every tax break 'costs' the government in lost revenue here http://www.fin.gc.ca/taxexp-depfisc/2013/taxexp1301-eng.asp#toc7\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b2df7330af4b3b2e7c527eca5d177db4",
"text": "\"As to where the interest comes from: The same place it comes from in other kinds of savings accounts. The bank takes the money you deposit and invests it elsewhere, traditionally by lending it out to others (hence the concept of a \"\"savings and loan\"\" bank). They make a profit as long as the interest they give for \"\"borrowing\"\" from you, plus the cost of administering the savings accounts and loans, is less than the interest they charge for lending to others. No, they don't have to pay you interest -- but if they didn't, you'd be likely to deposit your funds at another bank which did. Their ideal goal is to pay as little as possible without losing depositors, while charging as much as possible without losing borrowers. (yeah, I know, typo corrected) Why do they get higher interest rate than they pay you? Mostly because your deposits and interest are essentially guaranteed, whereas the folks they're lending to may be late paying or default on those loans. As with any kind of investment, higher return requires more work and/or higher risk, plus (ususally) larger reserves so you can afford to ride out any losses that do occur.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "f1a0bab43fe7bd385d1f5b7263d5969a",
"text": "It's not compound interest. It is internal rate of return. If you have access to Excel look up the XIRR built-in function.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "30e70d35397d2cbe6064325e0c733930",
"text": "\"Q: How do currency markets work? A: The FX (foreign exchange) market works very much like the stock market where potential buying parties bid $Y of country 1's currency to buy $1 in country 2's currency. Potential selling parties sell (ask) $1 of country 2's currency for $Y of country 1's currency. Like the stock market, there are also a swaps, futures and options in this market. Q: What factors are behind why currencies go up or down? A: Just like any open market, currencies go up and down based on supply and demand. Many factors affect the supply and demand of a particular currency. Some were listed well by the other posts. Q: What roles do governments, central banks, institutions, and traders have in the process? A: It's common practice that gov'ts intervene to \"\"control\"\" the value of currencies. For example, although it's not general public knowledge, the Canadian gov't is actively purchasing up US dollars in the FX market in an effort to stop the US/Canadian exchange rate from dropping further. This has dramatic economic consequences for the Canadian ecomony if the Canadian dollar were to strengthen too far and too quickly.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c19193e24bda7e5901b24d261c9f47e6",
"text": "What is much more likely is immediate or close to immediate investment. but this is exactly my point of contention with how they do things. I know for a fact that the money is immediately invested, which is why i find it wrong that interest for money collected in a given financial year is announced after the end of the next financial year. i was wondering if this was a common practice in other countries.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f1c89501c2b209de377a169b40c6e77a",
"text": "\"You do not have to pay tax on any earnings inside a TFSA. Quoting Wikipedia's article, \"\"Investment income, including capital gains and dividends, earned in a TFSA is not taxed, even when withdrawn.\"\" This is backed up by the official TFSA government site, http://www.tfsa.gc.ca/, which states, \"\"Investment income earned in a TFSA is tax-free.\"\" This makes the TFSA an appropriate vehicle to store investments which produce dividends. For example, if you invest $5500 and receive a total of $500 in dividends this year, you will not pay tax on that $500, either in this tax year or even subsequently, when you withdraw money out of your TFSA. Of course, TFSAs aren't meant to be used for regular withdrawals. If you are planning on investing $5500 this year and withdrawing the dividends, I'd urge you to be careful and consider if this is actually the best sort of savings vehicle for you. But that's really just a general warning, nothing specific to dividends. It is possible to do this. Indeed, withdrawing $500 in dividends this year will increase your available contribution room in the next tax year (not in this tax year). For example, you contribute $5500 at the beginning of this year. By the end of November, you have accumulated $500 in dividends. You withdraw these in December. In the following tax year, you can recontribute this $500 in addition to the standard $5500 contribution room. So, you could contribute $6000. Just be careful with your calculations; I messed mine up and ended up paying a rather substantial penalty for my overcontribution.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5248e0a577f68808f7f7d876323e419",
"text": "When you get a loan (car, home, student) the lending company (bank) give the (auto dealer, previous home owner, school) money. You as the borrow promise to pay this money back with interest. So in your case the 100,000 you borrow requires a payment for principal and interest of ~965 per month. After 240 payments you will have paid the bank ~231,605. So who got the ~131,000 in interest. The bank did. It was used to pay interest to the people who made deposits into the bank. It was also used to pay the expenses of the bank: salaries, retirement, rent, electricity, computers, etc. If the bank is a company with investors they may have to pay dividends to them to. Of course not all loans are successfully paid back, so some of the payment goes to cover the loans that are in default. In many cases loans are also refinanced, or the house is sold long before the 20-30 year term is up. In these cases the amount of interest received for that loan is much less than anticipated, but the good news is that it can be loaned out again.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c27cfde6597ec260ee214ddc112e92dc",
"text": "\"First note that CIBC issued these bonds with a zero coupon, so they do not pay any interest. They were purchased by the market participants at a small premium, paying an average of 100.054 for a nominal value of 100. This equates to a negative annual \"\"redemption\"\" yield of 0.009% - i.e., if held until maturity, then the holder will witness a negative annual return of 0.009%. You ask \"\"why does this make sense?\"\". Clearly it makes no sense for a private individual to purchase these bonds since they will be better off simply holding cash. To understand why there is a demand for these bonds we need to look elsewhere. The European bond market is currently suffering a dwindling supply owing to the ECBs bond buying programme (i.e., quantitative easing). The ECB is purchasing EUR 80 billion per month of Eurozone sovereign debt. This means that the quantity of high grade bonds available for purchase is shrinking fast. Against this backdrop we have all of those European institutions and financial corporations who are legally obliged to purchase bonds to be held as assets against their obligations. These are mostly national and private pension funds as well as insurance companies and fund managers. In this sort of environment, the price of high quality bonds is quickly bid up to the point where we see negative yields. In this environment companies like CIBC can borrow by issuing bonds with a zero coupon and the market is willing to pay a small premium over their nominal value. TL/DR The situation is further complicated by the subdued inflation outlook for the Eurozone, with a very real possibility of deflation. Should a prolonged period of deflation materialise, then negative redemption yield bonds may provide a positive real return.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f08d6c1787b0d0596cfff5c0642ddfa",
"text": "It has to do with return. I don't know if Canada has a matching feature on retirement accounts, but in the US many companies will match the first X% you put in. So for me, my first $5000 or so is matched 100%. I'll take that match over paying down any debt. Beyond that, of course it's a simple matter of rate of return. Why save in the bank at 2% when you owe at 10-18%? One can make this as simple or convoluted as they like. My mortgage is a tax deduction so my 5% mortgage costs me 3.6%. I've continued to invest rather than pay the mortgage too early, as my retirement account is with pre-tax dollars. So $72 will put $100 in that account. Even in this last decade, bad as it was, I got more than 3.6% return.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "543c77aa450b85e7e2b668b6d1fb4690",
"text": "The point of an RRSP is that you can put money in when you are paying a lot of taxes (maybe a 50% marginal rate) and take it out later when you are paying less taxes (maybe a 30% marginal rate.) You will thus end up with more money. Since you are not paying high taxes on your modest income, this aspect of an RRSP doesn't really apply to you. When the time comes that you start withdrawing from your RRSP, you will pay taxes on the entire withdrawal, both principal and interest. A TFSA on the other hand allows withdrawals (typically limited to some small number a year) without the principal or the interest being considered taxable income. That seems like a better approach for you. However, they are not very liquid - you can't deposit, withdraw, deposit, withdraw week after week. Look around for not-exactly-banks that offer higher interest rates than the banks do. Set up a TFSA with one, and put about 8k in it. (If you have time to investigate GICs, ETFs, and whatnot, fine, investigate that for a while and set up a TFSA that holds those.) Put the other 2k in a high-interest savings account from that institution. High interest will be between 1 and 2% which isn't very high, but oh well. Assuming you get some notice when you need to replace your car, you could withdraw from the TFSA to get that money. Or you might be lucky and need a car at a terrible time for dealers to sell cars, and get a great deal on a new car with a long warranty, something you could keep for another 15 or 20 years. If you could afford the loan payment then your savings could stick around for a rainier day.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c05926a5cd70e78245f8f52bec13e4d2",
"text": "\"As user quid states in his answer, all you need to do is open an account with a stock broker in order to gain access to the world's stock markets. If you are currently banking with one of the six big bank, then they will offer stockbroking services. You can shop around for the best commission rates. If you wish to manage your own investments, then you will open a \"\"self-directed\"\" account. You can shelter your investments from all taxation by opening a TFSA account with your stock broker. Currently, you can add $5,500 per year to your TFSA. Unused allowances from previous years can still be used. Thus, if you have not yet made any TFSA contributions, you can add upto $46,500 to your TFSA and enjoy the benefits of tax free investing. Investing in what you are calling \"\"unmanaged index funds\"\" means investing in ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds). Once you have opened your account you can invest in any ETFs traded on the stock markets accessible through your stock broker. Buying shares on foreign markets may carry higher commission rates, but for the US markets commissions are generally the same as they are for Canadian markets. However, in the case of buying foreign shares you will carry the extra cost and risk of selling Canadian dollars and buying foreign currency. There are also issues to do with foreign withholding taxes when you trade foreign shares directly. In the case of the US, you will also need to register with the US tax authorities. Foreign withholding taxes payable are generally treated as a tax credit with respect to Canadian taxation, so you will not be double taxed. In today's market, for most investors there is generally no need to invest directly in foreign market indices since you can do so indirectly on the Toronto stock market. The large Canadian ETF providers offer a wide range of US, European, Asian, and Global ETFs as well as Canadian ETFs. For example, you can track all of the major US indices by trading in Toronto in Canadian dollars. The S&P500, the Dow Jones, and the NASDAQ100 are offered in both \"\"currency hedged\"\" and \"\"unhedged\"\" forms. In addition, there are ETFs on the total US Market, US Small Caps, US sectors such as banks, and more exotic ETFs such as those offering \"\"covered call\"\" strategies and \"\"put write\"\" strategies. Here is a link to the BMO ETF website. Here is a link to the iShares (Canada) ETF website.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "789692ce410ddf6b795a1358e414f744",
"text": "You don't pay any interest until a few weeks after you receive your statement, when the payment is due. Simply set up a direct debit with Halifax for the statement balance and they will take the correct amount (whatever you spent that month) from your bank account on the payment due date. Problem solved!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a860f3f8edddf97f00daf44f42cd1d3",
"text": "\"Note - this is a complicated topic. I've read the rules multiple times and I'm still not sure I understand them perfectly. So please take this with a pinch of salt and read the rules for yourself. The time(s) at which a test is done against the LTA are known as a \"\"Benefit Crystallization Event\"\" (BCE). There are 13 of these (!) - they're numbered 1-9 with the addition of some extras numbered 5A-D. However, the most important ones for those with defined contribution pensions are: Broadly, the idea is that a BCE occurs when you start taking money out of your pension, and when you reach age 75. Each time one happens, the amount you are taking out (\"\"crystallizing\"\") gets compared against the LTA and a certain percentage of your LTA gets designated as being used. Crystallising doesn't necessarily mean you actually receive the money immediately, just that some of your money is switched into a mode where you can start receiving it in different ways. The rules are designed to avoid double counting, so broadly anything that was taken off your LTA won't be taken off a second time. The cumulative use of your LTA is tracked as a percentage rather than an absolute amount, to take account of any changes in the LTA between the different times you crystallise money. For example if you crystallise £100K when the LTA is £1mn, that's 10% of your LTA gone. If later on the LTA has risen to £1.1mn and you take out £110K, that's another 10%. Once you hit 100%, you start paying a LTA charge on any excess. The really simple path here is if you just get an annuity with your entire pot, before hitting age 75 (and you don't make any further pension contributions after). Then only BCE 4 applies: your pension pot, all of which is being used to buy the annuity, is compared with the LTA. After this point your entire pension pot is considered to be crystallized, so no more BCEs will apply - the tests at age 75 only apply if you still have money that you haven't taken out or used to buy an annuity. The annuity payments themselves will be subject to income tax at your normal rate at the time you receive them, i.e. 0%, 20%, 40% or 45% depending on how much other income you have. In reality most people would want to take 25% of their pot as a lump sum at the same time as buying an annuity, given that it's tax-free if you're under the LTA. At this point BCE 6 applies in addition to BCE 4, but again the overall effect of the test is pretty simple, look at the total pension pot (lump sum + cost of annuity), and if it's under the LTA you're fine. Again, at this point no more BCEs will apply as all the money is considered to have been fully distributed. If you only use part of the money for an annuity/lump sum, then only that part of the money is compared against the LTA, and the rest stays in your pension and will be compared later. The 25% limit for a tax-free lump sum applies to the total you are taking out at that point: if you have £200K and are taking out £100K, you can take out £25K as a tax-free lump sum and use £75K for the annuity. The other £100K stays in your pension. Many people see annuity rates as very low and will want to take on more risk (and reward) by using \"\"Drawdown\"\" for at least part of their pension. Essentially, you can designate part of your pension for drawdown, and at that point BCE 1 applies to the money you designate. Once designated, you can start drawing the money out as income, which will be taxed at your normal income tax rate at the time you receive it. Again, you can take 25% as a lump sum at this point which will be subject to BCE 6. There's also an alternative route where you put everything into \"\"flexi-access drawdown\"\" without taking any lump sum immediately, and then as you actually withdraw income, 25% is tax-free and the rest is taxed as income. The overall effect is the same, but it gives you more control over when you get the tax-free bit. However, because with drawdown you can actually leave the money in your pension and growing tax-free, there's a further test against the LTA at age 75 under BCE 5A. To avoid double-counting (\"\"prevention of overlap\"\"), the amount left in the drawdown fund at that point is reduced by whatever was previously tested against BCE 1. So if you put £150K into drawdown initially, and it's grown to £200K by age 75, then another £50K will crystallise under BCE 5A. I think that if you put £150K into drawdown initially and it grows by £50K, but you take that out as income so that only £150K (or less) remains at age 75, then the amount crystallising under BCE 5A is nil. Also, when money is in drawdown, you can choose to use it to buy an annuity. BCE 4 is applied at this point (if before age 75), but as with BCE 5A, this is reduced by anything that was previously crystallised under BCE 1. If you only use some of it to buy an annuity, the reduction is pro-rataed, e.g. if you started out with £150K moved into drawdown, and later it has grown to £200K and you use £100K to buy an annuity, then the reduction is £75K so £25K is considered to have crystallised under BCE 4. Once you reach age 75, as well as any money that's still in drawdown, anything you haven't yet crystallised at all gets tested against the LTA under BCE 5B. Broadly, once you go over the LTA, the charges are simple: There's never any explanation given for these two rates, but I think it's all based on trying to at least cancel out the benefit you got from using your pension, on the assumption that: So with the 25% charge + 20% income tax, if you take out £100, you'll end up with £75 gross income, so £60 net income - just the same as if you'd originally paid 40% tax. (This ignores the effect of investment growth, but if you would have saved the £60 in an ISA, the end result is the same: if you had growth of say 50% over the time the money was in your pension, it'll be the same effect if you had £100 growing to £150 and now received 60% of it, or if you had £60 growing to £90 untaxed in an ISA.) The 55% lump sum charge is in case you are paying 40% tax when you take it out, to make sure that it's not a more attractive option than the 25%+income tax: if you have £100, either you get £45 tax free via a lump sum, or you get £75 gross and hence £45 net. I haven't covered lots of cases here: defined benefit pensions. Roughly, when you start receiving the pension, 20x the initial income from the pension is deemed to crystallise under BCE 2 and any lump sum you receive crystallises under BCE 6. In the former case, you could end up having to pay the LTA charge with money you haven't actually got yet, and you can ask the pension administrator to instead reduce your pension to pay it. However, there are lots of special cases for defined benefit pensions, mostly for historical reasons, so you should make sure you check with your pension administrator about this. if you die before age 75, at which point the LTA test is applied via either BCE 5C/5D, or BCE 7. After paying the LTA charge if any, your dependents or whoever else you leave it to gets the remainder tax-free. transferring overseas (BCE 8). \"\"scheme pensions\"\" under BCE 2 and BCE 3 (I think these are relatively uncommon) some corner cases covered by regulations (BCE 9)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7bfad5359f35fb1a83e975508f783e7a",
"text": "Given you other question and your resulting marginal tax rate, you may want to optimize where you hold each type of security. If you still plan to have a regular investment account, it's hard to beat the low tax rate of Canadian dividends. In a TFSA, you won't pay tax on the dividend income, and you won't get a dividend tax credit either. For some people in BC this actually costs them money as they have negative marginal dividend tax rates. For you it seems to be 6%. Contrast this with any other holding in your regular account, interest at full marginal rates, and cap gains at half that. Dividends still win in a regular account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1a404654ead22b2255f0566d521035db",
"text": "\"@sdg's answer is spot-on with the advice to avoid repeated conversions, but I'd like to provide some specifics on the fees involved: Each time you round-trip Canadian dollars (CAD) through a U.S.-dollar (USD) priced security at TD Waterhouse and leave your proceeds in CAD, you're paying a total foreign exchange fee – implied in their rate spread – of about 3%, give or take. That's ~3% per buy & sell combination, or ~1.5% on each end. You can imagine if you trade back & forth frequently, you can quickly lose a lot of money. Do it back and forth ten times in a year and you're out ~30% on the fees alone! The TD U.S. Money Market Fund (TDB166) that TD Waterhouse is referring to has no direct commission to buy or sell, but it does have a Management Expense Ratio (MER) of 0.20% per year – basically a fee which is deducted from the fund's returns (which, today, are also close to zero.) Practically speaking, that's a very slim fee to hold some USD in your Canadian dollar TFSA. While 0.20% is cheap, a point to keep in mind is if you maintain a significant USD balance, you are maintaining currency risk: You can lose money in CAD terms if the CAD appreciates vs. USD. Additional references: Canadian Capitalist describes TD Waterhouse and the use of TDB166 and \"\"wash trades\"\" at How to \"\"Wash\"\" Your Trade? He's referring to RRSPs, but the same applies to TFSAs, which came out after the post was written. Canadian Couch Potato has two relevant articles: Are US-listed ETFs Really Cheaper? and Lowering Your Currency Exchange Fees.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "06c2c2495a3a10111df75ca46e0d815c",
"text": "\"You definitely do want to avoid losing money on repeated currency conversions. Remember they are making a profit every time you change your currency. A money market fund is basically like a 'savings account' mutual fund. They are open like mutual funds, in that you can buy or sell at any time. There don't tend to be fees of any kind (directly) as all management is paid for out of the interest/returns that the fund generates. So using a money market fund to hold the \"\"cash\"\" portion of your TFSA or any other account for that matter would be a normal (and \"\"free\"\") thing to do. Good Luck\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "41e12b6dc6a67d21c7f6eaa5ea3656a4",
"text": "\"There are a couple of misconceptions I think are present here: Firstly, when people say \"\"interest\"\", usually that implies a lower-risk investment, like a government bond or a money market fund. Some interest-earning investments can be higher risk (like junk bonds offered by near-bankrupt companies), but for the most part, stocks are higher risk. With higher risk comes higher reward, but obviously also the chance for a bad year. A \"\"bad year\"\" can mean your fund actually goes down in value, because the companies you are invested in do poorly. So calling all value increases \"\"interest\"\" is not the correct way to think about things. Secondly, remember that \"\"Roth IRA fund\"\" doesn't really tell you what's \"\"inside\"\" it. You could set up your fund to include only low-risk interest earning investments, or higher risk foreign stocks. From what you've said, your fund is a \"\"target retirement date\"\"-type fund. This typically means that it is a mix of stocks and bonds, weighted higher to bonds if you are older (on the theory of minimizing risk near retirement), and higher to stocks if you are younger (on the theory of accepting risk for higher average returns when you have time to overcome losses). What this means is that assuming you're young and the fund you have is typical, you probably have ~50%+ of your money invested in stocks. Stocks don't pay interest, they give you value in two ways: they pay you dividends, and the companies that they are a share of increase in value (remember that a stock is literally a small % ownership of the company). So the value increase you see as the increase due to the increase in the mutual fund's share price, is part of the total \"\"interest\"\" amount you were expecting. Finally, if you are reading about \"\"standard growth\"\" of an account using a given amount of contributions, someone somewhere is making an assumption about how much \"\"growth\"\" actually happens. Either you entered a number in the calculator (\"\"How much do you expect growth to be per year?\"\") or it made an assumption by default (probably something like 7% growth per year - I haven't checked the math on your number to see what the growth rate they used was). These types of assumptions can be helpful for general retirement planning, but they are not \"\"rules\"\" that your investments are required by law to follow. If you invest in something with risk, your return may be less than expected.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
084f190771e2af051d862e4f2719e4c7
|
Do budgeting % breakdowns apply globally?
|
[
{
"docid": "ce7bc2c2cd732782fe38fbe089359593",
"text": "The exact percentages depend on many things, not just location. For example, everyone needs food. If you have a low income, the percentage of your income spent on food would be much higher than for someone that has a high income. Any budgeting guidelines that you find are just a starting point. You need to look at your own income and expenses and come up with your own spending plan. Start by listing all of the necessities that you have to spend on. For example, your basic necessities might be: Fund those categories, and any other fixed expenses that you have. Whatever you have left is available for other things, such as: and anything else that you can think of to spend money on. If you can save money on some of the necessities above, it will free up money on the discretionary categories below. Because your income and priorities are different than everyone else, your budget will be different than everyone else, too. If you are new to budgeting, you might find that the right budgeting software can make the task much easier. YNAB, EveryDollar, or Mvelopes are three popular choices.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "20453d9084fa515d30f1251b55b7f57e",
"text": "it just depends on your situation and sometimes accounting can't fix that. by mentor pays 35% even though he only goes back to the USA to visit. I go back less than 30 days a year so I can claim I'm a foreign resident but if all my income is in the USA I'm screwed. I can't even route my income through my wife who has never stepped foot in the USA because we must claim whatever she makes. US tax laws are so bad that it takes a lot just to get an account with HSBC in Hong Kong",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "736f2a7677a9a8907418e85a8c117afe",
"text": "At least in the US, many credit card companies offer statements that categorize your spending on that card and break it down by different categories depending on the merchant category code. Having different cards for each budget category can be a good idea if different cards have different rewards bonuses depending on categories: e.g. this card gives a high percentage back at gas stations, that one at grocery stores, another at restaurants, etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf711eb301fb89dc44c7273252095614",
"text": "\"Whatever the percentage divisions are, I'm a big fan of keeping things in separate accounts. This works especially well for fixed bills. It is essentially a bank account version of the envelope method. If I take out everything from your paycheck I know is reserved (including reserving savings), for me it is a lot easier to not even miss the money when I'm going towards \"\"fun\"\" expenditures - which come from the checking account.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f25194adc202671a1e3417243c0e5329",
"text": "Canada does not have a set date on which a (Federal) budget plan is unveiled. In 2011 it was June 6th. In 2012 it was March 29th and in 2013 it was 21st March.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "00df1661bbb7f46e4761ef8d1b612ca9",
"text": "I don't understand the logic of converting a cost of funds of 4% to a monthly % and then subtracting that number from an annual one (the 1.5%). Unfortunately without seeing the case I really can't help you...there was likely much you have left out from above.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "439dada372831d99bbfc79feee6e036b",
"text": "More moving parts will make your budget harder to keep track of, not simpler. Budget systems like You Need a Budget recommend simplifying your accounts, even if the various accounts give you specialized bonuses like rewards for restaurants or gasoline or travel. The effort of keeping track of all the options and accounts can outweigh the value you get from them. Instead, I recommend using a simple and structured budget system (like YNAB) that walks you through all of the steps toward building good habits and keeping them simple so that you can maintain the habit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ee3149b12c0eb37a8beb933962a0205",
"text": "I recently made the switch to keeping track of my finance (Because I found an app that does almost everything for me). Before, my situation was fairly simple: I was unable to come up with a clear picture of how much I was spending vs saving (altho I had a rough idea). Now I here is what it changes: What I can do now: Is it useful ? Since I don't actually need to save more than I do (I am already saving 60-75% of my income), 1) isn't important. Since I don't have any visibility on my personal situation within a few years, 2) and 3) are not important. Conclusion: Since I don't actually spend any time building theses informations I am happy to use this app. It's kind of fun. If I did'nt had that tool... It would be a waste of time for me. Depends on your situation ? Nb: the app is Moneytree. Works only in Japan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "065475f898aa9b5dc117c58149a7a8b6",
"text": "Im gonna make up some numbers for this teaching moment. 2011: $60,000 2012: $50,000 2013: $100,000 2014: $70,000 2015: $60,000 2016: $75,000 2017: $90,000 2017 is the highest number since 2013. But before we had 2017 data, we only had up to 2016 data. In 2016, 2016 was the highest number since 2013. We couldn't say the same about 2015 though. In 2015, 2014 was the highest number since 2013. Such short timetables are kinda ridiculous to even claim. This type of number is only meaningful if its a big number of years like biggest deficit since 1953 (60ish years ago)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6227665539adcf4ff59654255a8cf00c",
"text": "\"You Need A Budget is a nice budgeting tool that works on the desktop. It is more focused on manual entry and budgeting over auto-downloading and categorizing. It does support downloading transactions from banks and then importing the transaction files. You mentioned having \"\"trust issues\"\" with a bank and this would be safe as you don't enter your credentials into the app. It also has a mobile app that works well. Not exactly what you are looking for, but it would work in India and be safe if you have an untrustworthy bank and it would allow you to import transactions.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "32ae5183f2ffd4b2641838817e138638",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www2.gsu.edu/~ecobth/HMW_PuzzlingMultJobHolding_SEJ_2017.pdf) reduced by 99%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Just as the United States displays substantial differences in MJH across states and regions, Zangelidis finds large variation in MJH rates across countries in the EU, ranging from less than 1 to 9%.6 Livanos and Zangelidis document large differences in MJH rates across regions of Greece with rural areas with large primary sectors having the highest rates, likely due to low labor demand and weak primary 6 Zangelidis also finds that mean weekly hours on the second job average 12.9 hours across the continent, with little variation across countries. > A quick glance at state rates of MJH show Minnesota with among the highest MJH rates, while New York has a relatively low rate MJH rate as compared to other northern states. > Our approach is to examine the extent to which controlling for a variety of detailed worker, job, and city attributes can account for differences across labor markets in MJH. To describe the magnitude of MSA differences in MJH, we calculate the mean absolute deviation of MJH across our 259 labor markets based on estimates from increasingly dense individual worker OLS MJH equations using the 1995-2014 urban sample. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6l4ana/the_puzzling_pattern_of_multiple_job_holding/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~158577 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*: **MJH**^#1 **Job**^#2 **rate**^#3 **work**^#4 **Labor**^#5\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "608664a3ae76a4af65782c61dae82c6a",
"text": "\"It's just a rule of thumb, and so it's done from gross to make it easy. If you make $3300 a month, and spent $1000 a month on rent, you're at the limit of what you can afford. It's not like if it's 30.0001% you're screwed but if it's 29.999% everything's fine. Some rents won't include things (wifi, cable, utilities) that others do. Some locations will require you to spend more on transportation. So the real \"\"ok\"\" range is quite wide. But if you're at 60% of gross on rent, you literally cannot make that work because after deductions, you won't have any money for food. If you're at 10% of gross on rent, you probably have a lot more money left over than most people.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e5edb2b7684003ea4f01ab69a4c02e39",
"text": "why should I have any bias in favour of my local economy? The main reason is because your expenses are in the local currency. If you are planning on spending most of your money on foreign travel, that's one thing. But for most of us, the bulk of our expenses are incurred locally. So it makes sense for us to invest in things where the investment return is local. You might argue that you can always exchange foreign results into local currency, and that's true. But then you have two risks. One risk you'll have anywhere: your investments may go down. The other risk with a foreign investment is that the currency may lose value relative to your currency. If that happens, even a good performing investment can go down in terms of what it can return to you. That fund denominated in your currency is really doing these conversions behind the scenes. Unless the bulk of your purchases are from imports and have prices that fluctuate with your currency, you will probably be better off in local investments. As a rough rule of thumb, your country's import percentage is a good estimate of how much you should invest globally. That looks to be about 20% for Australia. So consider something like 50% local stocks, 20% local bonds, 15% foreign stocks, 5% foreign bonds, and 10% local cash. That will insulate you a bit from a weak local currency while not leaving you out to dry with a strong local currency. It's possible that your particular expenses might be more (or less) vulnerable to foreign price fluctuations than the typical. But hopefully this gives you a starting point until you can come up with a way of estimating your personal vulnerability.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b78c6a89da74afbb63ef67b28d295280",
"text": "In the related Should I have separate savings accounts for various savings goals? I discovered the open source Budgeter courtesy of Richard Donkin. Budgeter accomplishes my aim with a minimum of fuss, and I have found it to be quite usable despite the author's self deprecating comments to the contrary. The chart below was built in about 10 minutes, half the time it's taken to write this post. Budgeter doesn't feature handy abilities like CSV/OFX importing or scheduled transactions, which would mean a fair bit of work for bringing in historical data, and it's expressly not designed for accounting or bookkeeping. However for the focussed application of tracking savings across multiple bucket categories and accounts I think it well worth evaluating.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a2f4aabab86f21755f2baca5ed97e862",
"text": "U.S. corporate tax rates are the [highest in the world](http://www.kpmg.com/global/en/services/tax/tax-tools-and-resources/pages/corporate-tax-rates-table.aspx), not the lowest. Politicians often rebut this fact by claiming that the U.S. has a much lower effective corporate tax rate, but they fail to account for all taxes. The marginal effective corporate tax rate in the U.S. is still [much higher](http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-corporate-effective-tax-rate-myth-and-fact) than other developed countries.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "316ea4492b216a2459a42dfa09040e7a",
"text": "I've heard many times that large corporations have their accounting departments do all sorts of crazy things to get their tax rate drastically lowered. I'm no accountant, and this is not something I have done a ton of research into, but I did find [this paper](http://www.ctj.org/corporatetaxdodgers/sorrystateofcorptaxes.php#Executive Summary) that states that between 2008 and 2012 the 288 Fortune 500 companies the study looked at only paid an effective tax rate of 19.4%. Note that the 288 companies selected were selected because of their consistent profitability over that time period. I am open to the possibility of this study being flawed, but I didn't see anything that jumped out at me.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f2f5e4df3da1f6042feaa330f5209880
|
Currency exchange problem
|
[
{
"docid": "ff8c228fa00407ba410e26d425901054",
"text": "\"For the purposes of report generation, I would recommend that you present the data in the currency of the user's home country. You could present another indicator, if needed, to indicate that a specific transaction was denominated in a foreign currency, where the amount represents the value of the foreign-denominated transaction in the user's home country Currency. For example: Airfare from USA to London: $1,000.00 Taxi from airport to hotel: $100.00 (in £) In terms of your database design, I would recommend not storing the data in any one denomination or reference currency. This would require you to do many more conversions between currencies that is likely to be necessary, and will create additional complexity where in some cases, you will need to do multiple conversions per transaction in and out of your reference currency. I think it will be easier for you to store multiple currencies as themselves, and not in a separate reference currency. I would recommend storing several pieces of information separately for each transaction: This way, you can create a calculated Amount for each transaction that is not in the user's \"\"home\"\" currency, whereas you would need to calculate this for all transactions if you used a universal reference currency. You could also get data from an external source if the user has forgotten the conversion rate. Remember that there are always fees and variations in the exchange rate that a user will get for their home country's currency, even if they change money at the same place at two different times on the same day. As a result, I would recommend building in a simple form that allows a user to enter how much they exchanged and how much they got back to calculate the exchange rate. So for example, let's say I have $ 200.00 USD and I exchanged $ 100.00 USD for £ 60.00, and there was a £ 3.00 fee for the exchange. The exchange rate would be 0.6, and when the user enters a currency conversion, your site could create three separate transactions such as: USD Converted to £: $100.00 £ Received from Exchange: £ 60.00 Exchange Fee: £ 3.00 So if the user exchanged currency and then ran a balance report by Currency, you could either show them that they now have $ 100.00 USD and £ 57.00, or you could alternatively choose to show the £ 57.00 that they have as $95.00 USD instead. If you were showing them a transaction report, you could also show the fee denominated in dollars as well. I would recommend storing your balances and transactions in their own currencies, as you will run into some very interesting problems otherwise. For example, let's say you used a reference currency tied to the dollar. So one day I exchange $ 100.00 USD for £ 60.00. In this system I would still have 100 of my reference currency. However, if the next day, the exchange rate falls and $ 1.00 USD is only worth £ 0.55, and I change my £ 60.00 back into USD, I will get approxiamately $ 109.09 USD back for my £ 60.00. If I then go and buy something for $ 100.00 USD, the balance of the reference currency would be at 0, but I will still have $ 9.09 USD in my pocket as a result of the fluctuating currency values! That is why I'd recommend storing currencies as themselves, and only showing them in another currency for convenience using calculations done \"\"on the fly\"\" at report runtime. Best of luck with your site!\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "a5e5d2517a9b70e783fc80f34f3ce7f7",
"text": "What you are doing is barter trade. Most countries [if not all] would tax this on assumed fair value. There are instances where countries may relax this norm in border areas for a small amount. Barter is not just for gold – one can virtually do this for any goods, i.e. sell garments in exchange for oil, sell electronic chips in exchange for consumer goods, etc. Quite a few business would flourish doing this and not exchange currency at all, hence the need for government to tax on the [assumed / calculated / arrived/ derived] fair value. A word of caution: at times this may not be fair at all and may actually cost more than had one done a transaction using currency.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b33cbf727f004a084bf7f74b3a932a74",
"text": "\"Bingo, great question. I'm not the original poster, \"\"otherwiseyep\"\", but I am in the economics field (I'm a currency analyst for a Forex broker). I also happen to strongly disagree with his posts on the origin of money. To answer your question: the villagers are forced to use the new notes by their government, which demands that their income taxes be paid with the new currency. This is glossed over by otherwiseyep, which is unfortunate because it misleads people who are new to economics into believing the system of fiat money we have now is natural/emergent (created from the bottom-up) and not enforced from the top-down. Legal tender laws enforced in each nation's courts mean that all contracts can be settled in the local fiat currency, regardless of whether the receiver of the money wants a different currency. These laws (and the income tax) create an artificial \"\"root demand\"\" for the fiat currency, which is what gives it its value. We don't just *decide* that green paper has value. We are forced to accumulate it by the government. Fiat currencies are not money. We call them money, but in fact they are credit derivatives. Let me explain: A currency's value is inextricably tied to the nation's bond market. When investors buy a nation's bonds, they are loaning that nation money. The investor expects to receive interest payments on the bonds. The interest rate naturally rises as the bonds are perceived to be more-risky, and naturally falls as the bonds are perceived to be less-risky. The risk comes from the fact that governments sometimes get really close to not being able to pay their interest payments. They get into so much debt, and their tax-revenue shrinks as their economy worsens. That drives up the interest rate they must pay when they issue new bonds (ie add debt). So the value of a currency comes from tax revenue (interest payments). If a government misses an interest payment, or doesn't fully pay it, the market considers this a \"\"credit event\"\" and investors sell their bonds and freak out. Selling bonds has the effect of driving interest rates even higher, so it's a vicious cycle. If the government defaults, there's massive deflation because all debt denominated in that currency suddenly skyrockets due to the higher interest rates. This creates a chain of cascading defaults - one person defaults, which leads another person, and another, and so on. Everyone was in debt to everyone else, somewhere along the chain. In order to counteract this deflation (which ultimately leads to the kind of depression you saw in 1930's US), governments will print print print, expanding the credit supply via the banks. So this is what you see happening today - banks are constantly being bailed out all over the Western world, governments are cutting programs to be able to meet their interest payments, and central banks are expanding credit supplies and bailing out their buddies. Real money has ZERO counterparty risk. What is counterparty risk? It's just the risk that the guy who owes you something won't honor his debt. Gold and silver and salt and oil aren't IOU's. So they can be real money.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "889b617c42eb36f14a26d3441f38a8f3",
"text": "Have you tried calling a Forex broker and asking them if you can take delivery on currency? Their spreads are likely to be much lower than banks/ATMs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "819ebf9d4c042f3f6513c710753e0994",
"text": "\"The key term you're looking for is \"\"purchasing power parity\"\", which considers the local prices of goods and services when making comparisons between countries. For example, you can look up the GDP by PPP per capita to get a sense of much people on average incomes can buy in each country. Of course, average incomes may not be too relevant to your own specific circumstances, but nonetheless you can look at the PPP data itself to figure out how to translate specific numbers between two currencies. However, note that the \"\"basket\"\" of goods used to calculate this measure itself has a significant impact on the results. Comparing prices of food and electronic equipment respectively will often give very different answers.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1c0c5e7650ac2b723b638a50e5bc0f53",
"text": "There are lots of reasons for the differences in price. Can you go to (a) bank, (b) forex bureau and (c) central bank and post back both bid and offer prices at a given time so we can consider the spread? What you've said above for (a) and (b) are presumably USDGHS offer prices, because they are higher than the (c) central bank price. If a bank or bureau bid price was higher than the central bank offer price then you could buy GHS from the central bank and then sell them to a bureau for a higher price, an almost no risk arbitrage, other than the armoured car to deliver the funds from central bank to bureau. What you've posted is: (a) a bank will sell you 1 USD for 3.4 GHS (b) a bureau will sell you 1 USD for 3.7 GHS (c) we can see the bid/offer for central bank is 3.1949/3.1975 which means the central bank, if you have an account, will sell you 1 USD for 3.1975 GHS. You clearly want to buy USD from the central bank, then the bank, then the bureau. Anyway, the reason for these differences is all to do with liquidity conditions in the local areas, the customer types, and the frequency of orders versus inventory... Think about it. The central bank has the most frequency of orders and the biggest customers so it offers the lower price, then the bank, and then the bureau. I think the bureau is the worst price there... You have to explain further :)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "94d2490c97d88ed2dc63b9efb26711fb",
"text": "\"You are right, if by \"\"a lot of time\"\" you mean a lot of occasions lasting a few milliseconds each. This is one of the oldest arbitrages in the book, and there's plenty of people constantly on the lookout for such situations, hence they are rare and don't last very long. Most of the time the relationship is satisfied to within the accuracy set by the bid-ask spread. What you write as an equality should actually be a set of inequalities. Continuing with your example, suppose 1 GBP ~ 2 USD, where the market price to buy GBP (the offer) is $2.01 and to sell GBP (the bid) is $1.99. Suppose further that 1 USD ~ 2 EUR, and the market price to buy USD is EUR2.01 and to sell USD is EUR1.99. Then converting your GBP to EUR in this way requires selling for USD (receive $1.99), then sell the USD for EUR (receive EUR3.9601). Going the other way, converting EUR to GBP, it will cost you EUR4.0401 to buy 1 GBP. Hence, so long as the posted prices for direct conversion are within these bounds, there is no arbitrage.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "edb1f705ad85940e241269d785bb0f6b",
"text": "Originally dollars were exchangeable for specie at any time, provided you went to a govt exchange. under Bretton Woods this was a generally fixed rate, but regardless there existed a spread on gold. This ceased to be the case in 71 when the Nixon shock broke Bretton woods.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2237029210f2414fe0ef52b4b015cee7",
"text": "\"It's simply supply and demand. First, demand: If you're an importer trying to buy from overseas, you'll need foreign currency, maybe Euros. Or if you want to make a trip to Europe you'll need to buy Euros. Or if you're a speculator and think the USD will fall in value, you'll probably buy Euros. Unless there's someone willing to sell you Euros for dollars, you can't get any. There are millions of people trying to exchange currency all over the world. If more want to buy USD, than that demand will positively influence the price of the USD (as measured in Euros). If more people want to buy Euros, well, vice versa. There are so many of these transactions globally, and the number of people and the nature of these transactions change so continuously, that the prices (exchange rates) for these currencies fluctuate continuously and smoothly. Demand is also impacted by what people want to buy and how much they want to buy it. If people generally want to invest their savings in stocks instead of dollars, i.e., if lots of people are attempting to buy stocks (by exchanging their dollars for stock), then the demand for the dollar is lower and the demand for stocks is higher. When the stock market crashes, you'll often see a spike in the exchange rate for the dollar, because people are trying to exchange stocks for dollars (this represents a lot of demand for dollars). Then there's \"\"Supply:\"\" It may seem like there are a fixed number of bills out there, or that supply only changes when Bernanke prints money, but there's actually a lot more to it than that. If you're coming from Europe and want to buy some USD from the bank, well, how much USD does the bank \"\"have\"\" and what does it mean for them to have money? The bank gets money from depositors, or from lenders. If one person puts money in a deposit account, and then the bank borrows that money from the account and lends it to a home buyer in the form of a mortgage, the same dollar is being used by two people. The home buyer might use that money to hire a carpenter, and the carpenter might put the dollar back into a bank account, and the same dollar might get lent out again. In economics this is called the \"\"multiplier effect.\"\" The full supply of money being used ends up becoming harder to calculate with this kind of debt and re-lending. Since money is something used and needed for conducting of transactions, the number of transactions being conducted (sometimes on credit) affects the \"\"supply\"\" of money. Demand and supply blur a bit when you consider people who hoard cash. If I fear the stock market, I might keep all my money in dollars. This takes cash away from companies who could invest it, takes the cash out of the pool of money being used for transactions, and leaves it waiting under my mattress. You could think of my hoarding as a type of demand for currency, or you could think of it as a reduction in the supply of currency available to conduct transactions. The full picture can be a bit more complicated, if you look at every way currencies are used globally, with swaps and various exchange contracts and futures, but this gives the basic story of where prices come from, that they are not set by some price fixer but are driven by market forces. The bank just facilitates transactions. If the last price (exchange rate) is 1.2 Dollars per Euro, and the bank gets more requests to buy USD for Euros than Euros for USD, it adjusts the rate downwards until the buying pressure is even. If the USD gets more expensive, at some point fewer people will want to buy it (or want to buy products from the US that cost USD). The bank maintains a spread (like buy for 1.19 and sell for 1.21) so it can take a profit. You should think of currency like any other commodity, and consider purchases for currency as a form of barter. The value of currency is merely a convention, but it works. The currency is needed in transactions, so it maintains value in this global market of bartering goods/services and other currencies. As supply and demand for this and other commodities/goods/services fluctuate, so does the quantity of any particular currency necessary to conduct any of these transactions. A official \"\"basket of goods\"\" and the price of those goods is used to determine consumer price indexes / inflation etc. The official price of this particular basket of goods is not a fundamental driver of exchange rates on a day to day basis.\"",
"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": "b599fa547d14e731b3f8685f44242823",
"text": "of course the value will be non zero however it would be very small, as all the countries would not leave at once... if its a piig holding the bag it would fall precipitously, if its a AAA (non france) it would go to 1.5 Its very path dependent on whom leaves when",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "00d49f052fb781ee71a1495d8231ff6e",
"text": "It depends on the asset and the magnitude of the exchange rate change relative to the inflation rate. If it is a production asset, the prices can be expected to change relative to the changes in exchange rate regardless of magnitude, ceteris paribus. If it is a consumption asset, the prices of those assets will change with the net of the exchange rate change and inflation rate, but it can be a slow process since all of the possessions of the country becoming relatively poorer cannot immediately be shipped out and the need to exchange wants for goods will be resisted as long as possible.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "65f64df82912de866c806551dee668fe",
"text": "\"You are violating the Uncovered Interest Rate Parity. If Country A has interest rate of 4% and Country B has interest rate of 1%, Country B's expected exchange rate must appreciate by 3% compared to spot. The \"\"persistent pressure to further depreciate\"\" doesn't magically occur by decree of the supreme leader. If there is room for risk free profit, the entire Country B would deposit their money at Country A, since Country A has higher interest rate and \"\"appreciates\"\" as you said. The entire Country A will also borrow their money at Country B. The exception is Capital Control. Certain people are given the opportunity to get the risk free profit, and the others are prohibited from making those transactions, making UIP to not hold.\"",
"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": "bc6e266b59ecc292bde5266b4226db53",
"text": "\"The solution I've come up with is to keep income in CAD, and Accounts Receivable in USD. Every time I post an invoice it prompts for the exchange rate. I don't know if this is \"\"correct\"\" but it seems to be preserving all of the information about the transactions and it makes sense to me. I'm a programmer, not an accountant though so I'd still appreciate an answer from someone more familiar with this topic.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "73d2f348f3576d5ac88d7a304f9538a9",
"text": "You want to bank with HSBC: From: http://www.offshore.hsbc.com/1/2/international/foreign-exchange-currency/foreign-exchange/faqs HSBC Bank International does not charge ‘commission’, therefore offering 0% commission on foreign currency exchange transactions",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
3809b2dc027980a7178bd925a21786e8
|
Multi-year profit/tax question
|
[
{
"docid": "cc6fa619ea47d96f8115d98b2b451219",
"text": "\"This is called \"\"Net Operating Loss\"\", and it is in fact applicable for individuals as well. You can, under certain circumstances, have NOL even as an individual. But it is far more common in the corporate world. What happens is that you can carry it back or forward, and get refund on taxes paid or adjust income for taxes to pay. In your example, you could carry the $75 NOL back and deduct it from the prior year earnings, reducing the taxable income from $100 to $25, getting $18.75 of the $25 paid as taxes - back. The link is for individual NOL, corporate rules are different, but the principle is the same.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "200fcef0533e0e0a2d7806632fc623de",
"text": "\"For example, if I have an income of $100,000 from my job and I also realize a $350,000 in long-term capital gains from a stock sale, will I pay 20% on the $350K or 15%? You'll pay 20% assuming filing single and no major offsets to taxable income. Capital gains count towards your income for determining tax bracket. They're on line 13 of the 1040 which is in the \"\"income\"\" section and aren't adjusted out/excluded from your taxable income, but since they are taxed at a different rate make sure to follow the instructions for line 44 when calculating your tax due.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ae579dcb50cc14bc3da84900f50b83ed",
"text": "I'm no tax expert by any means. I do know that a disreagarded entity is considered a sole proprietor for federal tax purposes. My understanding is that this means your personal tax year and your business tax year must be one and the same. Nevertheless, it is technically possible to have a non-calendar fiscal year as an individual. This is so rare that I'm unable to find a an IRS reference to this. The best reference I could find was this article written by two CPAs. If you really want to persue this, you basically need to talk with an accountant, since this is complicated, and required keeping propper accounting records for your personal life, in addition to your business. A ledger creqated after-the-fact by an accountant has been ruled insufficent. You really need to live by the fiscal year you choose.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2c3122d7636f15842b326dc32f0f5598",
"text": "The sale of shares on vesting convolutes matters. In a way similar to how reinvested dividends are taxed but the newly purchased fund shares' basis has to be increased, you need to be sure to have the correct per share cost basis. It's easy to confuse the total RSU purchase with the correct numbers, only what remained. The vesting stock is a taxable event, ordinary income. You then own the stock at that cost basis. A sale after that is long or short term and the profit is the to extent it exceeds that basis. The fact that you got these shares in 2013 means you should have paid the tax then. And this is part two of the process. Of course the partial sale means a bit of math to calculate the basis of what remained.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1c02d9edf84b46abfcdefc0a836a5505",
"text": "\"Property sold at profit is taxed at capital gains rate (if you held it for more than a year, which you have based on your previous question). Thus deferring salary won't change the taxable amount or the tax rate on the property. It may save you the 3% difference on the salary, but I don't know how significant can that be. The 25% depreciation recapture rate (or whatever the current percentage is) is preset by your depreciation and cannot be changed, so you'll have to pay that first. Whatever is left above it is capital gains and will be taxed at discounted rates (20% IIRC). You need to make sure that you deduct everything, and capitalize everything else (all the non-deductible expenses and losses with regards to the property). For example, if you remodeled - its added to your basis (reduces the gains). If you did significant improvements and changes - the same. If you installed new appliances and carpets - they're depreciated faster (you can appropriate part of the sale proceeds to these and thus reduce the actual property related gain). Also, you need to see what gain you have on the land - the land cannot be depreciated, so all the gain on it is capital gain. Your CPA will help you investigating these, and maybe other ways to reduce your tax bill. Do make sure to have proper documentation and proofs for all your claims, don't make things up and don't allow your CPA \"\"cut corners\"\". It may cost you dearly on audit.\"",
"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": "8f710fd6dbc5785f5ee8dd817323e99c",
"text": "Yes, you would have to report the gain. It is not relevant that you traded the stock previously, you still made a profit on the trade-at-hand. Imagine if for some reason this type of trade were exempt. Investors could follow the short term swings of volatile stocks completely tax-free.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "29af954b3b5d2f33d38175d849fcf8ac",
"text": "You should get a 1099-MISC for the $5000 you got. And your broker should send you a 1099-B for the $5500 sale of Google stock. These are two totally separate things as far as the US IRS is concerned. 1) You made $5000 in wages. You will pay income tax on this as well as FICA and other state and local taxes. 2) You will report that you paid $5000 for stock, and sold it for $5500 without holding it for one year. Since this was short term, you will pay tax on the $500 in income you made. These numbers will go on different parts of your tax form. Essentially in your case, you'll have to pay regular income tax rates on the whole $5500, but that's only because short term capital gains are treated as income. There's always the possibility that could change (unlikely). It also helps to think of them separately because if you held the stock for a year, you would pay different tax on that $500. Regardless, you report them in different ways on your taxes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ddf5935ce37f66c96defd0182a0c28d",
"text": "\"This may be closed as not quite PF, but really \"\"startup\"\" as it's a business question. In general, you should talk to a professional if you have this type of question, specifics like this regarding your tax code. I would expect that as a business, you will use a proper paper trail to show that money, say 1000 units of currency, came in and 900 went out. This is a service, no goods involved. The transaction nets you 100, and you track all of this. In the end you have the gross profit, and then business expenses. The gross amount, 1000, should not be the amount taxed, only the final profit.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "621d30c4812c6b44ec2e8bab6810ce01",
"text": "This depends on the nature of the income. Please consult a professional CPA for specific advise.",
"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": "af163056cc5badfd493698d5f2da9724",
"text": "The answer to this question requires looking at the mathematics of the Qualified Dividends and Capital Gains Worksheet (QDCGW). Start with Taxable Income which is the number that appears on Line 43 of Form 1040. This is after the Adjusted Gross Income has been reduced by the Standard Deduction or Itemized Deductions as the case may be, as well as the exemptions claimed. Then, subtract off the Qualified Dividends and the Net Long-Term Capital Gains (reduced by Net Short-Term Capital Losses, if any) to get the non-cap-gains part of the Taxable Income. Assigning somewhat different meanings to the numbers in the OPs' question, let's say that the Taxable Income is $74K of which $10K is Long-Term Capital Gains leaving $64K as the the non-cap-gains taxable income on Line 7 of the QDCGW. Since $64K is smaller than $72.5K (not $73.8K as stated by the OP) and this is a MFJ return, $72.5K - $64K = $8.5K of the long-term capital gains are taxed at 0%. The balance $1.5K is taxed at 15% giving $225 as the tax due on that part. The 64K of non-cap-gains taxable income has a tax of $8711 if I am reading the Tax Tables correctly, and so the total tax due is $8711+225 = $8936. This is as it should be; the non-gains income of $64K was assessed the tax due on it, $8.5K of the cap gains were taxed at 0%, and $1.5K at 15%. There are more complications to be worked out on the QDCGW for high earners who attract the 20% capital gains rate but those are not relevant here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "baff06bf28cd635f0ae8ac8f028df2fb",
"text": "It's whatever you decide. Taking money out of an S-Corp via distribution isn't a taxable event. Practically speaking, yes, you should make sure you have enough money to afford the distribution after paying your expenses, lest you have to put money back a few days later in to pay the phone bill. You might not want to distribute every penny of profit the moment you book it, either -- keeping some money in the business checking account is probably a good idea. If you have consistent cash flow you could distribute monthly or quarterly profits 30 or 60 days in arrears, for example, and then still have cash on hand for operations. Your net profit is reflected on the Schedule K for inclusion on your personal tax return. As an S-Corp, the profit is passed through to the shareholders and is taxable whether or not you actually distributed the money. You owe taxes on the profit reported on the Schedule K, not the amounts distributed. You really should get a tax accountant. Long-term, you'll save money by having your books set up correctly from the start rather than have to go back and fix any mistakes. Go to a Chamber of Commerce meeting or ask a colleague, trusted vendor, or customer for a recommendation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba1ad496da75fa89e0e779d75eb78141",
"text": "\"Yes, your business needs to be in the business of making money in order for you to deduct the expenses associated with it. I suppose in theory this could mean that if you take in $10,000 and spend $30,000 every year, you not only don't get a net deduction of $20,000 (your loss) but you have to pay tax on $10,000 (your revenue). However this is super fixable. Just only deduct $9500 of your expenses. Tada! Small profit.For all the gory details, including how they consider whether you have an expectation of profits, see http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/gl/p-176r/p-176r-e.html This \"\"expectation of profit\"\" rule appears to apply to things like \"\"I sell home décor items (or home decorating advice) and therefore need to take several multi week trips to exotic vacation destinations every year and deduct them as business expenses.\"\" If you're doing woodworking or knitting in your home and selling on Etsy you don't particularly have any expenses. It's hard to imagine a scenario where you consistently sell for less than the cost of materials and then end up dinged on paying tax on revenue.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9aab9a6ed51b608b41a01b83d2fdaf78",
"text": "I agree with the other posters that you will need to seek the advice of a tax attorney specializing in corporate taxation. Here is an idea to investigate: Could you sell the company, and thereby turn the profits that are taxed as ordinary income into a long-term capital gain (taxed at 15%, plus state income tax, if any)? You can determine the value of a profitable business using discounted cash flow analysis, even if you expect that the revenue stream will dry up due to product obsolescence or expiry of licensing agreements. To avoid the capital gains taxes (especially if you live in a high-tax state like California), you could also transfer the stock to a Charitable Remainder Trust. The CRT then sells the shares to the third-party acquirer, invests the proceeds and pays you annual distributions (similar to an annuity). The flip side of a sale is that now the acquiring party will be stuck with the taxes payable on your company's profits (while being forced to amortize the purchase price over multiple years -- 15, if I recall correctly), which will factor into the valuation. However, it is likely that the acquirer has better ways to mitigate the tax impact (e.g. the acquirer is a company currently operating at a loss, and therefore can cancel out the tax liabilities from your company's profits). One final caveat: Don't let the tax tail wag the business dog. In other words, focus your energies on extracting the maximum value from your company, rather than trying to find convoluted tax saving strategies. You might find that making an extra dollar in profits is easier than saving fifty cents in taxes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6f35493317b0fa9767a0827ede4a4505",
"text": "I appreciate it. I didn't operate under selling the asset year five but other than that I followed this example. I appreciate the help. These assignments are just poorly laid out. Financial management also plays on different calculation interactions so it is difficult for me to easily identify the intent at times. Thanks again.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
cbe1ac7645bf0f40b0cbeb086bf3d034
|
Is there any reason not to put a 35% down payment on a car?
|
[
{
"docid": "a7d683c5780a734f14ec78ad96c32ba6",
"text": "\"If you are going to finance a used car, it is frequently best to arrange financing before you even pick out the car. The easiest way I recommend is to talk to a local credit union or two. They'll be able to tell you your interest rate and terms without having to talk to the dealer at all. Most likely, they'll be significantly better than the dealer at getting a good interest rate. As far \"\"what is a good rate?\"\", check out bankrate for average loan rates: http://www.bankrate.com/auto.aspx Today's numbers look like 2.87% is the average for a 48-month used car loan. That means if the bank comes back with something ridiculous like 9% or 10% you know they are way overcharging you. I know someone who got a first-time-buyer rate from Ford and ended up with a 19.99% rate. I could literally buy the car on my credit card and end up in a better spot. Honestly though, if you are 18 and have $5500 to put towards a car, I'd buy a $4500 car and save $1000 for repairs and maintenance. After you have the car, put $250 every month for a \"\"car payment\"\" into a savings account for your next car.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "393ee932bbcbbe5f9751ffa34a64af45",
"text": "\"It sounds like you're basing your understanding of your options regarding financing (and even if you need a car) on what the car salesman told you. It's important to remember that a car salesman will do anything and say anything to get you to buy a car. Saying something as simple as, \"\"You have a low credit score, but we can still help you.\"\" can encourage someone who does not realize that the car salesman is not a financial advisor to make the purchase. In conclusion,\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "731e7426b1c10079a551d93a3bc2c00d",
"text": "If you know that you have a reasonable credit history, and you know that your FICO score is in the 690-neighborhood, and the dealer tells you that you have no credit history, then you also know one of two things: Either way, you should walk away from the deal. If the dealer is willing to lie to you about your credit score, the dealer is also willing to give you a bad deal in other respects. Consider buying a cheaper used car that has been checked out by a mechanic of your choice. If possible, pay cash; if not, borrow as small an amount as possible from a credit union, bank, or even a very low-interest rate credit card. (Credit cards force you to pay off the loan quickly, and do not tie up your car title. I still have not managed to get my credit union loan off of my car title, ten years after I paid it off.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "63a66872b150c43b121c5b604dc88e39",
"text": "\"I somewhat agree to Alex B's post. I was a finance manager for 7 years both prime and sub-prime(special)(in other words bad). The parts he's 100% right on. Hit up you local credit union then your bank. Get your financing done first if you can. Now 690 credit score is one of 3 bureaus, not all banks and lending institutions use all three or the same one. Also the score isn't everything. That could be good or bad. The 2-3% range is normally for the 720+ crowd unless its a manufacture. (GM, Ford, so on) With rates capping out at around 30% depending on state laws. However 690 should not be 19% on a new or late model car. At 690 at 19% you would have be going for a 70,000+ mile 6 year or older car if I had to guess. Assuming you have no BK's and repos. Some times dealerships have to pay banks to get people financed. Its hidden in the cost and they by law are not allowed to tell you about it because it cannot be passed on to you. However the banks don't just fund any crazy amount of money either say like 115% of book and that it. That is where and why they want that big down payment because that is used to off set the finance amount and what you pay. Making the dealership money. and i can go on and on and on... But you should always try to get the funding prior. Your credit union won't charge the hidden fees and they only care about your down payment to see that you are making a commitment. If you are buying used. Save out 1500 for future repairs and tires and such. Don't buy paint protectant and such. If you finance thru the dealership and put less than 20% down DO buy Gap Insurance but thats it. I can go on and on but I won't. Feel free to ask though. And to answer your original only question with not context. \"\"Is there any reason not to put a 35% down payment on a car?\"\" Yes if the money is better served paying off credit cards or long term mortgage, assuming you don't need the write off.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a4e4589e77150edb6090a7c725d0b86",
"text": "I am going to give advice that is slightly differently based on my own experiences. First, regarding the financing, I have found that the dealers do in fact have access to the best interest rates, but only after negotiating with a better financing offer from a bank. When I bought my current car, the dealer was offering somewhere around 3.3%, which I knew was way above the current industry standard and I knew I had good credit. So, like I did with my previous car and my wife's car, I went to local and national banks, came back with deals around 2.5 or 2.6%. When I told the dealer, they were able to offer 2.19%. So it's ok to go with the dealer's financing, just never take them at face value. Whatever they offer you and no matter how much they insist it's the best deal, never believe it! They can do better! With my first car, I had little credit history, similar to your situation, and interest rates were much higher then, like 6 - 8%. The dealer offered me 10%. I almost walked out the door laughing. I went to my own bank and they offered me 8%, which was still high, but better than 10%. Suddenly, the dealer could do 7.5% with a 0.25% discount if I auto-pay through my checking account. Down-payment wise, there is nothing wrong with a 35% down payment. When I purchased my current car, I put 50% down. All else being equal, the more cash down, the better off you'll be. The only issue is to weigh that down payment and interest rate against the cost of other debts you may have. If you have a 7% student loan and the car loan is only 3%, you're better off paying the minimum on the car and using your cash to pay down your student loan. Unless your student loan balance is significantly more than the 8k you need to finance (like a 20k or 30k loan). Also remember that a car is a depreciating asset. I pay off cars as fast as I can. They are terrible debt to have. A home can rise in value, offsetting a mortgage. Your education keeps you employed and employable and will certainly not make you dumber, so that is a win. But a car? You pay $15k for a car that will be worth $14k the next day and $10k a year from now. It's easy to get underwater with a car loan if the down payment is small, interest rate high, and the car loses value quickly. To make sure I answer your questions: Do you guys think it's a good idea to put that much down on the car? If you can afford it and it will not interfere with repayment of much higher interest debts, then yes. A car loan is a major liability, so if you can minimize the debt, you'll be better off. What interest rate is reasonable based on my credit score? I am not a banker, loan officer, or dealer, so I cannot answer this with much credibility. But given today's market, 2.5 - 4% seems reasonable. Do you think I'll get approved? Probably, but only one way to find out!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "72aae8e12b2fe135a24c39334b88a09a",
"text": "\"Do you guys think it's a good idea to put that much down on the car ? In my opinion, it depends on a lot of factors. If you have nothing to pay, and are not planning to invest in something that cost a lot soon (I.E an house, etc). Then I see no problem in put \"\"that much down on the car\"\". Remember that the more you pay at first, the less you will pay interest on. However, if you are planning on buying something big soon, then you might want to pay less and keep moneys for your future investment. I would honestly not finance a car with the garage as I find their interest rate to high. Possibilities depends a lot of your bank accounts, but what I would personally do is pay it cash using my credit margin with the bank which is only 2.8% interest rate. Garage where I live rarely finance under 7% interest rate. You may not have a credit margin, but maybe you could get a loan with the bank instead ? Many bank keep an history of your loan which will get you a better credit name when trying to buy an home later. On the other side, having a good credit name is not really useful in a garage. What interest rate is reasonable based on my credit score? I don't think it is possible to give a real answer to this as it change a lot around the world. However, I would recommend to simply compare with the interest rate asked when being loan by the bank.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6258521702a300eae833d6642dd22f9b",
"text": "I suggest you to apply for a car loan in other banks like DCU or wells fargo, you might get the loan with not the best rate, but after a year you can refinance your loan with a better rate in a different bank since you are going to have a better credit as long as you make your payments in time. I bought a Jetta 2014 last year, my loan is from Wells Fargo. Like you, my credit was low before the loan because I didn't have too much credit history. They gave me the loan with a 8.9% of interest.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc597918ea889cc9c47e943265abc7d3",
"text": "I suggest you buy a more reasonably priced car and keep saving to have the full amount for the car you really want in the future. If you can avoid getting loans it helps a lot in you financial situation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c1065ee20942a2afea1ec71785bc1d8f",
"text": "Makes sense so long as you can afford it while still maintaining at least six months living reserves. The sooner you own outright a decreasing asset the better which should be considered when selecting your loan term. However, with today's low rates and high performing stock market you may want to consider allowing that money to be put to better use. It all depends how risk adverse you are. That emotional aide of this decision and emotions have value, but only you can determine what that value is. So - generally speaking, the sooner you own an asset of decreasing value the better off you are, but in exceptionally low interest rate environments such as today there are, as mentioned, other things you may want to consider. Good luck and enjoy your new ride. Nothing better then some brand new wheels aye.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "23fc1e0f6012f54c0331ebef7ee3bf7b",
"text": "Buying a used car can be risky. It can be easy to make a mistake that would lead you to buying a lemon. Suddenly, your cost-saving tactic to buy a car is costing you more than you thought. This is why before you put down the money to buy your chosen car, there are a few things you should do.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e136cafcae837d65d87c1e9fd27b5988",
"text": "You can negotiate a no penalty for early payment loan with dealerships sometimes. Dealerships will often give you a better price on the car when you finance through them vs paying cash, so you negotiate in a 48 month finance, after you've settled on the price THEN you negotiate the no penalty for early payment point. They'll be less likely to try to raise the price after you've already come to an agreement. My dad has SAID he does this when buying cars, but that could just be hearsay and bravado. Has said he will negotiate on the basis of a long term lease, nail down a price then throw that clause in, then pay the car off in the first payment. Disclaimer: it's...um not a great way to do business though if you plan to purchase a new car every 2-3 years from the same dealer. Do it once and you'll have a note in their CRM not to either a) offer price reductions for financing or b) offer no penalty early payment financing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba37f8fbac914f2ec53278db02793614",
"text": "Dealer financing should be ignored until AFTER you have agreed on the price of the car, since otherwise they tack the costs of it back onto the car's purchase price. They aren't offering you a $2500 cash incentive, but adding a $2500 surcharge if you take their financing package -- which means you're actually paying significantly more than 0.9% for that loan! Remember that you can borrow from folks other than the dealer. If you do that, you still get the cash price, since the dealer is getting cash. Check your other options, and calculate the REAL cost of each, before making your decisions. And remember to watch out for introductory/variable rates on loans! Leasing is generally a bad deal unless you intend to sell the car within three years or so.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "32dd739eac07fbd82c8dc3578df86f0b",
"text": "\"I've run into two lines of thinking on cars when the 0% option is offered. One is that you should buy the car with cash - always. Car debt is not usually considered \"\"good debt,\"\" as there is no doubt but that your car will depreciate. Unless something very odd happens or you keep the car to antique status (and it's a good one), you won't make money off of it. On the other hand, with 0% interest - if you qualify, and remember that dealer promotions aren't for everyone, just those who qualify - you can invest that money in a savings account, bonds, a mutual fund, or the stock market and theoretically make a lot more over the 5 years while paying down the car. In that case, you really only need to make sure you save enough to make the payment low enough for your comfort zone. Personally I prefer to not be making a car payment. Your personal comfort level may vary. Also, in terms of getting your money's worth a gently used car in good condition is miles better than a new car. Someone else took the hit on the \"\"drive it off the lot\"\" decline in price for you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f2d1c0c043e6c0d127ce9c0d8d2b9b31",
"text": "Any way you look at it, this is a terrible idea. Cars lose value. They are a disposable item that gets used up. The more expensive the car, the more value they lose. If you spend $100,000 on a new car, in four years it will be worth less than $50,000.* That is a lot of money to lose in four years. In addition to the loss of value, you will need to buy insurance, which, for a $100,000 car, is incredible. If your heart is set on this kind of car, you should definitely save up the cash and wait to buy the car. Do not get a loan. Here is why: Your plan has you saving $1,300 a month ($16,000 a year) for 6.5 years before you will be able to buy this car. That is a lot of money for a long range goal. If you faithfully save this money that long, and at the end of the 6.5 years you still want this car, it is your money to spend as you want. You will have had a long time to reconsider your course of action, but you will have sacrificed for a long time, and you will have the money to lose. However, you may find out a year into this process that you are spending too much money saving for this car, and reconsider. If, instead, you take out a loan for this car, then by the time you decide the car was too much of a stretch financially, it will be too late. You will be upside down on the loan, and it will cost you thousands to sell the car. So go ahead and start saving. If you haven't given up before you reach your goal, you may find that in 6.5 years when it is time to write that check, you will look back at the sacrifices you have made and decide that you don't want to simply blow that money on a car. Consider a different goal. If you invest this $1300 a month and achieve 8% growth, you will be a millionaire in 23 years. * You don't need to take my word for it. Look at the car you are interested in, go to kbb.com, select the 2012 version of the car, and look up the private sale value. You'll most likely see a price that is about half of what a new one costs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "584d3a1d780d21200d209d91a428d8b4",
"text": "Cash price is $22,500. Financed, it's the same thing (0% interest) but you pay a $1500 fee. 1500/22500 = 6.6%. Basically the APR for your loan is 1.1% per year but you are paying it all upfront. Opportunity cost: If you take the $22,500 you plan to pay for the car and invested it, could you earn more than the $1500 interest on the car loan? According to google, as of today you can get 1 year CD @ 1.25% so yes. It's likely that interest rates will be going up in medium term so you can potentially earn even more. Insurance cost: If you finance you'll have to get comprehensive insurance which could be costly. However, if you are planning to get it anyway (it's a brand new car after all), that's a wash. Which brings me to my main point: Why do you have $90k in a savings account? Even if you are planning to buy a house you should have that money invested in liquid assets earning you interest. Conclusion: Take the cheap money while it's available. You never know when interest rates will go up again.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "27a390024a12c86aad00258b2b08642a",
"text": "Most of the people I know that own them are slightly older, and thus in their prime earning years, and many have paid off their homes. That can free up $1000 a month or more in monthly expenses, which would easily cover a nice luxury car payment. If you've got it, and are into cars, why not? What's the point in having the biggest tombstone in the graveyard?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba52e2de758b83fa4bbace296bc92660",
"text": "\"Yikes! Not always is this the case... For example, you purchased a new car with an interest rate of 5-6%or even higher... Why pay that much interest throughout the loan. Sometimes trading in the vehicle at a lower rate will get you a lower or sometimes the same payment even with an upgraded (newer/safer technology) design. The trade off? When going from New to New, the car may depreciate faster than what you would save from the interest savings on a new loan. Sometimes the tactics used to get you back to the dealership could be a little harsh, but if you do your research long before you inquire, you may come out on the winning end. Look at what you're paying in interest and consider it a \"\"re-finance\"\" of your car but taking advantage of the manufacturer's low apr special to off-set the costs.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1109a029b9265828ac0b300a07184763",
"text": "\"This is \"\"incentive financing\"\". Simply put, the car company isn't in the business of making money by buying government bonds. They're in the business of making money by selling cars. If you are \"\"qualified\"\" from a credit standpoint, and want to buy a $20k car on any given Sunday, you'll typically be offered a loan of between 6% and 9%. Let's say this loan is for three years and you can offer $4000 down payment and/or trade. The required monthly payment on the remaining $16k at the high end of 9% is $508.80, which over 3 years means you'll pay $2,316.64 in interest. Now, that may sound like a good chunk of change, and for the ordinary individual, it is, possibly enough that you decide not to buy today. Now, let's say, all other things being equal, that the company is offering 0.9% incentive financing. Same price, same down payment, same loan term. Your payments over 3 years decrease to $450.64, and over the same loan term you would only pay $222.97 in interest. You save over $2,093.67 in interest over three years, which for you is again a decent chunk of change. Theoretically, the car company's losing that same $2,093.67 in interest by offering this deal, and depending on how it's getting the money it lends you (most financial companies are middlemen, getting money from bond-buying investors who expect a rate of return), that could be a real loss and not just opportunity cost. But, that incentive got you to walk in their door, and not their competitor's. It helped convince you to buy the $20,000 car. The gross margin on that car (price minus direct costs) is typically 20% for the dealer, plus another 20% for the manufacturer, so by giving up the $2,000 on the financing side, the dealer and manufacturer just earned themselves 4 times that much. On top of that, by buying that car, you're committing to buy the parts for the car, a side business with even higher margins, of which the car company gets a pretty big chunk. You may even be required to use dealer service while the car's under warranty in order to keep the warranty valid, another cha-ching. When you get right down to it, the loss from the incentive financing is drowned in the gross profits they make from selling the car to you. Now, in reality, it's a fine balance. The percentages I mentioned are gross margins (EBITDASG&A - Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, Amortization, Sales, General and Administrative costs; basically, just revenue minus direct cost of goods sold). Add in all these side costs and you get a net margin of only about 3.5% of revenue, so your $20k car purchase may only make the car company's stakeholders $700 on the sale, plus slightly higher net margins on parts and service over the life of the car. Because incentive financing is typically only offered through the company's own financing subsidiary, the loss isn't in the form of a cost paid, but simply a revenue not realized, but it can still move a car company from net positive to net negative earnings if the program is too successful. This is why not everyone does it, and not all at the same time; if you're selling enough cars without it, why give away money? Typically, these incentives are offered for two reasons; to clear out old cars or excess inventory, or to maintain ground against a competitor's stronger sales numbers. Keeping cars on a lot ready to sell is expensive, and so is not having your brand driving around on the street turning heads and imprinting their name on the minds of potential customers.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e5776554e72177e1428313f872537e1",
"text": "\"Thanks for your question. Definitely pay the car down as soon as possible (reasoning to follow). In fact, I would go even further and recommend the following: Why? 1) Make money risk free - the key here is RISK FREE. By paying down the loan now, you can avoid paying interest on the additional amount paid toward principal risk free. Imagine this scenario: if you walked into a bank and they said, \"\"If you give us $100, we'll give you $103 back today\"\", would you do it? That is exactly what you get to do by not paying interest on the remaining loan principal. 2) The spread you might make by investing is not as large as you may think. Let's assume that by investing, you can make a market return of 10%. However, these are future cash flows, so let's discount this for inflation to a \"\"real\"\" 8% return. Then let's assume that after fees and taxes this would be a 7% real after-tax return. You also have to remember that this money is at risk in the market and may not get this return in some years. Assuming that your friend's average tax rate on earned income is 25%, this means that he'd need to earn $400 pre-tax to pay the after-tax payment of $300. So this is a 4% risk-free return after tax compared to a 7% average after tax return from the market, but one where the return is at risk. The equivalent after-tax risk-free return from the market (think T-Bills) is much lower than 7%. You are also reducing risk by paying the car loan off first in a few other ways, which is a great way to increase peace of mind. First, since cars decline in value over time, you are minimizing the possibility that you will eventually end up \"\"under water\"\" on the loan, where the loan balance is greater than the value of the car. This also gives you more flexibility in terms of being able to sell the car at any point if desired. Additionally, if the car breaks down and must be replaced, you would not need to continue making payments on the old loan, of if your friend loses his job, he would own the car outright and would not need to make payments. Finally, ideally you would only be investing in the market when you intend to leave the money there for 5+ years. Otherwise, you might need to pull money out of the market at a bad time. Remember, annual market returns vary quite a bit, but over 5-10 year periods, they are much more stable. Unfortunately, most people don't keep cars 5-10+ years, so you are likely to need the money back for another car more frequently than this. If you are pulling money out of the market every 5-10 years, you are more likely to need to pull money out at a bad time. 3) Killing off the \"\"buy now, pay later\"\" mindset will result in long-term financial benefits. Stop paying interest on things that go down in value. Save up and buy them outright, and invest the extra money into things that generate income/dividends. This is a good long-term habit to have. People also tend to be more prudent when considering the total cost of a purchase rather than just the monthly payment because it \"\"feels\"\" like more money when you buy outright. As a gut check for whether this is a good idea, here is an example that Dave Ramsey likes to use: Suppose that your friend did not have the emergency fund, and also did not have the car loan and owned the car outright. In that case, would your friend take out a title loan on the car in order to have an emergency fund? I think that a lot of people would say no, which may be a good indicator that it is wise to reduce the emergency fund in order to wipe out the debt, rather than maintaining both.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e6bf0329cade75454187b0320816ddc2",
"text": "\"One part of the equation that I don't think you are considering is the loss in value of the car. What will this 30K car be worth in 84 months or even 60 months? This is dependent upon condition, but probably in the neighborhood of $8 to $10K. If one is comfortable with that level of financial loss, I doubt they are concerned with the investment value of 27K over the loan of 30K @.9%. I also think it sets a bad precedent. Many, and I used to be among them, consider a car payment a necessary evil. Once you have one, it is a difficult habit to break. Psychologically you feel richer when you drive a paid for car. Will that advantage of positive thinking lead to higher earnings? Its possible. The old testament book of proverbs gives many sound words of advice. And you probably know this but it says: \"\"...the borrower is slave to the lender\"\". In my own experience, I feel there is a transformation that is beyond physical to being debt free.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9bd0f3fe069b9d41b6a0d7cbd12c89bf",
"text": "I am currently in the process of purchasing a house. I am only putting 5% down. I see that some are saying that the traditional 20% down is the way to go. I am a first time homebuyer, and unfortunately we no longer live in the world where 20% down is mandatory, which is part of the reason why housing prices are so high. I feel it is more important that you are comfortable with what your monthly payments are as well as being informed on how interest rates can change how much you owe each month. Right now interest rates are pretty low, and it would almost be silly to put 20% down on your home. It might make more sense to put money in different vehicle right now, if you have extra, as the global economy will likely pick up and until it does, interest rates will likely stay low. Just my 2 cents worth. EDIT: I thought it would not be responsible of me not to mention that you should always have extra's saved for closing costs. They can be pricey, and if you are not informed of what they are, they can creep up on you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "29f5f16def88e90faafd2ffce153b7d7",
"text": "I doubt it. I researched it a bit when I was shopping for a HELOC, and found no bank giving HELOC for more than 80% LTV. In fact, most required less than 80%. Banks are more cautious now. If the bank is not willing to compromise on the LTV for the first mortgage - either look for another bank, or another place to buy. I personally would not consider buying something I cannot put at least 20% downpayment on. It means that such a purchase is beyond means.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5bfbab6e7601d5bb538b8c569ef36e01",
"text": "What's really worrisome is that people are buying larger and more expensive vehicles. People look at longer terms as an opportunity to buy something they really shouldn't be since hey, I can take it for two more years for the same payment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4874af977160f3a38caa439a8163e5d8",
"text": "The only time it makes sense to take out a loan is: The drawbacks of these 2 points are: Otherwise it's better to pay for the car up front. You have not mentioned whether you need the car to earn income. A car will incur other costs such as insurance and maintenance.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
6684348401d35e43189f0f03b0f32fc9
|
Is there a term for total money owed to you?
|
[
{
"docid": "ad8717fc5206507523a432d6860760e5",
"text": "\"Is there a word for that $20k owed? Trade Receivables, Accounts Receivables, or just Receivables Is there a different word for that $30k \"\"hypothetical\"\" total? Current Assets (Includes Inventory and other short term assets)\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d2930f58b82be1037bcd97026c3c9461",
"text": "The reason the loan amount is showing is because it is a default - the fact that you live in a non-recourse state doesn't change the fact that a loan obligation that had your name on it was defaulted upon. I don't think there is much you can do now given that your name was still on the mortgages.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3ab074c9108274b749a78047bc2eec8f",
"text": "\"Journal entry into Books of company: 100 dr. expense a/c 1 200 dr. expense a/c 2 300 dr. expanse a/c 3 // cr. your name 600 Each expense actually could be a total if you don´t want to itemise, to save time if you totaled them on a paper. The paper is essentually an invoice. And the recipts are the primary documents. Entry into Your journal: dr. Company name // cr. cash or bank You want the company to settle at any time the balce is totaled for your name in the company books and the company name in your books. They should be equal and the payment reverses it. Or, just partially pay. Company journal: dr. your name // cr. cash or bank your journal: dr. cash or bank // cr. company name Look up \"\"personal accounts\"\" for the reasoning. Here is some thing on personal accounts. https://books.google.com/books?id=LhPMCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT4&dq=%22personal+account%22+double+entry&hl=es-419&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22personal%20account%22%20double%20entry&f=false\"",
"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": "d0a4893b71dec99934e4e67dee7a5b8c",
"text": "I walked away from a house last year and don't regret it a single bit. I owed $545,000 and the bank sold it a month after moving out for $328,900. So technically I guess I can be on the hook to someone for the missing $216,100 for many years to come. Oh well. They can come after me if they want and I'll declare bankruptcy then.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2fe79a7a30e60ba8d2e403024da3b0f3",
"text": "If you have a negative balance on your credit card, you can call the issuer and have them send you a check for the amount. Some will do it automatically for large amounts or if it stays negative over some period of time. Usually credit card issuers don't let paying more than the current balance, but it still can happen sometimes if you pay off your balance and then get a refund, for example.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b43f330c145b3509335301b690bd3eb",
"text": "There is no interest outstanding, per se. There is only principal outstanding. Initially, principal outstanding is simply your initial loan amount. The first two sections discuss the math needed - just some arithmetic. The interest that you owe is typically calculated on a monthly basis. The interested owed formula is simply (p*I)/12, where p is the principal outstanding, I is your annual interest, and you're dividing by 12 to turn annual to monthly. With a monthly payment, take out interest owed. What you have left gets applied into lowering your principal outstanding. If your actual monthly payment is less than the interest owed, then you have negative amortization where your principal outstanding goes up instead of down. Regardless of how the monthly payment comes about (eg prepay, underpay, no payment), you just apply these two calculations above and you're set. The sections below will discuss these cases in differing payments in detail. For a standard 30 year fixed rate loan, the monthly payment is calculated to pay-off the entire loan in 30 years. If you pay exactly this amount every month, your loan will be paid off, including the principal, in 30 years. The breakdown of the initial payment will be almost all interest, as you have noticed. Of course, there is a little bit of principal in that payment or your principal outstanding would not decrease and you would never pay off the loan. If you pay any amount less than the monthly payment, you extend the duration of your loan to longer than 30 years. How much less than the monthly payment will determine how much longer you extend your loan. If it's a little less, you may extend your loan to 40 years. It's possible to extend the loan to any duration you like by paying less. Mathematically, this makes sense, but legally, the loan department will say you're in breach of your contract. Let's pay a little less and see what happens. If you pay exactly the interest owed = (p*I)/12, you would have an infinite duration loan where your principal outstanding would always be the same as your initial principal or the initial amount of your loan. If you pay less than the interest owed, you will actually owe more every month. In other words, your principal outstanding will increase every month!!! This is called negative amortization. Of course, this includes the case where you make zero payment. You will owe more money every month. Of course, for most loans, you cannot pay less than the required monthly payments. If you do, you are in default of the loan terms. If you pay more than the required monthly payment, you shorten the duration of your loan. Your principal outstanding will be less by the amount that you overpaid the required monthly payment by. For example, if your required monthly payment is $200 and you paid $300, $100 will go into reducing your principal outstanding (in addition to the bit in the $200 used to pay down your principal outstanding). Of course, if you hit the lottery and overpay by the entire principal outstanding amount, then you will have paid off the entire loan in one shot! When you get to non-standard contracts, a loan can be structured to have any kind of required monthly payments. They don't have to be fixed. For example, there are Balloon Loans where you have small monthly payments in the beginning and large monthly payments in the last year. Is the math any different? Not really - you still apply the one important formula, interest owed = (p*I)/12, on a monthly basis. Then you break down the amount you paid for the month into the interest owed you just calculated and principal. You apply that principal amount to lowering your principal outstanding for the next month. Supposing that what you have posted is accurate, the most likely scenario is that you have a structured 5 year car loan where your monthly payments are smaller than the required fixed monthly payment for a 5 year loan, so even after 2 years, you owe as much or more than you did in the beginning! That means you have some large balloon payments towards the end of your loan. All of this is just part of the contract and has nothing to do with your prepay. Maybe I'm incorrect in my thinking, but I have a question about prepaying a loan. When you take out a mortgage on a home or a car loan, it is my understanding that for the first years of payment you are paying mostly interest. Correct. So, let's take a mortgage loan that allows prepayment without penalty. If I have a 30 year mortgage and I have paid it for 15 years, by the 16th year almost all the interest on the 30 year loan has been paid to the bank and I'm only paying primarily principle for the remainder of the loan. Incorrect. It seems counter-intuitive, but even in year 16, about 53% of your monthly payment still goes to interest!!! It is hard to see this unless you try to do the calculations yourself in a spreadsheet. If suddenly I come into a large sum of money and decide I want to pay off the mortgage in the 16th year, but the bank has already received all the interest computed for 30 years, shouldn't the bank recompute the interest for 16 years and then recalculate what's actually owed in effect on a 16 year loan not a 30 year loan? It is my understanding that the bank doesn't do this. What they do is just tell you the balance owed under the 30 year agreement and that's your payoff amount. Your last sentence is correct. The payoff amount is simply the principal outstanding plus any interest from (p*I)/12 that you owe. In your example of trying to payoff the rest of your 30 year loan in year 16, you will owe around 68% of your original loan amount. That seems unfair. Shouldn't the loan be recalculated as a 16 year loan, which it actually has become? In fact, you do have the equivalent of a 15 year loan (30-15=15) at about 68% of your initial loan amount. If you refinanced, that's exactly what you would see. In other words, for a 30y loan at 5% for $10,000, you have monthly payments of $53.68, which is exactly the same as a 15y loan at 5% for $6,788.39 (your principal outstanding after 15 years of payments), which would also have monthly payments of $53.68. A few years ago I had a 5 year car loan. I wanted to prepay it after 2 years and I asked this question to the lender. I expected a reduction in the interest attached to the car loan since it didn't go the full 5 years. They basically told me I was crazy and the balance owed was the full amount of the 5 year car loan. I didn't prepay it because of this. That is the wrong reason for not prepaying. I suspect you have misunderstood the terms of the loan - look at the Variable Monthly Payments section above for a discussion. The best thing to do with all loans is to read the terms carefully and do the calculations yourself in a spreadsheet. If you are able to get the cashflows spelled out in the contract, then you have understood the loan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b08eab56371c4bf7d572dbbe7e1e467",
"text": "There's not quite enough to answer the question in full. For the two years of non-payment, were there any penalties, or just accrued interest? If no penalties, this is a 3 step time-value-of-money calculation. First, take the terms of the loan and figure out the balance after 5 years. Second, for two years, increase the balance by the monthly interest rate. Last, calculate a new payment with a 13 year duration. Excel or any business calculator can handle this.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7be3594ce50f7ab25bb21d8987af4585",
"text": "I've done several deals in excess of that amount. However, I am confused what you are looking for exactly. Typically those amounts are syndicated and presented via a pitch deck to investors to secure financing. Is an example pitch deck what you are looking for? If not, are you looking for the actual legal agreement? Or are you looking for the credit memo? Think I can point you in the right direction either way. Best chance to find what you are looking for is to check comparable companies investor relations materials and sec filings.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6c2be61b4dd39f764447cdfd9a1e2526",
"text": "The word you're looking for is usury - the crime of lending money at rates above an amount set by law.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8eea2352eaf6e6363a012d1515817349",
"text": "In the U.S., there are laws that protect both employees and employers. Ask for proof of overpayment, and time to respond. If you feel you have a case, consult a lawyer that specializes in wage disputes. Otherwise, let them have their money, out of your last check if necessary. You don't want to have to go to court if you really do owe them. If you tell them a lawyer has accepted your case based on evidence, they may choose to settle out of court to avoid public embarrassment and legal fees, since, if you win, they also have to pay your court fees and legal fees, plus possible punitive damages. Conversely, if you go to court, but you owe them, you'll be subject to pay back what you owe plus their legal fees, which will be far more than you intend to pay them, or even what you'd get if you won. Losing would cost you dearly. Nobody can tell you what the outcome of your specific case will be, but unless the sum is significant, I would recommend that you accept the losses and walk away. While I know this can be hard, as someone who also lives the middle class paycheck-to-paycheck life, you probably can't afford to lose, and your company has expensive lawyers. Losing a few thousand dollars is easier than losing tens of thousands (or more) in a court battle. You can always seek assistance, such as unemployment, welfare, utility assistance, and other government programs to get back on your feet. If you owe them more than you can actually repay, try to negotiate. You want to stay out of court if at all practical. Their lawyers run hundreds of dollars per hour, so if they choose to, they can bury you financially if they have a case.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b4d0c174c50cc545ba42074ac6553474",
"text": "If they had told me that I owe them $10,000 from 3 years ago, I wouldn't have anything to fight back. Why? First thing you have to do is ask for a proof. Have you received treatment? Have you signed the bill when you were done? This should include all the information about what you got and how much you agreed to pay. Do they have that to show to you, with your signature on it? If they don't - you owe nothing. If they do - you can match your bank/credit card/insurance records (those are kept for 7 years at least) and see what has been paid already. Can a doctor's office do that? They can do whatever they want. The right question is whether a doctor's office is allowed to do that. Check your local laws, States regulate the medical profession. Is there a statute of limitation (I'm just guessing) that forces them to notify me in a certain time frame? Statute of limitations limits their ability to sue you successfully. They can always sue you, but if the statute of limitations has passed, the court will throw the suite away (provided you bring this defense up on time of course). Without a judgement they cannot force you to pay them, they can only ask. Nicely, as the law quoted by MrChrister mandates. They can trash your credit report and send the bill to collections though, but if the statute of limitations has passed I doubt they'd do that. Especially if its their fault. I'm not a lawyer, and you should consult with a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction for definitive answers and legal advice.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "69c0b762b3bcc88cf243d2bc0f4f0195",
"text": "What I would prefer is top open a new category charges under dispute and park the amount there. It can be made as an account as well in place of a income or expenses category. This way your account will reconcile and also you will be able to track the disputes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5cdae39af54b52af6326f1f7250d6a5d",
"text": "Thanks for replying. I think we are talking at cross purposes, though. In your original example you were talking terms of a promise to pay at a future time. In that example the asset might be destroyed but the promise to pay would still be binding (under typical laws of obligations) and so a court could enforce the obligaton to pay - unless perhaps the promise was itself nullified eg by being contingent on the asset (the apples) being harvested (ie not being destroyed). So, my question was really whether such a contingent promise really amounts to creating new money (as is suggested by the original example). I don't see a promise of this nature can be akin to creating money - it is a new bargain entered into by two (or more) parties",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4a3829db16c7d062c1b2c885c9d3c0f4",
"text": "If I understand you right, what you need is the minimum amount in the account until your next deposit. So for example, if today is the 10th and you get paid on the 15th, how much do I need to have in the account, so I know how much I can spend? That amount should be all of the bills that will be paid between today and the 15th. An alternative would just to keep a running balance and see what the minimum value is. My personal finance software does that for me, but it's possible, although a little more complicated, in Excel. You'd have to find the date of the next deposit, and do a SUMIF looking for dates between today and that date. That's about as far as I can get without getting off-topic.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5ede24800b5d80033c81f06e9d0f3a38",
"text": "When you submit for reimbursement, the cash you get should be FIFO (first in, first out) and a large bill should empty out 2011 first, automatically tapping 12 for remaining amount owed. I doubt you need to do anything.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
2c93ad07a51116172d1c2bb609aac5d5
|
Rate of change of beta
|
[
{
"docid": "26bfeeda4240cfb5753e43a10455bce9",
"text": "\"This is (almost) a question in financial engineering. First I will note that a discussion of \"\"the greeks\"\" is well presented at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeks_(finance) These measures are first, second and higher order derivatives (or rate of change comparisons) for information that is generally instantaneous. (Bear with me.) For example the most popular, Delta, compares prices of an option or other derived asset to the underlying asset price. The reason we are able to do all this cool analysis is because the the value of the underlying and derived assets have a direct, instantaneous relationship on each other. Because beta is calculated over a large period of time, and because each time slice covered contributes equally to the aggregate, then the \"\"difference in Beta\"\" would really just be showing two pieces of information: Summarizing those two pieces of information into \"\"delta beta\"\" would not be useful to me. For further discussion, please see http://www.gummy-stuff.org/beta.htm specifically look at the huge difference in calculation of GE's beta using end-of-month returns versus calculation using day-before-end-of-month returns.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5070df72e782e7506f474de8de546a33",
"text": "This is a useful metric in that it gives you a trust factor on how reliable the beta is for future expectations It is akin to velocity and acceleration First and second order derivatives of distance / time. Erratic acceleration implies the velocity is less trustworthy Same idea for beta",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cf5b1097c9ea854253309777ec41f2ae",
"text": "If you do not need it for a day or a week or something like that, an easy thing to do to get the beta of a security is to use wolframalpha. Here is a sample query: BETA for AAPL Calculating beta is an important metric, but it is not a be all end all, as there are ways to hedge the beta of your portfolio. So relying on beta is only useful if it is done in conjunction with something else. A high beta security just means that overall the security acts as the market does with some multiplier effect. For a secure portfolio you want beta as close to zero as possible for capital preservation while trying to find ways to exploit alpha.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1c7bca4d050fb9aa9caa7b4e7c8ff819",
"text": "I agree with that, but this study can't have been conducted over the long term. I'm just pointing out that just because the rates of increase are different doesn't necessarily imply a high margin of error. Could be a high margin of error, of course, just saying the difference doesn't imply this.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "12226cbcd9d23ce4d27dc0efef65eece",
"text": "Don't have access to a Bloomberg, Eikon ect terminal but I was wondering if those that do know of any functions that show say, the percentage of companies (in different Mcap ranges) held by differing rates institutionally. For example - if I wanted to compare what percentage of small cap companies' shares are 75% or more held by institutions relative to large cap companies what could I search in the terminal?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "84479c44e3b2139c6c5622fe4c66eda9",
"text": "I think I may have gotten my reasoning backwards, since beta can be thought of as just the quantification of the relationship in prices but in itself isn't the actual reason behind them. Risk free are things such as Treasury bonds/bills.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5d0b360de7d5745d006ae345e6072492",
"text": "The value of the asset doesn't change just because of the exchange rate change. If a thing (valued in USD) costs USD $1 and USD $1 = CAN $1 (so the thing is also valued CAN $1) today and tomorrow CAN $1 worth USD $0.5 - the thing will continue being worth USD $1. If the thing is valued in CAN $, after the exchange rate change, the thing will be worth USD $2, but will still be valued CAN $1. What you're talking about is price quotes, not value. Price quotes will very quickly reach the value, since any deviation will be used by the traders to make profits on arbitrage. And algo-traders will make it happen much quicker than you can even notice the arbitrage existence.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f4b69c1b4dee246e67fb913d8f2d7439",
"text": "Identify the market and time period. Use the [capital asset pricing model](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_asset_pricing_model) to determine the market beta(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_(finance) for your given stock and interpret the results (if your stock plots above the security market line, it means you are getting higher return for your risk, with consideration of the affects of market risk). Maybe give a more detailed question? You might simply need to compute a modified [Sharpe Ratio](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharpe_ratio) using the market (during the time you've decided is the recession) as the risk free rate. Tough to give a good answer to such a general/non-specific question. EDIT: link formatting - can't get the beta page to link because of '( )' in url",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22d688f1402e8f49f666d9a6935b39a0",
"text": "The volatility measures how fast the stock moves, not how much. So you need to know the period during which that change occurred. Then the volatility naturally is higher the faster is the change.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb40365ea193ef944818cd92378da144",
"text": "He said he's using MSCI World as a benchmark. MSCI World is not an exchange. The point is the same security listed in different places has different prices, so how do you describe the equity beta of the company to MSCI World if you have multiple and different return streams? This is a real problem to consider and you just dismiss it entirely.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3b2860b2a0cb99380d086fe2d4ba081",
"text": "Still working on exact answer to question....for now: (BONUS) Here is how to pull a graphical chart with the required data: Therefore: As r14 = the indicator for RSI. The above pull would pull Google, 6months, line chart, linear, large, with a 50 day moving average, a 200 day exponential moving average, volume, and followed up with RSI. Reference Link: Finance Yahoo! API's",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d298f15e936007876cd081e40c7107c7",
"text": "I think what's screwing up my calculation is the (reL), return on equity levereged figure. The beta for KORS apparently is -0.58, so when I use the formula reL = rf + (ßL)(rm - rf), I get -0.0048 as my reL. Am I doing my beta wrong? Am I supposed to use a different figure for my beta? ALSO, further in the process, when using the formula for WACC, my E/(D+E) is essentially 1.0 because market value of equity for KORS is 7bill and its market value of debt is only like 147 million. edit: I'm beginning to believe that my beta of -0.58 is not rightly used. It's what yahoo told me, but other sources are saying that the beta of KORS is more like -0.01 or close to 0. Yes? edit 2: Using -0.01 beta, I get a rdWACC of 2.2%. Now this seems more plausible. I did some research on negative betas and found out that they basically don't really exist aside from gold. So Yahoo must be giving me a weird beta figure. Other websites are all giving me -0.01, so I believe that is correct.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fbb266c63910a7158d5318a7475546f1",
"text": "There's no standard formula. You can compare the going rates on the market for unsecured LOCs and take that as the starting anchor. Unsecured lines of credit run in the US at about 8-18%. Your risk should be reflected in the rate, and I see no reason why the rate would change throughout the loan. As to the amount of principal changing? Just chose one of the standard compounding options - daily (most precise, but most tedious to calculate), monthly average balance, etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e2be48d370930b6b5a2b1b9f265e806d",
"text": "While it is true that if the Federal reserve bank makes a change in their rate there is not an immediate change in the other rates that impact consumers; there is some linkage between the federal rate, and the costs of banks and other lenders regarding borrowing money. Of course the cost of borrowing money does impact the costs for businesses looking to expand, which does impact their ability to hire more workers and expand capacity. A change in business expansion does impact employment and unemployment... Then changes in employment can cause a change in raises, which can cause changes in prices which is inflation... Plus the lenders that lend to business see the flow of new loans change as the employment outlook change. If the costs of doing business for the bank changes or the flow of loans change, they do adjust the rates they pay depositors and the rates they charge borrowers... How long it will take to change the cost of an auto loan? No way to tell. Keep in mind that in complex systems, change can be delayed, and won't move in lock step. For example the price of gas\\s doesn't always move the same way a price of a barrel of oil does.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "94b0eb59cb559d2170937442bba90e5a",
"text": "Let's say I have a large company with a sub-unit which accounts for 40% of their revenues. The company is traded at a foreign stock exchange, but have the sub-unit that is located domestically. The beta of the company can be easily found online or calculated manually. How do I determine the beta of a sub-unit of a multinational company?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e77c8b4df0b2547a309756256605859",
"text": "\"The short answer is the annualised volatility over twenty years should be pretty much the same as the annualised volatility over five years. For independent, identically distributed returns the volatility scales proportionally. So for any number of monthly returns T, setting the annualization factor m = 12 annualises the volatility. It should be the same for all time scales. However, note the discussion here: https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/7496/7178 Scaling volatility [like this] only is mathematically correct when the underlying price model is driven by Geometric Brownian motion which implies that prices are log normally distributed and returns are normally distributed. Particularly the comment: \"\"its a well known fact that volatility is overestimated when scaled over long periods of time without a change of model to estimate such \"\"long-term\"\" volatility.\"\" Now, a demonstration. I have modelled 12,000 monthly returns with mean = 3% and standard deviation = 2, so the annualised volatility should be Sqrt(12) * 2 = 6.9282. Calculating annualised volatility for return sequences of various lengths (3, 6, 12, 60 months etc.) reveals an inaccuracy for shorter sequences. The five-year sequence average got closest to the theoretically expected figure (6.9282), and, as the commenter noted \"\"volatility is [slightly] overestimated when scaled over long periods of time\"\". Annualised volatility for varying return sequence lengths Edit re. comment Reinvesting returns does not affect the volatility much. For instance, comparing some data I have handy, the Dow Jones Industrial Average Capital Returns (CR) versus Net Returns (NR). The return differences are somewhat smoothed, 0.1% each month, 0.25% every third month. More erratic dividend reinvestment would increase the volatility.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e8b3c1cca904587c28af58db32522868",
"text": "The short float ratio and percent change are all calculated based on the short interest (the total number of shares shorted). The short interest data for Nasdaq and NYSE stocks is published every two weeks. NasdaqTrader.com shows the exact dates for when short interest is published for Nasdaq stocks, and also says the following: FINRA member firms are required to report their short positions as of settlement on (1) the 15th of each month, or the preceding business day if the 15th is not a business day, and (2) as of settlement on the last business day of the month.* The reports must be filed by the second business day after the reporting settlement date. FINRA compiles the short interest data and provides it for publication on the 8th business day after the reporting settlement date. The NYSE also shows the exact dates for when short interest is published for NYSE stocks, and those dates are exactly the same as for Nasdaq stocks. Since the short interest is only updated once every 2 weeks, there is no way to see real-time updating of the short float and percent change. That information only gets updated once every 2 weeks - after each publication of the short interest.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8419e262d2981b22885815b03f1edaff",
"text": "Looked at the luv model quickly. The most likely reason is you calculated a FCF lower than the market. You have FCF decreasing due to shrinking margins over the model period. Your terminal value then has the FCF growing by 2.3% into perpetuity so that doesn't really coincide. I mean, it could but I wouldn't use it. I personally think the shrinking margin assumption going forward is a little much. For your terminal value calc, don't you want that to be the final model year cash flow times 1 plus the terminal growth rate? Also, I find it interesting that the risk free rate is the terminal growth rate. Any particular reasoning behind that? It works now at the 2.3% but probably wouldn't in a different interest rate environment.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
19613fce3c7c6fec3bb3a05f0bda4268
|
Can I profit from selling a PUT on BBY?
|
[
{
"docid": "34bde35f3d87d48efcb701b18a66256f",
"text": "Yes. You got it right. If BBY has issues and drops to say, $20, as the put buyer, I force you to take my 100 shares for $2800, but they are worth $2000, and you lost $800 for the sake of making $28. The truth is, the commissions also wipe out the motive for trades like yours, even a $5 cost is $10 out of the $28 you are trying to pocket. You may 'win' 10 of these trades in a row, then one bad one wipes you out.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9605b4ae543c68f5c3a18c11da6bbdd2",
"text": "The time when you might want to do this is if you think BBY is undervalued already. If you'd be happy buying the stock now, you'd be happy buying it lower (at the strike price of the put option you sold). If the stock doesn't go down, you win. If it does, you still win, because you get the stock at the strike price. If I recall correctly Warren Buffett did this with Coca-Cola. But that's Warren Buffett.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1b3223e6c6ae497ac0cf50ce1b853081",
"text": "Yes, theoretically you can flip the shares you agreed to buy and make a profit, but you're banking on the market behaving in some very precise and potentially unlikely ways. In practice it's very tricky for you to successfully navigate paying arbitrarily more for a stock than it's currently listed for, and selling it back again for enough to cover the difference. Yes, the price could drop to $28, but it could just as easily drop to $27.73 (or further) and now you're hurting, before even taking into account the potentially hefty commissions involved. Another way to think about it is to recognize that an option transaction is a bet; the buyer is betting a small amount of money that a stock will move in the direction they expect, the seller is betting a large amount of money that the same stock will not. One of you has to lose. And unless you've some reason to be solidly confident in your predictive powers the loser, long term, is quite likely to be you. Now that said, it is possible (particularly when selling puts) to create win-win scenarios for yourself, where you're betting one direction, but you'd be perfectly happy with the alternative(s). Here's an example. Suppose, unrelated to the option chain, you've come to the conclusion that you'd be happy paying $28 for BBY. It's currently (June 2011) at ~$31, so you can't buy it on the open market for a price you'd be happy with. But you could sell a $28 put, promising to buy it at that price should someone want to sell it (presumably, because the price is now below $28). Either the put expires worthless and you pocket a few bucks and you're basically no worse off because the stock is still overpriced by your estimates, or the option is executed, and you receive 100 shares of BBY at a price you previously decided you were willing to pay. Even if the list price is now lower, long term you expect the stock to be worth more than $28. Conceptually, this makes selling a put very similar to being paid to place a limit order to buy the stock itself. Of course, you could be wrong in your estimate (too low, and you now have a position that might not become profitable; too high, and you never get in and instead just watch the stock gain in value), but that is not unique to options - if you're bad at estimating value (which is not to be confused with predicting price movement) you're doomed just about whatever you do.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "605802582d7668a70b363758d5881d8e",
"text": "I work at a FOREX broker, and can tell you that what you want to do is NOT possible. If someone is telling you it is, they're lying. You could (in theory) make money from the SWAP (the interest you speak of is called SWAP) if you go both short and long on the same currency, but there are various reasons why this never works. Furthermore, I don't know of any brokers that are paying positive SWAP (the interest you speak of is called SWAP) on any currency right now.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bbf944a4d58bf8b85e060ca338784b6b",
"text": "Your math shows that you bought an 'at the money' option for .35 and when the stock is $1 above the strike, your $35 (options trade as a contract for 100 shares) is now worth $100. You knew this, just spelling it out for future readers. 1 - Yes 2 - An execute/sell may not be nesesary, the ooption will have time value right until expiration, and most ofter the bid/ask will favor selling the option. You should ask the broker what the margin requirement is for an execute/sell. Keep in mind this usually cannot be done on line, if I recall, when I wanted to execute, it was a (n expensive) manual order. 3 - I think I answered in (2), but in general they are not identical, the bid/ask on options can get crazy. Just look at some thinly traded strikes and you'll see what I mean.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d85cbd49a26fad0d5e4d4c03fe7a962",
"text": "I sell a put for a strike price at the market. The stock rises $50 over the next couple months. I've gotten the premium, but lost the rest of the potential gain, yet had the downside risk the whole time. There's no free lunch. Edit - you can use a BS (Black-Scholes) calculator to create your own back testing. The calculator shows a 1% interest rate, 2% yield, and 15% volatility produce a put price almost identical to the pricing I see for S&P (the SPY ETF, specifically) $205 put. No answer here, including mine, gave any reference to a study. If one exists, it will almost certainly be on an index, not individual stocks. Note that Jack's answer referencing PUTX does exactly that. The SPY ETF and it put options. My suggestion here would, in theory, let you analyze this strategy for individual stock options as well. For SPY - With SPY at 204.40, this is the Put you'd look at - 12 times the premium is $33.36 or 16% the current price. The next part of the exercise is to see how the monthly ups and downs impact this return. A drop to $201 wipes out that month's premium. It happens that it now March 18th, and despite a bad start to the year, we are at break-even YTD. A peek back shows In Dec you picked up $2.87 premium, (1.4% the current price then) but in Jan, it closed for a loss of $12. Ouch. Now, if you started in January, you'd have picked up 2 month's premiums and today or Monday sell the 3rd. You'd have 2.8% profit so far, vs the S&P break even. Last, for now, when selling a naked put, you have to put up margin money. Not sure how much, but I use percent of the value of underlying stock to calculate returns. That choice is debatable, it just keeps percents clean. Else you put up no money and have infinite return.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "871107de8a0861884e88aabee8b7b646",
"text": "You definitely cannot be guaranteed to get the bid or ask if you are selling more than are available/desired at those prices. What prices you do get depends on who is watching that contract and how willing they are to trade with you. This question is not much different from the question of whether you can easily get into or out of a large position in an illiquid small stock easily. You can get out quickly if you are willing to take pennies on the dollar, or you may get a reasonable price if you take a long time to get out of (or into) your position. You can't normally do both. In general taking large positions in illiquid assets is not something people want to do without lining up a buyer/seller beforehand. Instead see if you can achieve your objective with liquid investments.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9708fd9fca3a8cda7cfd27eff853e622",
"text": "Probably not. Once the formula is out there, and if it actually seems to work, more and more investors chase the same stocks, drive the price up, and poof! The advantage is gone. This is the very reason why Warren Buffett doesn't announce his intentions when he's buying. If people know that BRK is buying, lots of others will follow.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b93344044b6216beaa023228a7c575e",
"text": "There's really not a simple yes/no answer. It depends on whether you're doing short term trading or long term investing. In the short term, it's not much different from sports betting (and would be almost an exact match if the bettors also got a percentage of the team's ticket sales), In the long term, though, your profit mostly comes from the growth of the company. As a company - Apple, say, or Tesla - increases sales of iPhones or electric cars, it either pays out some of the income as dividends, or invests them in growing the company, so it becomes more valuable. If you bought shares cheaply way back when, you profit from this increase when you sell them. The person buying it doesn't lose, as s/he buys at today's market value in anticipation of continued growth. Of course there's a risk that the value will go down in the future instead of up. Of course, there are also psychological factors, say when people buy Apple or Tesla because they're popular, instead of at a rational valuation. Or when people start panic-selling, as in the '08 crash. So then their loss is your gain - assuming you didn't panic, of course :-)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e276c660232996a2c7ca6794e960005",
"text": "You could try to refine your options strategy: For instance you could buy the USD 750 call option(s) you mentioned and at the same time sell (short) call options with a higher strike price, which is above the share price level you expect that Apple will trade at in one year (for instance USD 1,100). By doing this, you would receive the premium of the call option(s) with the higher option, which in turn would help you finance buying your USD 750 call(s). The net effect of this trading strategy would be that you would give up the extra profit you would earn if Apple would rose above USD 1,100 (the strike price of the call option sold short). Your total risk would be even less than with your actual strategy (in my view).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "12a44f72bcc6e299b061b76187cd394b",
"text": "\"Great answer by @duffbeer. Only thing to add is that the option itself becomes a tradeable asset. Here's my go at filling out the answer from @duffbeer. \"\"Hey kid... So you have this brand-new video game Manic Mazes that you paid $50 for on Jan 1st that you want to sell two months from now\"\" \"\"Yes, Mr. Video Game Broker, but I want to lock in a price so I know how much to save for a new Tickle Me Elmo for my baby sister.\"\" \"\"Ok, for $3, I'll sell you a 'Put' option so you can sell the game to me for $40 in two months.\"\" Kid says \"\"Ok!\"\", sends $3 to Mr Game Broker who sends our kid a piece of paper saying: The holder of this piece of paper can sell the game Manic Mazes to Mr Game Broker for $40 on March 1st. .... One month later .... News comes out that Manic Mazes is full of bugs, and the price in the shops is heavily discounted to $30. Mr Options Trader realizes that our kid holds a contract written by Mr Game Broker which effectively allows our kid to sell the game at $10 over the price of the new game, so maybe about $15 over the price in the second-hand market (which he reckons might be about $25 on March 1st). He calls up our kid. \"\"Hey kid, you know that Put option that Mr Game Broker sold to you you a month ago, wanna sell it to me for $13?\"\" (He wants to get it a couple of bucks cheaper than his $15 fair valuation.) Kid thinks: hmmm ... that would be a $10 net profit for me on that Put Option, but I wouldn't be able to sell the game for $40 next month, I'd likely only get something like $25 for it. So I would kind-of be getting $10 now rather than potentially getting $12 in a month. Note: The $12 is because there could be $15 from exercising the put option (selling for $40 a game worth only $25 in the second-hand market) minus the original cost of $3 for the Put option. Kid likes the idea and replies: \"\"Done!\"\". Next day kid sends the Put option contract to Mr Options Trader and receives $13 in return. Our kid bought the Put option and later sold it for a profit, and all of this happened before the option reached its expiry date.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a3a5556c65644a684570337fc538784f",
"text": "Yes -- If you are prepared to own the stock and have the cash to buy it, it can be a good way to generate income. The downside is really no more than buying a stock and it goes down -- which can happen to any investment -- and you have the premium of the put. Just don't do it on any stock you would not buy outright. To the posters who say it's a bad idea, I would like some more info on why they think that. It's not more bad idea than any investment. Yes it has risk, but so does buying stocks in general, buying dividend stocks etc and since most options expire worthless the odds are more in your favor selling puts.",
"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": "734dc1eac022f461a30d9161d3e9296a",
"text": "If you want to make money while European equities markets are crashing and the Euro itself is devaluing: None of these strategies are to be taken lightly. All involve risk. There are probably numerous ways that you can lose even though it seems like you should win. Transaction fees could eat your profits, especially if you have only a small amount of capital to invest with. The worst part is that they all involve timing. If you think the crash is coming next week, you could, say, buy a bunch of puts. But if the crash doesn't come for another 6 months, all of your puts are going to expire worthless and you've lost all of your capital. Even worse, if you sell short an index ETF this week in advance of next week's impending crash, and some rescue package arrives over the weekend, equity prices could spike at the beginning of the week and you'd be screwed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4de489ebd03b93df065d778a03d65857",
"text": "I don't see any trading activity on rough rice options, so I'll just default to gold. The initial margin on a gold futures contract is $5,940. An option on a gold futures represents 1 contract. The price of an October gold futures call with a strike of $1310 is currently $22.70. Gold spot is currently $1308.20. The October gold futures price is $1307.40. So, yeah, you can buy 1 option to later control 1 futures for $22.70, but the moment you exercise you must have $5,940 in a margin account to actually use the futures contract. You could also sell the option. I don't know how much you're going to enjoy trading options on futures though -- the price of this option just last week ranged from $13.90 to $26, and last month it ranged from $15.40 to $46.90. There's some crazy leverage involved.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ced0eec88f0ff8ca5c9fb5e786ee9731",
"text": "\"What you did is called a \"\"strangle.\"\" It's rather unlikely that both will be exercised on the same day. But yes, it can happen. That is if the market is very volatile on a given day, so that the stock hits 13 in the morning, the put gets exercised, and then hits 15 later in the day, so the call gets exercised. Or vice versa. More to the point, the prices are close enough that one might be hit on one day, and the other on a DIFFERENT day. In either case, if one side gets hit, you need to reevaluate your position in the other. But basically, any open position you have can be hit at any time. The only way to avoid this risk is not to have positions.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "13fe2693df54cb1419cc60e61a2343b4",
"text": "\"You have already indicted in another question, titled Which risk did I take winning this much?, that you did not understand (1) Why a previous trade made you as much money as it did; nor (2) How much you could have lost if things went a different way. You were, in that other question, talking about taking short position, without understanding (apparently) that a short position can create losses exceeding the value of your initial investment. Can one make money doing day trading? Yes, an educated investor may be able to prudently invest in short term positions making knowledgeable judgments about risk, and still make money. Can you make money doing day trading? Well, maybe. You have in the past, in what you described in a previous post as \"\"winning\"\". So even in your own eyes, you were effectively gambling, and got lucky. Perhaps the more relevant questions you can ask yourself are: Can you lose money doing day trading? And, most importantly, Are you more likely to lose money day trading, or consistently make money by taking on reasonable and educated risks?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "241ae4fde73f0f60740f5d3d9ffd7fb9",
"text": "\"Whether or not you make money here depends on whether you are buying or selling the option when you open your position. You certainly would not make money in the scenario where you are buying options at the open. If fact you would end up loosing quite a lot of money. You do not specify whether you are buying or selling the options, so let's assume that you are buying both the call and the put. We'll look a profitable trade at the bottom of my answer. Buying an in-the-money Call option with a strike price of $90 when the underlying asset price is $150 would cost you a small fraction over $6000 = (100 x $60) since the intrinsic value value of the option is $60. Add to this cost any commission charged by your broker. Buying an out-of-the-money Put option with a strike price of $110 when the underlying asset price is $150 would cost you a \"\"small\"\" premium - lets say a premium of something like $0.50. The option has no intrinsic value, only time value and a volatility value, so the exact cost would depend on the time to expiry and the implied volatility of the underlying asset. Since the strike price is \"\"well out of the money\"\", being about 27% below the underlying asset price, the premium would be small. So, assuming the premium of $0.50, you would pay $50 for the option plus any commission applicable. The cash settlement on expiry, with an underlying settlement price of $100, would be a premium of $10 for each of the two options, so you would receive cash of 100 x ($10 + $10) = $2000, less any commission applicable. However, you have paid $6000 + $50 to purchase the options, so you realise a net loss of $6050 - $2000 = $4050 plus any commissions applicable. Thus, you would make a profit on the put option, but you would realise a very large loss on the call option. On the other hand, if you open your position by selling the call option and buying the put option, then you would make money. For the sale of the call option you would receive about $6000. For the purchase of the put option you would pay about $50. On settlement, you would pay $1000 to buy back the call option and you would receive about $1000 when selling the put option. Thus you net profit would be about ($6000 - $1000) for the call position, and ($1000 - $50) for the put position. The net profit would then total $5950 less an commissions payable.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
e1423ce02445bdef73b18710965970b2
|
When I ask a broker to buy stock, what does the broker do?
|
[
{
"docid": "5af089407e1ce10eb067713f60179f8b",
"text": "Here are a couple of articles that can help highlight the differences between a broker and an online investment service, which seems to be part of the question that you're asking. Pay attention to the references at the end of this link. http://finance.zacks.com/online-investing-vs-personal-broker-6720.html Investopedia also highlights some of the costs and benefits of each side, broke and online investment services. http://www.investopedia.com/university/broker/ To directly answer your question, a broker may do anything from using a website to making a phone call to submitting some other form of documentation. It is unlikely that he is talking directly to someone on the trading floor, as the volume traded there is enormous.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "53195c2f4c71e1a5fc73004db6cb8383",
"text": "You or the broker place an order to buy the share with the stock exchange. There has to be a matching sell order by someone. Once a match is made, you pay the money and get the share.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7618f539a831ff550e87f916c911b7e6",
"text": "\"My answer isn't a full one, but that's because I think the answer depends on, at minimum, the country your broker is in, the type of order you place (limit, market, algo, etc.,) and the size of your order. For example, I can tell from watching live rates on regular lot limit orders I place with my UK-based broker that they hold limit orders internally until they see a crossing rate on the exchange my requested stock is trading on, then they submit a limit order to that exchange. I only get filled from that one exchange and this happens noticeably after I see my limit price print, and my fills are always better than my limit price. Whereas with my US-based broker, I can see my regular lotsize limit order in the order book (depth of book data) prior to any fills. I will routinely be notified of a fill before I see the limit price print. And my fills come from any number of US exchanges (NYSE, ARCA, BATS, etc.) even for the same stock. I should point out that the \"\"NBBO\"\" rule in the US, under SEC regulation NMS, probably causes more complications in handling of market and limit orders than you're likely to find in most countries.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c11fe5f13315fd4fb806ae0e7b291386",
"text": "\"As far as I know, the answer to this is generally \"\"no.\"\" The closest thing would be to identify the stock transfer company representing the company that you want to hold and buy through them. (I have held this way, but I don't know if it's available on all stocks.) This eliminates the broker, but there's still a \"\"middle man\"\" in the transfer company. Note this section from the Stock transfer agent Wikipedia article: A public company usually only designates one company to transfer its stock. Stock transfer agents also run annual meetings as inspector of elections, proxy voting, and special meetings of shareholders. They are considered the official keeper of the corporate shareholder records. The decision to have a single transfer company is a practical one, ensuring that there is one entity responsible for recording this data - Hence even if you could buy stock \"\"directly\"\" from the company that you want to own, it would likely still get routed through the transfer company for recording.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c2f5def027a81c2bd2a43665ac808a3c",
"text": "It depends a large part on your broker's relationship with the issuing bank how early you can participate in the IPO round. But the nature of the stock market means the hotter the stock and the closer to the market (away from the issuing bank) you have to buy the higher the price you'll pay. The stock market is a secondary market, meaning the only things for sale are shares already owned by someone. As a result, for a hot stock the individual investor will have to wait for another investor (not the issuing bank) to trade (sell) the stock.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e1d0c6ec35cad5fe9aa6d894c55fef5",
"text": "There are 2 main types of brokers, full service and online (or discount). Basically the full service can provide you with advice in the form of recommendations on what to buy and sell and when, you call them up when you want to put an order in and the commissions are usually higher. Whilst an online broker usually doesn't provide advice (unless you ask for it at a specified fee), you place your orders online through the brokers website or trading platform and the commissions are usually much lower. The best thing to do when starting off is to go to your country's stock exchange, for example, The ASX in Sydney Australia, and they should have a list of available brokers. Some of the online brokers may have a practice or simulation account you can practice on, and they usually provide good educational material to help you get started. If you went with an online broker and wanted to buy Facebook on the secondary market (that is on the stock exchange after the IPO closes), you would log onto your brokers website or platform and go to the orders section. You would place a new order to buy say 100 Facebook shares at a certain price. You can use a market order, meaning the order will be immediately executed at the current market price and you will own the shares, or a limit price order where you select a price below the current market price and wait for the price to come down and hit your limit price before your order is executed and you get your shares. There are other types of orders available with different brokers which you will learn about when you log onto their website. You also need to be careful that you have the funds available to pay for the share at settlement, which is 3 business days after your order was executed. Some brokers may require you to have the funds deposited into an account which is linked to your trading account with them. To sell your shares you do the same thing, except this time you choose a sell order instead of a buy order. It becomes quite simple once you have done it a couple of times. The best thing is to do some research and get started. Good Luck.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "88ddcb0c6858f21c6a4571c616e9ba94",
"text": "\"When I have stock at my brokerage account, the title is in street name - the brokerage's name and the quantity I own is on the books of the brokerage (insured by SIPC, etc). The brokerage loans \"\"my\"\" shares to a short seller and is happy to facilitate trades in both directions for commissions (it's a nice trick to get other parties to hold the inventory while you reap income from the churn); by selecting the account I have I don't get to choose to not loan out the shares.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "93c0dd8ea161a1275c9113b1fd75a006",
"text": "2 things may happen. Either your positions are closed by the broker and the loss or profit is credited to your account. Else it is carried over to the next day and you pay interest on the stocks lent to you. What happens will be decided by the agreement signed between you and your broker.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "29051a1f78e6280e783af10934bd5ac1",
"text": "Purchases and sales from the same trade date will both settle on the same settlement date. They don't have to pay for their purchases until later either. Because HFT typically make many offsetting trades -- buying, selling, buying, selling, buying, selling, etc -- when the purchases and sales settle, the amount they pay for their purchases will roughly cancel with the amount they receive for their sales (the difference being their profit or loss). Margin accounts and just having extra cash around can increase their ability to have trades that do not perfectly offset. In practice, the HFT's broker will take a smaller amount of cash (e.g. $1 million) as a deposit of capital, and will then allow the HFT to trade a larger amount of stock value long or short (e.g. $10 million, for 10:1 leverage). That $1 million needs to be enough to cover the net profit/loss when the trades settle, and the broker will monitor this to ensure that deposit will be enough.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "de44418b1a4e0c4e0b86ac2e3c8cc274",
"text": "\"During market hours, there are a lot of dealers offering to buy and sell all exchange traded stocks. Dealers don't actually care about the company's fundamentals and they set their prices purely based on order flow. If more people start to buy than sell, the dealer notices his inventory going down and starts upping the price (both his bid and ask). There are also traders who may not be \"\"dealers\"\", but are willing to sell if the price goes high enough or buy if the price goes low enough. This keeps the prices humming along smoothly. During normal trading hours, if you buy something and turn around and sell it two minutes later, you'll probably be losing a couple cents per share. Outside normal market hours, the dealers who continue to have a bid and ask listed know that they don't have access to good price information -- there isn't a liquid market of continuous buying and selling for the dealer to set prices he considers safe. So what does he do? He widens the spread. He doesn't know what the market will open tomorrow at and doesn't know if he'll be able to react quickly to news. So instead of bidding $34.48 and offering at $34.52, he'll move that out to $33 and $36. The dealer still makes money sometimes off this because maybe some trader realized that he has options expiring tomorrow, or a short position that he's going to get a margin call on, or some kind of event that pretty much forces him to trade. Or maybe he's just panicking and overreacting to some news. So why not trade after hours? Because there's no liquidity, and trading when there's no liquidity costs you a lot.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b40e7ce58e2e0e0b42c64c825ceec17d",
"text": "The traditional role of a stockbroker is to arrange for the buying and selling of stock by finding buyers and sellers at an agreed upon price. The broker does not purchase the stock for himself but merely arranges for the stock to be traded. A trader is one who purchases stock with the hope of selling it for a gain. The trader will use a broker to help with the purchase and sale of a stock.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "99bb25d0b743df906c2a541a30c45585",
"text": "It is not your brokerage's responsibility to tell you **what** to buy, whether explicitly, or implicitly through their fee structure. This is **not** an article about Robin Hood. It's an argument condemning all active investing with repeated mostly-irrelevant mentions of Robin Hood as one of the hundreds of entities that makes that possible.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bffdd2b0003ce358a8fc2bc569131763",
"text": "\"Price is decided by what shares are offered at what prices and who blinks first. The buyer and seller are both trying to find the best offer, for their definition of best, within the constraints then have set on their bid or ask. The seller will sell to the highest bid they can get that they consider acceptable. The buyer will buy from the lowest offer they can get that they consider acceptable. The price -- and whether a sale/purchase happens at all -- depends on what other trades are still available and how long you're willing to wait for one you're happy with, and may be different on one share than another \"\"at the same time\"\" if the purchase couldn't be completed with the single best offer and had to buy from multiple offers. This may have been easier to understand in the days of open outcry pit trading, when you could see just how chaotic the process is... but it all boils down to a high-speed version of seeking the best deal in an old-fashioned marketplace where no prices are fixed and every sale requires (or at least offers the opportunity for) negotiation. \"\"Fred sells it five cents cheaper!\"\" \"\"Then why aren't you buying from him?\"\" \"\"He's out of stock.\"\" \"\"Well, when I don't have any, my price is ten cents cheaper.\"\" \"\"Maybe I won't buy today, or I'll buy elsewhere. \"\"Maybe I won't sell today. Or maybe someone else will pay my price. Sam looks interested...\"\" \"\"Ok, ok. I can offer two cents more.\"\" \"\"Three. Sam looks really interested.\"\" \"\"Two and a half, and throw in an apple for Susie.\"\" \"\"Done.\"\" And the next buyer or seller starts the whole process over again. Open outcry really is just a way of trying to shop around very, very, very fast, and electronic reconciliation speeds it up even more, but it's conceptually the same process -- either seller gets what they're asking, or they adjust and/or the buyer adjusts until they meet, or everyone agrees that there's no agreement and goes home.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "793b5be391b5c0601b8ea3ed19ca1fb5",
"text": "\"I assume that mutual funds are being discussed here. As Bryce says, open-ended funds are bought from the mutual fund company and redeemed from the fund company. Except in very rare circumstances, they exist only as bits in the fund company's computers and not as share certificates (whether paper or electronic) that can be delivered from the selling broker to the buying broker on a stock exchange. Effectively, the fund company is the sole market maker: if you want to buy, ask the fund company at what price it will sell them to you (and it will tell you the answer only after 4 pm that day when a sale at that price is no longer possible unless you committed to buy, say, 100 shares and authorized the fund company to withdraw the correct amount from your bank account or other liquid asset after the price was known). Ditto if you want to sell: the mutual fund company will tell you what price it will give you only after 4 pm that day and you cannot sell at that price unless you had committed to accept whatever the company was going to give you for your shares (or had said \"\"Send me $1000 and sell as many shares of mine as are needed to give me proceeds of $1000 cash.\"\")\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "71399cba538d2d34baf47cb9990fb45a",
"text": "\"Also, in the next sentence, what is buyers commission? Is it referring to the share holder? Or potential share holder? And why does the buyer get commission? The buyer doesn't get a commission. The buyer pays a commission. So normally a buyer would say, \"\"I want to buy a hundred shares at $20.\"\" The broker would then charge the buyer a commission. Assuming 4%, the commission would be So the total cost to the buyer is $2080 and the seller receives $2000. The buyer paid a commission of $80 as the buyer's commission. In the case of an IPO, the seller often pays the commission. So the buyer might pay $2000 for a hundred shares which have a 7% commission. The brokering agent (or agents may share) pockets a commission of $140. Total paid to the seller is $1860. Some might argue that the buyer pays either way, as the seller receives money in the transaction. That's a reasonable outlook. A better way to say this might be that typical trades bill the buyer directly for commission while IPO purchases bill the seller. In the typical trade, the buyer negotiates the commission with the broker. In an IPO, the seller does (with the underwriter). Another issue with an IPO is that there are more parties getting commission than just one. As a general rule, you still call your broker to purchase the stock. The broker still expects a commission. But the IPO underwriter also expects a commission. So the 7% commission might be split between the IPO underwriter (works for the selling company) and the broker (works for the buyer). The broker has more work to do than normal. They have to put in the buyer's purchase request and manage the price negotiation. In most purchases, you just say something like \"\"I want to offer $20 a share\"\" or \"\"I want to purchase at the market price.\"\" In an IPO, they may increase the price, asking for $25 a share. And they may do that multiple times. Your broker has to come back to you each time and get a new authorization at the higher price. And you still might not get the number of shares that you requested. Beyond all this, you may still be better off buying an IPO than waiting until the next day. Sure, you pay more commission, but you also may be buying at a lower price. If the IPO price is $20 but the price climbs to $30, you would have been better off paying the IPO price even with the higher commission. However, if the IPO price is $20 and the price falls to $19.20, you'd be better off buying at $19.20 after the IPO. Even though in that case, you'd pay the 4% commission on top of the $19.20, so about $19.97. I think that the overall point of the passage is that the IPO underwriter makes the most money by convincing you to pay as high an IPO price as possible. And once they do that, they're out of the picture. Your broker will still be your broker later. So the IPO underwriter has a lot of incentive to encourage you to participate in the IPO instead of waiting until the next day. The broker doesn't care much either way. They want you to buy and sell something. The IPO or something else. They don't care much as to what. The underwriter may overprice the stock, as that maximizes their return. If they can convince enough people to overpay, they don't care that the stock falls the day after that. All their marketing effort is to try to achieve that result. They want you to believe that your $20 purchase will go up to $30 the next day. But it might not. These numbers may not be accurate. Obviously the $20 stock price is made up. But the 4% and 7% numbers may also be inaccurate. Modern online brokers are very competitive and may charge a flat fee rather than a percentage. The book may be giving you older numbers that were correct in 1983 (or whatever year). The buyer's commission could also be lower than 4%, as the seller also may be charged a commission. If each pays 2%, that's about 4% total but split between a buyer's commission and a seller's commission.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "84f19c18230b41f5cf0f9931dfe1fdd9",
"text": "Off the top of my head, a broker: While there are stock exchanges that offer direct market access (DMA), they (nearly) always want a broker as well to back the first two points I made. In that case the broker merely routes your orders directly to the exchange and acts as a custodian, but of course the details heavily depend on the exchange you're talking about. This might give you some insight: Direct Market Access - London Stock Exchange",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "45d30b6b15c3c64709ec89acf0a3ee0a",
"text": "\"The correct answer to this question is: the person who the short sells the stock to. Here's why this is the case. Say we have A, who owns the stock and lends it to B, who then sells it short to C. After this the price drops and B buys the stock back from D and returns it to A. The outcome for A is neutral. Typically stock that is sold short must be held in a margin account; the broker can borrow the shares from A, collect interest from B, and A has no idea this is going on, because the shares are held in a street name (the brokerage's name) and not A. If A decides during this period to sell, the transaction will occur immediately, and the brokerage must shuffle things around so the shares can be delivered. If this is going to be difficult then the cost for borrowing shares becomes very high. The outcome for B is obviously a profit: they sold high first and bought (back) low afterwards. This leaves either C or D as having lost this money. Why isn't it D? One way of looking at this is that the profit to B comes from the difference in the price from selling to C and buying from D. D is sitting on the low end, and thus is not paying out the profit. D bought low, compared to C and this did not lose any money, so C is the only remaining choice. Another way of looking at it is that C actually \"\"lost\"\" all the money when purchasing the stock. After all, all the money went directly from C to B. In return, C got some stock with the hope that in the future C could sell it for more than was paid for it. But C literally gave the money to B, so how could anybody else \"\"pay\"\" the loss? Another way of looking at it is that C buys a stock which then decreases in value. C is thus now sitting on a loss. The fact that it is currently only a paper loss makes this less obvious; if the stock were to recover to the price C bought at, one might conclude that C did not lose the money to B. However, in this same scenario, D also makes money that C could have made had C bought at D's price, proving that C really did lose the money to B. The final way of seeing that the answer is C is to consider what happens when somebody sells a stock which they already hold but the price goes up; who did they lose out on the gain to? The person again is; who bought their stock. The person would buys the stock is always the person who the gain goes to when the price appreciates, or the loss comes out of if the price falls.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b8da10c8337c08554e4582761a771d98",
"text": "underwriters aren't subject to lock-up. They actually don't hold anything. They oversell at IPO, with their short position covered by the green shoe (an option from the company). If the deal does well, the underwriters exercise the green shoe to cover their short. If the deal runs into some pressure, they step in to support the price by buying back shares... thereby covering their short. So they are doing price support in the early days of a deal, but it is almost always paid for by the company granting them an option. But the underwriters aren't taking stock. Correct that typically all insiders and existing investors are expected to sign-up a lock-up.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
efb7b64c738100e63360802510b45f1f
|
Who performs the blocking on a Visa card?
|
[
{
"docid": "be5e92c9a470b50398820cd8544a10a2",
"text": "It is the people who you bought the ticket from. Blocking is frequently done by hotels, gas stations, or rental car companies. Also, for anything where the credit card might be used to cover any damages or charges you might incur later as part of the transaction. In essence, they are reserving part of your credit limit, ostensibly to cover charges they reasonably expect you might incur. For example, when you start pumping gas using a credit card they may block out $100 to make sure you don't pump a full tank and your credit card is declined because you ran over your limit at $3. In general, the blocks clear fairly quickly after you settle up with the company on your final bill. You can also ask the company to clear the block, but I don't think they are required to by law in any specific time period. It may be up to their (and your) agreement with the credit card company. Normally it isn't an issue and you don't even notice this going on behind the scenes, but if you keep your credit card near its limit, or use a debit card it can lead to nasty surprises (e.g. they can make you overdraw your account). One more reason not to use debit cards. More information is available here on the Federal Trade Commission's website.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c2be8ee86a7dcb0106c788ebe40eead",
"text": "The request to block the money is made by the Party who sells the product. Based on this request the Bank blocks the funds. Subsequently the Party who sold the product makes a charge against this block. Just to give an easy example; So in the online train booking there are multiple messages sent between the Bank and SNCF. Something has gone wrong. It looks like the message from Bank sending back the Block reference number to SNCF has not reached. So as per Bank there is a Block and as per SNCF there is no block. Keep chasing SNCF to issue a letter so that you can send it to the Bank and get the Block removed. Typically the Blocks by the Bank are for a period of 30 days and if there is no charge against that block it automatically gets reversed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "254b29225b915be822ea4a883a43a442",
"text": "\"There are, in fact, two balances kept for your account by most banks that have to comply with common convenience banking laws. The first is your actual balance; it is simply the sum total of all deposits and withdrawals that have cleared the account; that is, both your bank and the bank from which the deposit came or to which the payment will go have exchanged necessary proof of authorization from the payor, and have confirmed with each other that the money has actually been debited from the account of the payor, transferred between the banks and credited to the account of the payee. The second balance is the \"\"available balance\"\". This is the actual balance, plus any amount that the bank is \"\"floating\"\" you while a deposit clears, minus any amount that the bank has received notice of that you may have just authorized, but for which either full proof of authorization or the definite amount (or both) have not been confirmed. This is what's happening here. Your bank received notice that you intended to pay the train company $X. They put an \"\"authorization hold\"\" on that $X, deducting it from your available balance but not your actual balance. The bank then, for whatever reason, declined to process the actual transaction (insufficient funds, suspicion of theft/fraud), but kept the hold in place in case the transaction was re-attempted. Holds for debit purchases usually expire between 1 and 5 days after being placed if the hold is not subsequently \"\"settled\"\" by the merchant providing definite proof of amount and authorization before that time. The expiration time mainly depends on the policy of the bank holding your account. Holds can remain in place as long as thirty days for certain accounts or types of payment, again depending on bank policy. In certain circumstances, the bank can remove a hold on request. But it is the bank, and not the merchant, that you must contact to remove a hold or even inquire about one.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "36320d5d3ef4f2c73640925da28ba1b3",
"text": "Generally, credit card networks (as opposed to debit/ATM cards that may or may not have Visa/MC logos) have a rule that a merchant must accept any credit card with their logo. Visa rules for merchants in the US say it explicitly: Accept all types of valid Visa cards. Although Visa card acceptance rules may vary based on country specific requirements or local regulations, to offer the broadest possible range of payment options to cardholder customers, most merchants choose to accept all categories of Visa debit, credit, and prepaid cards.* Unfortunately the Visa site for China is in Chinese, so I can't find similar reference there. You can complain against a merchant who you think had violated Visa rules here. That said, its not a law, its a contract between the merchant processor and the Visa International organization, and merchants are known to break these rules here and there (most commonly - refusing to accept foreign cards, including in the US). Also, local laws may affect these contracts (for example, in the US it is legal to set minimum amount requirements when accepting credit cards). This only affects credit card processing, and merchants that don't accept credit cards may still accept debit cards since those work in different networks, under a different set of rules. Those who accept credit cards, are also required to accept debit cards (at least if used as credit).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cee2f6ca79d788f239484db00eff466d",
"text": "\"Did you even read the article? These were people who went into the store and did this in person. there are no \"\"orders\"\" to cancel. As for invalidating the cards, again, the article stated that many people took the Target gift cards and used them to buy Amex and Visa gift cards. tl;dr **RTFA**\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5cbabb8e33466d09fa56112969ee35f3",
"text": "Having worked at a financial institution, this is a somewhat simple, two-part solution. 1) The lendor/vendor/financial institution simply turns off the overdraft protection in all its forms. If no funds are available at a pin-presented transaction, the payment is simply declined. No fee, no overdraft, no mess. 2) This sticking point for a recurring transaction, is that merchants such as Netflix, Gold's Gym etc, CHOOSE to allow payments like this, BECAUSE they are assured they are going to get paid by the financial institution. It prevents them from having issues. Only a gift card will not cost you more money than you put in, BUT I know of several institutions, that too many non-payment periods can cause them to cease doing business with you in the future. TL:DR/IMO If you don't want to pay more than you have, gift cards are the way to go. You can re-charge them whenever you choose, and should you run into a problem, simply buy a new card and start over.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b0c63f8ceefa08c9cd94e5324d84bd46",
"text": "\"Having worked in the financial industry, I can say 9:10 times a card is blocked, it is not actually the financial industry, but a credit/credit card monitoring service like \"\"Falcon\"\" for VISA. If you have not added travel notes or similar, they will decline large, our of country purchases as a way to protect you, from what is most likely fraud. Imagine if you were living in Sweden and making regular steady purchases, then all of a sudden, without warning your card was used in Spain. This would look suspicious on paper, even it was obvious to you. This is less to do with your financial institution, and more to do with increased fraud prevention. Call your bank. They will help you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "99560b2878dc01ae12ee6c5764a9c92b",
"text": "Security in the merchant services system is mainly handled in two ways: 1) Before transactions are done, the business itself must go through an application process similar (but not identical) to getting a loan. Some high risk businesses must pay higher fees due to the increased likelihood of customer complaints. 2) When a customer disputes a transaction, that's a mark against the business. Get too many of these disputes, and your priviledge of accepting credit cards will be revoked, meaning you won't be able to again. It's in the merchant's best interest to verify customer's identity, because disputes cost them money directly. It's in the servicer's best interest to verify the businesses integrity, because fraud drives up the cost for everyone else. As a whole, it's quite a reactionary system, yet in practice it works remarkably well.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f5767d1419297a9b538d367bd4a0332",
"text": "I have a visa with Scotiabank and I purposefully keep a negative balance at times. The guy at the bank said it was a great idea. I have never received a cheque, nor do I want one. The reason is that it allows me to make quick purchases without having to worry about paying back and due dates. Only with large purchases do I allow myself to do that. I still check in with my account every once in a while just to make sure everything is all right. It allows for good money management and piece of mind. I have been doing it for a couple of years and have not been penalized at all. (Wouldn't really make sense to do so though.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e4cc102282845eeb1dbc3020245320c8",
"text": "If the cards are tied to a specific vendor, they will work only at that vendor. If they're generic cards just charged with a specific amount of money, they should work at any vendor who accepts that card network... though there may be specific exceptions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "28349274456d5728c148fd4f35165880",
"text": "This is a question with a flawed premise. Credit cards do have two-factor authentication on transactions they consider more at risk to be fraudulent. I've had several times when I bought something relatively expensive and unusual for me, where the CC either initially declined and sent me a text asking to confirm immediately (after which they would approve the charges), or approved but sent me a text right away asking to confirm (after which they'd automatically dispute if I told them to). The first is legitimately what you are asking for; the second is presumably for less risky but still some risk transactions). Ultimately, the reason they don't allow it for every transaction is that not enough people would make use of it to be worth their time to implement it. Particularly given it slows down the transaction significantly (and look at the complaints at the ~10-15 seconds extra EMV authentication takes, imagine that as a minute or more), I think you'd get a single digit percentage of people using that service.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e2869ed77f1c671a95cb9d46ce27d144",
"text": "There are thousands of processors. But I explicitly mentioned the customer experience, which is completely different and no matter how much you want your industry experience to matter for that, it doesn't affect it. This you did not read and comprehend. Could you clarify for me how VISA/MasterCard managed to block a merchant, who presumably wasn't a direct customer (but instead a payment processor customer), but cannot block a card holder? (yes, this is an honest question) > Visa and Mastercard prohibited payments to Wikileaks on the basis of WL allegedly facilitating illegal activity. How is that relevant to what PayPal's doing? The WikiLeaks blockade was clearly political. What makes you say otherwise? And this is political. > No one is unable to accept payments if they're barred from PayPal. In this case, yes. So who is morally and/or legally responsible when everyone does the same thing?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "422e6a852c0f6568b2848a07cab29dfa",
"text": "\"File a John Doe lawsuit, \"\"plaintiff to be determined\"\", and then subpoena the relevant information from Mastercard. John Doe doesn't countersue, so you're pretty safe doing this. But it probably won't work. Mastercard would quash your subpoena. They will claim that you lack standing to sue anyone because you did not take a loss (which is a fair point). They are after the people doing the hacking, and the security gaps which make the hacking possible. And how those gaps arise among businesses just trying to do their best. It's a hard problem. And I've done the abuse wars professionally. OpSec is a big deal. You simply cannot reveal your methods or even much of your findings, because that will expose too much of your detection method. The ugly fact is, the bad guys are not that far from winning, and catching them depends on them unwisely using the same known techniques over and over. When you get a truly novel technique, it costs a fortune in engineering time to unravel what they did and build defenses against it. If maybe 1% of attacks are this, it is manageable, but if it were 10%, you simply cannot staff an enforcement arm big enough - the trained staff don't exist to hire (unless you steal them from Visa, Amex, etc.) So as much as you'd like to tell the public, believe me, I'd like to get some credit for what I've done -- they just can't say much or they educate the bad guys, and then have a much tougher problem later. Sorry! I know how frustrating it is! The credit card companies hammered out PCI-DSS (Payment Card Industry Data Security Standards). This is a basic set of security rules and practices which should make hacking unlikely. Compliance is achievable (not easy), and if you do it, you're off the hook. That is one way Amy can be entirely not at fault. Example deleted for length, but as a small business, you just can't be a PCI security expert. You rely on the commitments of others to do a good job, like your bank and merchant account salesman. There are so many ways this can go wrong that just aren't your fault. As to the notion of saying \"\"it affected Amy's customers but it was Doofus the contractor's fault\"\", that doesn't work, the Internet lynch mob won't hear the details and will kill Amy's business. Then she's suing Mastercard for false light, a type of defamtion there the facts are true but are framed falsely. And defamation has much more serious consequences in Europe. Anyway, even a business not at fault has to pay for a PCI-DSS audit. A business at fault has lots more problems, at the very least paying $50-90 per customer to replace their cards. The simple fact is 80% of businesses in this situation go bankrupt at this point. Usually fraudsters make automated attacks using scripts they got from others. Only a few dozen attacks (on sites) succeed, and then they use other scripts to intercept payment data, which is all they want. They are cookie cutter scripts, and aren't customized for each site, and can't go after whatever personal data is particular to that site. So in most cases all they get is payment data. It's also likely that primary data, like a cloud drive, photo collection or medical records, are kept in completely separate systems with separate security, unlikely to hack both at once even if the hacker is willing to put lots and lots of engineering effort into it. Most hackers are script kiddies, able to run scripts others provided but unable to hack on their own. So it's likely that \"\"none was leaked\"\" is the reason they didn't give notification of private information leakage. Lastly, they can't get what you didn't upload. Site hacking is a well known phenomenon. A person who is concerned with privacy is cautious to not put things online that are too risky. It's also possible that this is blind guesswork on the part of Visa/MC, and they haven't positively identified any particular merchant, but are replacing your cards out of an abundance of caution.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e9fe3452596fd2359720dd83b2e2651",
"text": "I'm not sure if this is what your looking for but my favorite piece of work was credit card fraud and ways banks are preventing it. Topics included: -Family's at risk (who has the most risk?) -Credit card strip vs chip -Cost on chip scanners for local businesses -Apple Pay and the likelihood of getting hacked -Insurance and how it will cover a business with out chip readers -example of chipotle and target getting hacked -bitcoin and is it an easier source I wrote a paper about 4 years ago, and it had multiple finance topics involved into it. Hope this at least gives you a direction of what your looking for !",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "24e058c484d98223fa47598e0e7487ef",
"text": "\"Banks are businesses, and as such should have the right to refuse service, so they should probably be able to choose one customer over another at will. [I say \"\"should\"\" because business owners protecting themselves against litigation related to discrimination could restrict their freedom as business owners.] However, banks are businesses and if the customers are identical, both will be approved (or not) according to credit records. Does not make sense to approve one person with a given credit record and refuse someone with a similar record. Unless they barely qualify. Since no two credit histories are identical, there are surely edge cases. Finally, if a customer is a long term customer with large deposits and/or significant amounts of business with the bank, the bankers will likely be inclined to do more business.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "334b64dd9b69e5dcffb441f922e147ed",
"text": "\"American Express is great for this use case -- they have two user roles \"\"Account Agent\"\" and \"\"Account Manager\"\" which allow you to designate logins to review your account details or act on your behalf to pay bills or request service. This scheme is designed for exactly what you are doing and offers you more security and less hassle. More details here.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e8f2a0b3957abc9cff84a66aee8918af",
"text": "\"First - Welcome to Money.SE. You gave a lot of detail, and it's tough to parse out the single question. Actually, you have multiple issues. $1300 is what you need to pay the tax? In the 25% bracket plus 10% penalty, you have a 65% net amount. $1300/.65 = Exactly $2000. You withdraw $2000, have them (the IRA holder) withhold $700 in federal tax, and you're done. All that said, don't do it. Nathan's answer - payment plan with IRS - is the way to go. You've shared with us a important issue. Your budget is running too tight. We have a post here, \"\"the correct order of investing\"\" which provides a great guideline that applies to most visitors. You are missing the part that requires a decent sized emergency fund. In your case, calling it that, may be a misnomer, as the tax bill isn't an unexpected emergency, but something that should have been foreseeable. We have had a number of posts here that advocate the paid in full house. And I always respond that the emergency fund comes first. With $70K of income, you should have $35K or so of liquidity, money readily available. Tax due in April shouldn't be causing you this grief. Please read that post I linked and others here to help you with the budgeting issue. Last - You are in an enviable position, A half million dollars, no mortgage, mid 40s. Easily doing better than most. So, please forgive the soapbox tone of the above, it was just my \"\"see, that's what I'm talking about\"\" moment from my tenure here.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a5f84871eea29696bd712058aaa8b1d7
|
Is a car loan bad debt?
|
[
{
"docid": "8ac5cffbd419a4f21a5789c2b9dc010d",
"text": "Here is another way to look at it. Does this debt enable you to buy more car than you can really afford, or more car than you need? If so, it's bad debt. Let's say you don't have the price of a new car, but you can buy a used car with the cash you have. You will have to repair the car occasionally, but this is generally a lot less than the payments on a new car. The value of your time may make sitting around waiting while your car is repaired very expensive (if, like me, you can earn money in fine grained amounts anywhere between 0 and 80 hours a week, and you don't get paid when you're at the mechanic's) in which case it's possible to argue that buying the new car saves you money overall. Debt incurred to save money overall can be good: compare your interest payments to the money you save. If you're ahead, great - and the fun or joy or showoff potential of your new car is simply gravy. Now let's say you can afford a $10,000 car cash - there are new cars out there at this price - but you want a $30,000 car and you can afford the payments on it. If there was no such thing as borrowing you wouldn't be able to get the larger/flashier car, and some people suggest that this is bad debt because it is helping you to waste your money. You may be getting some benefit (such as being able to get to a job that's not served by public transit, or being able to buy a cheaper house that is further from your job, or saving time every day) from the first $10,000 of expense, but the remaining $20,000 is purely for fun or for showing off and shouldn't be spent. Certainly not by getting into debt. Well, that's a philosophical position, and it's one that may well lead to a secure retirement. Think about that and you may decide not to borrow and to buy the cheaper car. Finally, let's say the cash you have on hand is enough to pay for the car you want, and you're just trying to decide whether you should take their cheap loan or not. Generally, if you don't take the cheap loan you can push the price down. So before you decide that you can earn more interest elsewhere than you're paying here, make sure you're not paying $500 more for the car than you need to. Since your loan is from a bank rather than the car dealership, this may not apply. In addition to the money your cash could earn, consider also liquidity. If you need to repair something on your house, or deal with other emergency expenditures, and your money is all locked up in your car, you may have to borrow at a much higher rate (as much as 20% if you go to credit cards and can't get it paid off the same month) which will wipe out all this careful math about how you should just buy the car and not pay that 1.5% interest. More important than whether you borrow or not is not buying too much car. If the loan is letting you talk yourself into the more expensive car, I'd say it's a bad thing. Otherwise, it probably isn't.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d117fa1cc11e115832fee5e4fb4bbb1",
"text": "\"Good debt and \"\"Bad debt\"\" are just judgement calls. Each person has their own opinion on when it is acceptable to borrow money for something, and when it is not. For some, it is never acceptable to borrow money for something; they won't even borrow money to buy a house. Others, of course, are in debt up to their eyeballs. All debt costs money in interest. So when evaluating whether to borrow or not, you need to ask yourself, \"\"Is the benefit I am getting by borrowing this money worth the cost?\"\" Home ownership has a lot of advantages: For many, these advantages, coupled with the facts that home mortgages are available at extremely low interest rates and that home mortgage interest is tax-deductible (in the U.S.), make home mortgages \"\"worth it\"\" in the eyes of many. Contrast that with car ownership: For these reasons, there are many people who consider the idea of borrowing money to purchase a car a bad idea. I have written an answer on another question which outlines a few reasons why it is better to pay cash for a car.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "17fa3df27d1ee72e8c155bbaccef568d",
"text": "\"Just to argue the other side, 1.49% is pretty low for a loan. Let's say you have the $15k cash but decide to get the car loan at 1.49%. Then you take the rest of the money and invest it in something that pays a ~4% dividend (a utility stock, etc.). You're making money on the difference. Of course, there's no guarantee that the underlying stock won't drop in value, but it might go up, too. And you'll likely pay income tax on the dividends. Still, you have a good chance of making money by taking the loan. So I will argue that there are scenarios where taking advantage of a low interest rate loan can be \"\"good\"\" as an investment opportunity when the risk/reward is acceptable. Be careful, though. There's nothing wrong with paying cash for a car!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b2a2594b75ac36caa7ddca5ccd0290ae",
"text": "\"A car loan might be considered \"\"good\"\" debt, if the following circumstances apply: If, on the other hand, you only qualify for a subprime loan, or you're borrowing to buy a needlessly expensive car, that's probably not a good idea.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4a21fbff9d86fc2fadf68b1669677794",
"text": "What's missing in your question, so Kate couldn't address, is the rest of your financial picture. If you have a fully funded emergency account, are saving for retirement, and have saved up the $15K for the car, buy in cash. If you tell me that if the day after you buy the car in cash, your furnace/AC system dies, that you'd need to pay for it with an $8K charge to a credit card, that's another story. You see, there's more than one rate at play. You get close to zero on you savings today. You have a 1.5% loan rate available. But what is your marginal cost of borrowing? The next $10K, $20K? If it's 18% on a credit card, I personally would find value in borrowing at sub-2.5% and not depleting my savings. On the other side, the saving side, does your company offer a 401(k) with company match? I find too many people obsessing over their 6% debt, while ignoring a 100% match of 4-6% of their gross income. For what it's worth, trying to place labels on debt is a bit pointless. Any use of debt should be discussed 100% based on the finances of the borrower.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "14fbd60f61528b74f681f6033acfc003",
"text": "The risk besides the extra interest is that you might be upside down on the loan. Because the car loses value the moment you drive off the lot, the slower you pay it off the longer it takes to get the loan balance below the resale value. Of course if you have a significant down payment, the risk of being upside down is not as great. Even buying a used car doesn't help because if you try to sell it back to the dealer the next week they wont give you the full price you paid. Some people try and split the difference, get the longer term loan, but then pay it off as quickly as the shorter term loan. Yes the interest rate is higher but if you need to drop the payment back to the required level you can do so.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d1b257f29aaef270074323d88d51d45",
"text": "The good debt/bad debt paradigm only applies if you are considering this as a pure investment situation and not factoring in: A house is something you live in and a car is something you use for transportation. These are not substitutes for each other! While you can live in your car in a pinch, you can't take your house to the shops. Looking at the car, I will simplify it to 3 options: You can now make a list of pros and cons for each one and decide the value you place on each of them. E.g. public transport will add 5h travel time per week @ $X per hour (how much you value your leisure time), an expensive car will make me feel good and I value that at $Y. For each option, put all the benefits together - this is the value of that option to you. Then put all of the costs together - this is what the option costs you. Then make a decision on which is the best value for you. Once you have decided which option is best for you then you can consider how you will fund it.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "0f582e0ac48d6814598329f1322f4530",
"text": "I'm going to be buying a house / car / home theater system in the next few months, and this loan would show up on my credit report and negatively impact my score, making me unable to get the financing that I'll need.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "51c97062f6e948df006f5fb2e8511fa4",
"text": "\"Some very general advice. Lifestyle borrowing is almost always a bad idea. You should limit your borrowing to where it is an investment decision or where it is necessary and avoid it when it is a lifestyle choice. For example, many people need to borrow to have a car/house/education or go without. Also, if you are unemployed for a long period of time and can't find work, charging up the credit cards seems very reasonable. However, for things like entertainment, travel, and other nice-to-haves can easily become a road to crushing debt. If you don't have the cash for these types of things, my suggestion is to put off the purchase until you do. Note: I am not including credit cards that you pay off in full at the end of the month or credit used as a convenience as \"\"borrowing\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3aa6a4201058d4e0b109b5961a49f21a",
"text": "Yes, a mortgage is debt. It's unique in that you have a house which should be worth far more than the mortgage. After the mortgage crisis, many found their homes under water i.e. worth less than the mortgage. The word debt is a simple noun for money owed, it carries no judgement or negative connotation except when it's used to buy short lived items with money one doesn't have. Aside from my mortgage, I get a monthly credit card bill which I pay in full. That's debt too, only it carried no interest and rewards me with 2% cash back. Many people would avoid this as it's still debt.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f6bf0dac1b99db46ca516e83d40bd2b7",
"text": "If I were you, I would pay off the car loan today. You already have an excellent credit score. Practically speaking, there is no difference between a 750 score and an 850 score; you are already eligible for the best loan rates. The fact that you are continuing to use 5 credit cards and that you still have a mortgage tells me that this car loan will have a negligible impact on your score (and your life). By the way, if you had told me that your score was low, I would still tell you to pay off the loan, but for a different reason. In that case, I would tell you to stop worrying about your score, and start getting your financial life in order by eliminating debt. Take care of your finances by reducing the amount of debt in your life, and the score will take care of itself. I realize that the financial industry stresses the importance of a high score, but they are also the ones that sell you the debt necessary to obtain the high score.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "a464db56677e917c855023850fd8eae6",
"text": "\"I guess I don't understand how you figure that taking out a car loan for $20k will result in adding $20k in equity. A car loan is a liability, not an asset like your $100k in cash. Besides, you don't get a dollar-for-dollar consideration when figuring a car's value against the loan it is encumbered by. In other words, the car is only worth what someone's willing to pay for it, not what your loan amount on it is. Remember that taking on a loan will increase your debt-to-income ratio, which is always a factor when trying to obtain a mortgage. At the same time, taking on new debt just prior to shopping for a mortgage could make it more difficult to find a lender. Every time a credit report (hard inquiry) is run on you, it temporarily impacts your credit score. The only exception to this rule is when it comes to mortgages. In the U.S., the way it works is that once you start shopping for a mortgage with lenders, for the next 30 days, additional inquiries into your credit report for purposes of mortgage funding do not count against your credit score, so it's a \"\"freebie\"\" in a way. You can't use this to shop for any other kind of credit, but the purpose is to allow you a chance to shop for the best mortgage rate you can get without adversely impacting your credit. In the end, my advice is to stop looking at how much house you can buy, and instead focus on a house with payments you can live with and afford. Trying to buy the most house based on what someone's willing to lend you leaves no room in the near-term for being able to borrow if the property has some repair needs, you want to furnish/upgrade it, or for any other unanticipated need which may arise that requires credit. Don't paint yourself into a corner. Just because you can borrow big doesn't mean you should borrow big. I hope this helps. Good luck!\"",
"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": "0abf2d4619c289bdab3c1e7ba705521d",
"text": "\"A repossessed automobile will have lost some value from sale price, but it's not valueless. They market \"\"title loans\"\" to people without good credit on this basis so its a reasonably well understood risk pool.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1c0b26d263cfa5db63d98c2b6fdab3c0",
"text": "Depending on the state this might not be possible. Loans are considered contracts, and various states regulate how minors may enter into them. For example, in the state of Oregon, a minor may NOT enter into a contract without their parent being on the contract as well. So you are forced to wait until you turn 18. At that time you won't have a credit history, and to lenders that often is worse than having bad credit. I can't help with the car (other than to recommend you buy a junker for $500-$1,000 and just live with it for now), but you could certainly get a secured credit card or line of credit from your local bank. The way they are arranged is, you make a deposit of an amount of your choosing (generally at least $200 for credit cards, and $1,000 for lines of credit), and receive a revolving line with a limit of that same amount. As you use and pay on this loan, it will be reported in your credit history. If you start that now, by the time you turn 18 you will have much better options for purchasing vehicles.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c266a77bcf1b5a8a1322854e2f6c5a9",
"text": "I'm pessimistic about most things, so: They can't REPO the degree and the knowledge, but they can sure REPO the CAR, so pay off the car. My suggestion would be to pay off the vehicle, because no matter what the future holds (good or bad) you will need a vehicle to get around. Although, I recently found out from the comment below that student loans are a recourse debt that won't be forgiven. Not even with bankruptcy. Most collection agencies will take pennies in the dollar for debt, but not with student loans.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "93cfc7f27a3b137773cb171345b602eb",
"text": "I doubt it. If you have a good track record with your car loan, that will count for a lot more than the fact that you don't have it anymore. When you look for a house, your debt load will be lower without the car loan, which may help you get the mortgage you want. Just keep paying your credit card bills on time and your credit rating will improve month by month.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5b5a8ab3129653aeba03d641f4caf4ed",
"text": "The article made it seem like a lot of these were frivolous purchases, but I doubt there's any clear data on the percent that were someone's primary vehicle, etc. Usually if you default on a new-car loan you can still get a high-interest loan for a used car that will still be a lot less than your old payment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "693e8f4f219c393c142b1a7c0817c00d",
"text": "The bottom line is you have an income problem. Your car payment seems very high relative to your income and your income is very low relative to your debt. Can you work extra jobs or start a small business to get that income up? In the US it would be fairly easy to work some part time jobs to get that income up about 1000 per month. With that kind of difference you could have this all knocked out (except for the car) in about a year. Then, six months later you could be done with your car. Most of the credit repair places are ripoffs in the US and I suspect it is similar around the world.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "29248fc376b5f475c8312f03cb2bada4",
"text": "If you don't need to own a car for other reasons (i.e. if you are perfectly fine using Lyft and public transport), a new car loan should have just as much effect on your credit score as, say, opening a new credit card. Your credit score would take a temporary dip because of the hard inquiry to acquire the card, but your number of credit accounts would increase, and your credit utilization rate would go down, both of which are good things for your credit score. There may be better ways to increase your credit score that others know about, but I don't think getting a car loan when you don't need a car is the best one. Note, this assumes that you are paying all your credit cards off in full every month.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3c3a3a2c410b0bc2b7d76f010a3fe0a2",
"text": "$3,500 isn't usually enough to make a difference when calculating credit for a car loan. The other factors that you didn't mention are the important factors. How much money do you make? What is your credit score? Do you have balances on credit cards? The only way you can know is to look at your credit score and/or apply. I would generally recommend you buy a 3-4 year old car rather than a new car. With the lower purchase price you can pay it off quickly.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f679a58b02bb7f58f9b19e6a6c6f6de4
|
moving family deposits away from Greece (possibly in UK)
|
[
{
"docid": "a13a3d909a8a8d15a3b73e158a461de0",
"text": "I can't comment about your tax liability in Greece. You will have to pay tax on interest in the UK. If you are earning massive amounts of interest, unlikely with the current interest policies from Merv, then you might be bumped up a tier. The receiving bank may ask for proof of the source of the funds, particularly if it is a fair chunk of change.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9ee43db088ef43126ad6e5f9efd1aec9",
"text": "\"I think you can do it as long as those money don't come from illegal activities (money laundering, etc). The only taxes you should pay are on the interest generated by those money while sitting in the UK bank account. Since I suppose you already paid taxes on those money in Greece while you were earning those money. About being audited, in my own experience banks don't ask you much where your money are coming from when you bring money to them, they are very willing to help, and happy. (It's a differnte story when you ask to borrow money). When I opened a bank account in US I did not even have an SSN, but they didn't care much they just took my passport and used the passport number for registering the account. Obviously on the interest generated by the money in the US bank account I had to pay taxes, but it was easy because I simply let the IRS via the bank to withdarw the 27% on the interest generated (not on the capital deposited). I didn't put a huge amount of money there I had to live there for 1 year or some more. Maybe if i deposited a huge amount of money someone would have come to ask me how did I make all those money, but those money were legally generated by me working in Italy before so I didn't have anything to be afraid about. BTW: in Italy I was thinking to move money to a German bank in Germany. The risk of default is a nightmare, something of completly new now in UE compared to the past where each state had its own currency. According to Muro history says that in case of default it happened that some government prevented people from withdrawing money form bank accounts: \"\"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.\"\" but in case Greece prevents people from withdrwaing money, those money are still in EURO, so i'm wondering what would be the effect. I mean would it be fair that a Greek guy can not withdraw is EURO money whilest an Italian guy can withdraw the same currency money in Italy?!\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "22eb978738fd1c98a3ff89e48dc890fb",
"text": "One way of looking at this (just expanding on my comment on Dheer's answer): If the funds were in EUR in Germany already and not in the UK, would you be choosing to move them to the UK (or a GBP denominated bank account) and engage in currency speculation, betting that the pound will improve? If you would... great, that's effectively exactly what you're doing: leave the money in GBP and hope the gamble pays off. But if you wouldn't do that, well you probably shouldn't be leaving the funds in GBP just because they originated there; bring them back to Germany and do whatever you'd do with them there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5717dc64a0a7d6b53568555d1bbece24",
"text": "Citizens of India who are not residents to India (have NRI status) are not entitled to have ordinary savings accounts in India. If you have such accounts (e.g. left them behind to support your family while you are abroad), they need to be converted to NRO (NonResident Ordinary) accounts as soon as possible. Your bank will have forms for completion of this process. Any interest that these accounts earn will be taxable income to you in India, and possibly in the U.K. too, though tax treaties (or Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements) generally allow you to claim credit for taxes paid to other countries. Now, with regard to your question, NRIs are entitled to make deposits into NRO accounts as well as NRE (NonResident External) accounts. The differences are that money deposited into an NRE account, though converted to Indian Rupees, can be converted back very easily to foreign currency if need be. However, the re-conversion is at the exchange rate then in effect, and you may well lose that 10% interest earned because of a change in exchange rate. Devaluation of the Indian Rupee as occurred several times in the past 70 years. Once upon a time, it was essentially impossible to take money in an NRO account and convert it to foreign currency, but under the new recently introduced schemes, money in an NRO account can also be converted to foreign currencies, but it needs certification by a CA, and various forms to be filled out, and thus is more hassle. interest earned by the money in an NRE account is not taxable income in India, but is taxable income in the U.K. There is no taxable event (neither in U.K. nor in India) when you change an ordinary savings account held in India into an NRO account, or when you deposit money from abroad into an NRE or NRO account in an Indian bank. What is taxable is the interest that you receive from the Indian bank. In the case of an NRO account, what is deposited into your NRO account is the interest earned less the (Indian) income tax (usually 20%) deducted at the source (TDS) and sent to the Income Tax Authority on your behalf. In the case of an NRE account, the full amount of interest earned is deposited into the NRE account -- no TDS whatsoever. It is your responsibility to declare these amounts to the U.K. income tax authority (HM Revenue?) and pay any taxes due. Finally, you say that you recently moved to the U.K. for a job. If this is a temporary job and you might be back in India very soon, all the above might not be applicable to you since you would not be classified as an NRI at all.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a84f16ada81922d72884f228646ce307",
"text": "I spoke to HMRC and they said #1 is not allowable but #2 is. They suggested using either their published exchange rates or I could use another source. I suggested the Bank of England spot rates and that was deemed reasonable and allowable.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3eb8a9c983ff88ae23bb3a03f78f8179",
"text": "Greek bank deposits are backed by the Greek government and by the European Central Bank. So in order to lose money under the insurance limits of 100k euros the ECB would need to fail in which case deposit insurance would be the least of most peoples worries. On the other hand I have no idea how easy or hard it is to get to money from a failed bank in Greece. In the US FDIC insurance will usually have your money available in a couple of days. If there isn't a compelling reason to keep the money in a Greek bank I wouldn't do it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f2d5a66526ac8393e16c0a106c845b43",
"text": "Have you tried TransferWise. They offer nice cross currency transfers with really low rates.",
"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": "371c1e838f63884778df632c1758dce0",
"text": "Considering the historical political instability of your nation, real property may have higher risk than normal. In times of political strife, real estate plummets, precisely when the money's needed. At worst, the property may be seized by the next government. Also, keeping the money within the country is even more risky because bank accounts are normally looted by either the entering gov't or exiting one. The safest long run strategy with the most potential for your family is to get the money out into various stable nations with good history of protecting foreign investors such as Switzerland, the United States, and Hong Kong. Once out, the highest expected return can be expected from internationally diversified equities; however, it should be known that the value will be very variant year to year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "93bd1971ca0c84f2a6edc1cea926be7d",
"text": "Don't worry. The Cyprus situation could only occur because those banks were paying interest rates well above EU market rates, and the government did not tax them at all. Even the one-time 6.75% tax discussed is comparable to e.g. Germany and the Netherlands, if you average over the last 5 years. The simple solution is to just spread your money over multiple banks, with assets at each bank staying below EUR 100.000. There are more than 100 banks large enough that they'll come under ECB supervision this year; you'd be able to squirrel away over 10 million there. (Each branch of the Dutch Rabobank is insured individually, so you could even save 14 million there alone, and they're collectively AAA-rated.) Additionally, those savings will then be backed by more than 10 governments, many of which are still AAA-rated. Once you have to worry about those limits, you should really talk to an independent advisor. Investing in AAA government bonds is also pretty safe. The examples given by littleadv all involve known risky bonds. E.g. Argentina was on a credit watch, and paying 16% interest rates.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c22ddc6666d604975f4b2b01bdbd3979",
"text": "Given that we live in a world rife with geopolitical risks such as Brexit and potential EU breakup, would you say it's advisable to keep some of cash savings in a foreign currency? Probably not. Primarily because you don't know what will happen in the fallout of these sorts of political shifts. You don't know what will happen to banking treaties between the various countries involved. If you can manage to place funds on deposit in a foreign bank/country in a currency other than your home currency and maintain the deposit insurance in that country and not spend too much exchanging your currency then there probably isn't a downside other than liquidity loss. If you're thinking I'll just wire some whatever currency to some bank in some foreign country in which you have no residency or citizenship consideration without considering deposit insurance just so you might protect some of your money from a possible future event I think you should stay away.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9fd148c6144907a4ce883f384e211046",
"text": "But Greece is in the EU - therefore the one-armed drug addict has the means to get money from his relatives. Because most of the relatives have an alcohol problem (Spain, Portugal, Italy, France) they turn to their hard-working but slightly naive neighbours (Austria,Germany,Netherlands) for money. They believe that they´ll have to pay for just one last dose of crack cocaine and then the Greeks will kick the habit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "273ef3ca22682b8150cbe34e9946a2fb",
"text": "The safest financial decisions that you can make in Greece involve getting your money out of Greece. That said, it depends. If the economy is going to implode and you'll be out of the job with devalued savings -- you'll be bankrupt anyway. You didn't mention enough about your situation for anyone to really answer the question. In a high-inflation environment, *if*you have the assets to weather the storm, holding debt on real property and durable goods is a good thing. The key considerations are: If you have the means, times of crisis are great opportunities.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4fe71042dfbec2d2fe3574a3963d9112",
"text": "I would move some or all of the money. With £30K savings, you have a 20% deposit, whereas you can get a much better mortgage rate with a 40 or 50% deposit. That's true no matter how good/bad your credit rating, and it's possible that with a bad credit rating you may not even be able to get a mortgage with a small deposit. Also, you will almost certainly save significantly more by paying less mortgage interest compared to the interest rates on your savings in the Netherlands. Shop around for a cheap option to transfer money. I had a quick look at Transferwise (no affiliation, they just happen to have a convenient calculator on their website), and the all-in cost for a large one-way transfer seems to be about 0.5%. I think you'll more than make that back in terms of savings on your mortgage. If you intend to move back to the Netherlands at some point, then you are taking some exchange rate risk by moving your savings to the UK - you don't know if it'll be better or worse when you want to transfer money back. But I guess it won't be that soon if you want to buy a house, so I think the risk is probably worthwhile. (I calculated the cost of the transfer by converting €100k into GBP, and then converting the resulting amount back again. That left €99k, so a two-way transfer cost 1% and from that I deduced that a one-way transfer costs roughly 0.5%)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a316b4e61c79499efab27a0de2c74573",
"text": "I am going to clone an answer from another question that I wrote ;) and refer you to an article in the Wall Street Journal that I read this morning, What's at Stake in the Greek Vote, summarizing the likely outcome of the situation if a Euro exit looks likely after the election: ... we will see a full-fledged bank run. Greek banks would collapse ... The market exchange-rate would likely be two or three drachmas to the euro, which would double or triple the Greek price of imported goods within a few days. Prices of assets, including real-estate assets, would crumble. Those who moved their deposits abroad would be able to buy these assets cheaply, leading to a significant, regressive redistribution of Greek wealth. In short, you'd lose about two-thirds of your savings unless you were storing them somewhere safe from the conversion. The article also predicts difficulty importing goods (other nations will demand to be paid in euro, not drachma) leading to disruption of trade and various supply shortages.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "47a26543206f7468bb70e67639da2474",
"text": "No you will have no problems. It's been fourteen years since I've lived in the UK and I've had no trouble with my UK bank accounts in that time. They have happily mailed me statements and new cards abroad for all that time, and I've deposited cheques by mailing them to the branch. Online banking takes care of almost everything else. The only thing I wasn't able to do from abroad was open a new account, because of anti money-laundering regulations. Even that may be possible if you presented the right kind of ID when you opened the original account - mine predated the regulations. Most UK banks will also offer 'offshore' banking for non-residents in which interest is not deducted at source.",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
6bf952ffb92611db1eea36be0ca9a497
|
How to calculate the closing price percentage change for a stock?
|
[
{
"docid": "25fc959e1028b1ec366771661e75cb64",
"text": "The previous day's close on Thursday 10th October was 5,000.00 The close on Friday 11th October is 5,025.92 So the gain on Friday was 25.92 (5025.92 - 5000) or 0.52% (25.92/5000 x 100%). No mystery!",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "2c600e5d7c6579a79832cc6565ae570f",
"text": "\"Edited: Pub 550 says 30 days before or after so the example is ok - but still a gain by average share basis. On sale your basis is likely defaulted to \"\"average price\"\" (in the example 9.67 so there was a gain selling at 10), but can be named shares at your election to your brokerage, and supported by record keeping. A Pub 550 wash might be buy 2000 @ 10 with basis 20000, sell 1000 @9 (nominally a loss of 1000 for now and remaining basis 10000), buy 1000 @ 8 within 30 days. Because of the wash sale rule the basis is 10000+8000 paid + 1000 disallowed loss from wash sale with a final position of 2000 shares at 19000 basis. I think I have the link at the example: http://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2014_publink100010601\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a8121c431651f7b2b2fdc9de6f5f909e",
"text": "Try to find the P/E ratio of the Company and then Multiply it with last E.P.S, this calculation gives the Fundamental Value of the share, anything higher than this Value is not acceptable and Vice versa.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9443fc7e998ed1319ccfc06ef4babaf3",
"text": "\"The question mentions a trailing stop. A trailing stop is a type of stop loss order. It allows you to protect your profit on the stock, while \"\"keeping you in the stock\"\". A trailing stop is specified as a percentage of market price e.g. you might want to set a trailing stop at 5%, or 10% below the market price. A trailing stop goes up along with the market price, but if the market price drops it doesn't move down too. The idea is that it is there to \"\"catch\"\" your profit, if the market suddenly moves quickly against you. There is a nice explanation of how that works in the section titled Trailing Stops here. (The URL for the page, \"\"Tailing Stops\"\" is misleading, and a typo, I suspect.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "73143af4a4f1f0f7a3f85b82cb901a9f",
"text": "\"Their algorithm may be different (and proprietary), but how I would to it is to assume that daily changes in the stock are distributed normally (meaning the probability distribution is a \"\"bell curve\"\" - the green area in your chart). I would then calculate the average and standard deviation (volatility) of historical returns to determine the center and width of the bell curve (calibrating it to expected returns and implied volaility based on option prices), then use standard formulas for lognormal distributions to calculate the probability of the price exceeding the strike price. So there are many assumptions involved, and in the end it's just a probability, so there's no way to know if it's right or wrong - either the stock will cross the strike or it won't.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b0f869c36cbaef461e171d52dc5b2204",
"text": "What you're referring to is the yield. The issue with these sorts of calculations is that the dividend isn't guaranteed until it's declared. It may have paid the quarterly dividend like clockwork for the last decade, that does not guarantee it will pay this quarter. Regarding question number 2. Yield is generally an after the fact calculation. Dividends are paid out of current or retained earnings. If the company becomes hot and the stock price doubles, but earnings are relatively similar, the dividend will not be doubled to maintain the prior yield; the yield will instead be halved because the dividend per share was made more expensive to attain due to the increased share price. As for the calculation, obviously your yield will likely vary from the yield published on services like Google and Yahoo finance. The variation is strictly based on the price you paid for the share. Dividend per share is a declared amount. Assuming a $10 share paying a quarterly dividend of $0.25 your yield is: Now figure that you paid $8.75 for the share. Now the way dividends are allocated to shareholders depends on dates published when the dividend is declared. The day you purchase the share, the day your transaction clears etc are all vital to being paid a particular dividend. Here's a link to the SEC with related information: https://www.sec.gov/answers/dividen.htm I suppose it goes without saying but, historical dividend payments should not be your sole evaluation criteria. Personally, I would be extremely wary of a company paying a 40% dividend ($1 quarterly dividend on a $10 stock), it's very possible that in your example bar corp is a more sound investment. Additionally, this has really nothing to do with P/E (price/earnings) ratios.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cf0a0630c49827832045707c9e6dd2bf",
"text": "\"What you are looking for is an indicator called the \"\"Rate of Change (Price)\"\". It provides a rolling % change in the price over the period you have chosen. Below is an example showing a price chart over the last 6 months with a 100 day Rate of Change indicator below the price chart.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e9149538d610725a2eac924e1aea37af",
"text": "As I write this, the NASDAQ Composite is at 2790.00, down 6.14 points from yesterday. To calculate the percentage, you take 6.14 and divide by yesterday's close of 2796.14 to yield 0.22%. In your example, if SPY drops from 133.68 to 133.32, you use the difference of -0.36 and divide by the original, i.e. -0.36/133.68 = -0.27%. SPY is an ETF which you can invest in that tracks the S&P 500 index. Ideally, the index would have dropped the same percentage as SPY, but the points would be different (~10x higher). To answer your question about how one qualifies a point, it completely depends on the index being discussed. For example, the S&P 500 is a market-capitalization weighted index of the common stock of 500 large-cap US public companies. It is as if you owned every share of each of the 500 companies, then divide by some large constant to create a number that's easily understood mentally (i.e. 1330). The NASDAQ Composite used the same methodology but includes practically all stocks listed on the NASDAQ. Meanwhile, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is a price-weighted index of 30 large-cap companies. It's final value is modified using a divisor known as the Dow Divisor, which accounts for stock splits and similar events that have occurred since a stock has joined the index. Thus, points when referring to an index do not typically represent dollars. Rather, they serve as a quantitative measure of how the market is doing based on the performance of the index constituents. ETFs like SPY add a layer of abstraction by creating an investible vehicle that ideally tracks the value of the underlying index directly. Finally, neither price nor index value is related to volume. Volume is a raw measurement of the total number of shares traded for a given stock or the aggregate for a given exchange. Hope this helps!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f89cf25648c78c059f612da6c62af257",
"text": "Simple, there is no magic price adjustment after sales - why do you expect the stock price to change? The listed price of a stock is what someone was willing to pay for it in the last deal that was concluded. If any amount of stock changes ownership, this might have the effect that other people are willing to buy it for a higher price - or not. It is solely in the next buyer's decision what he is willing to pay. Example: if you think Apple stocks are worth 500$ a piece, and I buy a million of them, you might still think they are worth 500$. Or you might see this as a reason that they are worth 505$ now.",
"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": "4453c3be094df6db2bceddd7bde5d4fc",
"text": "With your numbers, look at it this way - You borrowed $50. When the stock is $100, you are at 50% margin. What's most important, is that there's margin interest charged, so the amount owed will increase regardless of the stock price. When calculating your return or loss, the interest has to be accounted for or your numbers will be wrong. For a small investor, margin rates can run high, and often, will offset much of your potential gain. What good is a $100 gain if you paid $125 in margin interest?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e090411bf34d3e1a21c664640f3d881",
"text": "Graphs are nothing but a representation of data. Every time a trade is made, a point is plotted on the graph. After points are plotted, they are joined in order to represent the data in a graphical format. Think about it this way. 1.) Walmart shuts at 12 AM. 2.)Walmart is selling almonds at $10 a pound. 3.) Walmart says that the price is going to reduce to $9 effective tomorrow. 4.) You are inside the store buying almonds at 11:59 PM. 5.) Till you make your way up to the counter, it is already 12:01 AM, so the store is technically shut. 6.) However, they allow you to purchase the almonds since you were already in there. 7.) You purchase the almonds at $9 since the day has changed. 8.) So you have made a trade and it will reflect as a point on the graph. 9.) When those points are joined, the curves on the graph will be created. 10.) The data source is Walmart's system as it reflects the sale to you. ( In your case the NYSE exchange records this trade made). Buying a stock is just like buying almonds. There has to be a buyer. There has to be a seller. There has to be a price to which both agree. As soon as all these conditions are met, and the trade is made, it is reflected on the graph. The only difference between the graphs from 9 AM-4 PM, and 4 PM-9 AM is the time. The trade has happened regardless and NYSE(Or any other stock exchange) has recorded it! The graph is just made from that data. Cheers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "63d965f32d4308863997d8eb23a05539",
"text": "If one wants to have a bound on the loss percentages that are acceptable, this is would be a way to enforce that. For example, suppose someone wants to have a 5% stop-loss but doesn't want this to be worse than 10% as if the stock goes down more than 10% then the sell shouldn't happen. Thus, if the stock opened in a gap down 15% one day, this triggers the stop-loss and would exit at too low of a price as the gap was quite high as I wonder how familiar are you with how much a stock's price could change that makes the prices not be as continuous as one would think. At least this would be my thinking on a volatile stock where one may want to try to limit losses if the stock does fall within a specific range.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7af4f32798568d7e60f0dbc247e02a37",
"text": "The price-earnings ratio is calculated as the market value per share divided by the earnings per share over the past 12 months. In your example, you state that the company earned $0.35 over the past quarter. That is insufficient to calculate the price-earnings ratio, and probably why the PE is just given as 20. So, if you have transcribed the formula correctly, the calculation given the numbers in your example would be: 0.35 * 4 * 20 = $28.00 As to CVRR, I'm not sure your PE is correct. According to Yahoo, the PE for CVRR is 3.92 at the time of writing, not 10.54. Using the formula above, this would lead to: 2.3 * 4 * 3.92 = $36.06 That stock has a 52-week high of $35.98, so $36.06 is not laughably unrealistic. I'm more than a little dubious of the validity of that formula, however, and urge you not to base your investing decisions on it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1cd39845c4506ace1ae07aecdfa65a9c",
"text": "Opening - is the price at which the first trade gets executed at the start of the trading day (or trading period). High - is the highest price the stock is traded at during the day (or trading period). Low - is the lowest price the stock is traded at during the day (or trading period). Closing - is the price at which the last trade gets executed at the end of the trading day (or trading period). Volume - is the amount of shares that get traded during the trading day (or trading period). For example, if you bought 1000 shares during the day and another 9 people also bought 1000 shares each, then the trading volume for the day would be 10 x 1000 = 10,000.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f535a0d7cc0538b79c889db8e26ef801",
"text": "Stock price = Earning per share * P/E Ratio. Most of the time you will see in a listing the Stock price and the P/E ration. The calculation of the EPS is left as an exercise for the student Investor.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ad81c2deb3217964a42a17395704aba7
|
Why doesn't GnuCash auto-reconcile non-bank accounts?
|
[
{
"docid": "dd301cc7c61fc66dfca48b4390e5e4f7",
"text": "\"The answer is just close your eyes and ignore it (in your words). I'm right there with you, the amount of detail that I track in my personal finances would be called obscene by some people. But as you look at these features in any accounting application, you need to ask the question \"\"What does this information represent?\"\" In the case of your bank and credit card accounts, the reconciliation marker represents that you have received documentation from the issuing institution which you have verified against your accounts. Marking them off confirms that you have reviewed the information, and that you checked for errors. These markers exist on all transactions, whichever end of the splits you are looking at. When reviewing the Expense side of the transaction, it might make less sense to see these reconciliation markers, because as you stated, nobody receives documentation related to their expenses. However, if you itemized your expenses and kept a separate log of certain transactions (like a notebook where you track gasoline and/or mileage on your car), it might be useful to 'reconcile' your records once a month. Checking off individual transactions, and verifying a new 'balance' in terms of gas consumed or miles driven, would allow you to identify any inconsistencies in your records. Not everyone would find such an activity useful, thus the reconciliation markers are present everywhere but required nowhere.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "4059ea0037fe601d67bfb083947ecd6d",
"text": "Shop around for a bank that offers lower/no fees for this operation and move your account there... or, yes, change where the direct deposit is routed... or move these accounts into a single bank so it's an internal transfer rather than ACH. Or ask the bank whether there is another way to arrange this which doesn't cost you money. (It costs me nothing to move money within my credit union, whether manually or on a scheduled basis. It costs me nothing to have them send funds to another entity from my checking account. Specific example: Pay comes into my savings account. On the 27th, an automatic transfer moves the cost of a mortgage payment from savings to checking. On the 30th, an automatic payment sends that to my mortgage in another bank. No fees on any of this, 100% reliable.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c7310340478610eea3f1d4b154baaf6",
"text": "\"As far as I can tell there are no \"\"out-of-the-box\"\" solutions for this. Nor will Moneydance or GnuCash give you the full solution you are looking for. I imaging people don't write a well-known, open-source, tool that will do this for fear of the negative uses it could have, and the resulting liability. You can roll-you-own using the following obscure tools that approximate a solution: First download the bank's CSV information: http://baruch.ev-en.org/proj/gnucash.html That guy did it with a perl script that you can modify. Then convert the result to OFX for use elsewhere: http://allmybrain.com/2009/02/04/converting-financial-csv-data-to-ofx-or-qif-import-files/\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4283721a34d5eadb2fe20faf5b11cf5e",
"text": "\"Doesn't make any difference. Reconciling is important, but if you are constantly checking the online balance in between (because you are NOT keeping track of a running register balance) then the fact that you *eventually* \"\"balance\"\" is irrelevant... And in fact if you're NOT maintaining a register, then you're really not \"\"reconciling\"\" (or \"\"balancing\"\") anything.... you're just looking over a bank statement and saying *\"\"OK that looks right\"\"*; or, as is more likely in your case saying *\"\"Waitaminute, that's not right ... Oh, I guess I forgot about that transaction... and that one... and that other one.\"\"*\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f162c873c93008892be6d4e5e9f6351f",
"text": "They have recently launched an iphone app 'Billguard' in UK which does accounts aggregation which is similiar to mint.com. You can also use try 'Ontrees' iphone app which is another account aggregation software. I am using Yodlee Money center Website for past 4 years which support lot of bank internationally including all major UK banks and creditcards.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a471c4c58c07ed7ca866cff9414c8695",
"text": "There isn't one. I haven't been very happy with anything I've tried, commercial or open source. I've used Quicken for a while and been fairly happy with the user experience, but I hate the idea of their sunset policy (forced upgrades) and using proprietary format for the data files. Note that I wouldn't mind using proprietary and/or commercial software if it used a format that allowed me to easily migrate to another application. And no, QIF/OFX/CSV doesn't count. What I've found works well for me is to use Mint.com for pulling transactions from my accounts and categorizing them. I then export the transaction history as a CSV file and convert it to QIF/OFX using csv2ofx, and then import the resulting file into GNUCash. The hardest part is using categories (Mint.com) and accounts (GnuCash) properly. Not perfect by any means, but certainly better than manually exporting transactions from each account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8568a818f3a0c4a7473017be99a53d48",
"text": "\"I found an answer by Peter Selinger, in two articles, Tutorial on multiple currency accounting (June 2005, Jan 2011) and the accompanying Multiple currency accounting in GnuCash (June 2005, Feb 2007). Selinger embraces the currency neutrality I'm after. His method uses \"\"[a]n account that is denominated as a difference of multiple currencies... known as a currency trading account.\"\" Currency trading accounts show the gain or loss based on exchange rates at any moment. Apparently GnuCash 2.3.9 added support for multi-currency accounting. I haven't tried this myself. This feature is not enabled by default, and must be turned on explicity. To do so, check \"\"Use Trading Accounts\"\" under File -> Properties -> Accounts. This must be done on a per-file basis. Thanks to Mike Alexander, who implemented this feature in 2007, and worked for over 3 years to convince the GnuCash developers to include it. Older versions of GnuCash, such as 1.8.11, apparently had a feature called \"\"Currency Trading Accounts\"\", but they behaved differently than Selinger's method.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dbc64c870685d9d3c4e4e506ee4e6c5f",
"text": "I do know that a blank check has all the information they need for the electronic transfer. They probably add it as a customer service to streamline future payments. Though I don't think automatically adding it makes good business sense. It is possible that the form used to submit the check included a line to added the account to the list of authorized accounts. He might have been lucky he didn't set up a recurring payment. I would check the website to see if there is a tool to remove the account info from the list of payment options. There has to be a way to edit the list so that if you change banks you can update the information, yet not keep the old accounts on the list. Talk to customer service if the website doesn't have a way of removing the account. Tell them that you have to edit the account information. And give them your info. If they balk at the change tell them that they could be committing fraud if the money is pulled from an unauthorized account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f2001e382087977d58faadeb8485548a",
"text": "I'm not familiar with Gnucash, but I can discuss double-entry bookkeeping in general. I think the typical solution to something like this is to create an Asset account for what this other person owes you. This represents the money that he owes you. It's an Accounts Receivable. Method 1: Do you have/need separate accounts for each company that you are paying for this person? Do you need to record where the money is going? If not, then all you need is: When you pay a bill, you credit (subtract from) Checking and debit (add to) Friend Account. When he pays you, you credit (subtract from) Friend Account and debit (add to) Checking. That is, when you pay a bill for your friend you are turning one asset, cash, into a different kind of asset, receivable. When he pays you, you are doing the reverse. There's no need to create a new account each time you pay a bill. Just keep a rolling balance on this My Friend account. It's like a credit card: you don't get a new card each time you make a purchase, you just add to the balance. When you make a payment, you subtract from the balance. Method 2: If you need to record where the money is going, then you'd have to create accounts for each of the companies that you pay bills to. These would be Expense accounts. Then you'd need to create two accounts for your friend: An Asset account for the money he owes you, and an Income account for the stream of money coming in. So when you pay a bill, you'd credit Checking, debit My Friend Owes Me, credit the company expense account, and debit the Money from My Friend income account. When he repays you, you'd credit My Friend Owes Me and debit Checking. You don't change the income or expense accounts. Method 3: You could enter bills when they're received as a liability and then eliminate the liability when you pay them. This is probably more work than you want to go to.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9fbd618f21167b6f2ca0204c0cb3d4ed",
"text": "I ended up just trying. I gave A the IBAN of B's account, which I calculated online based on the bank code and account number (because B claimed IBAN won't work, so didn't give it to me), and B's name. A was able to transfer the money apparently without extra difficulties, and it appeared on B's account on the same day. Contrary to some other posts here, IBAN has nothing to do with the Euro zone, nor is it a European system. It started in Europe, but it has been adopted as an ISO standard (link). As usual of course some countries don't see the urgency to follow an international standard :) XE.com has a list of all IBAN countries; quite a few are non-European. Here is even the list formatted specially for the European-or-not discussion: link.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "000a4e01345164ec5682c16d5afc672b",
"text": "The best thing for you to do will be to start using the Cash Flow report instead of the Income and Expense report. Go to Reports -> Income and Expense -> Cash Flow Once the report is open, open the edit window and open the Accounts tab. There, choose your various cash accounts (checking, saving, etc.). In the General tab, choose the reporting period. (And then save the report settings so you don't need to go hunting for your cash accounts each time.) GnuCash will display for you all the inflows and outflows of money, which appears to be what you really want. Though GnuCash doesn't present the Cash Flow in a way that matches United States accounting rules (with sections for operating, investing, and financial cash flows separated), it is certainly fine for your personal use. If you want the total payment to show up as one line on the Cash Flow report, you will need to book the accrual of interest and the payment to the mortgage bank as two separate entries. Normal entry for mortgage payments (which shows up as a line for mortgage and a line for interest on your Cash Flow): Pair of entries to make full mortgage payment show up as one line on Cash Flow: Entry #1: Interest accrual Entry #2: Full mortgage payment (Tested in GnuCash 2.6.1)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ea5c5652e7b5488b676fca707598ad9b",
"text": "This started as a comment but then really go too long so I am posting an answer: @yarun, I am also using GnuCash just like you as a non-accountant. But I think it really pays off to get to know more about accounting via GnuCash; it is so useful and you learn a lot about this hundreds of years old double entry system that all accountants know. So start learning about 5 main accounts and debits and credits, imho. It is far easier than one can think. Now the answer: even without balancing amounts exactly program is very useful as you still can track your monthly outgoings very well. Just make/adjust some reports and save their configurations (so you can re-run quickly when new data comes in) after you have classified your transactions properly. If I still did not know what some transactions were (happens a lot at first import) - I just put them under Expenses:Unaccounted Expenses - thus you will be able to see how much money went who knows where. If later you learn what those transactions were - you still can move them to the right account and you will be pleased that your reports show less unaccounted money. How many transactions to import at first - for me half a year or a year is quite enough; once you start tracking regularly you accumulate more date and this becomes a non-issue. Reflecting that personal finance is more about behaviour than maths and that it is more for the future where your overview of money is useful. Gnucash wil learn from import to import what transactions go where - so you could import say 1 or 3 month intervals to start with instead of a while year. No matter what - I still glance at every transaction on import and still sometimes petrol expense lands in grocery (because of the same seller). But to spot things like that you use reports and if one month is abnormal you can drill down to transactions and learn/correct things. Note that reports are easy to modify and you can save the report configurations with names you can remember. They are saved on the machine you do the accounting - not within the gnucash file. So if you open the file (or mysql database) on another computer you will miss your custom reports. You can transfer them, but it is a bit fiddly. Hence it makes sense to use gnucash on your laptop as that you probably will have around most often. Once you start entering transactions into GnuCash on the day or the week you incur the expense, you are getting more control and it is perhaps then you would need the balance to match the bank's balance. Then you can adjust the Equity:Opening Balances to manipulate the starting sums so that current balances match those of your bank. This is easy. When you have entered transactions proactively (on the day or the week) and then later do an import from bank statement the transactions are matched automatically and then they are said to be reconciled (i.e. your manual entry gets matched by the entry from your statement.) So for beginning it is something like that. If any questions, feel free to ask. IMHO this is a process rather a one-off thing; I began once - got bored, but started again and now I find it immensely useful.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e84656355fdeb0de76a9d80dcb3f9fb5",
"text": "You should definitively check boobank. It's not a bank !, but a framework that helps people to create quick interface modules to any bank so you don't have to use your web browser anymore with them. Actually, there is already an honest list of modules to access a few banks (I guess these banks are all french banks for now), but contributing a module seems easy and reading other contributed modules should constitute a good start. So boobank can work with any bank provided the interface with the bank is written.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cdb2d5e8e6b31e359135a95b29c2bd26",
"text": "this is to prevent fraud, and there is likely nothing (through paypal) that you can do to speed up the process apart from making sure you verify all the accounts linked to PayPal (bank, credit, etc) and that your relatives do the same. Be mindful that Paypal is NOT intended as a large sum transfer service - they are a convenience for online payments. Using an established monetary transfer system (wire, etc) for this purpose in the first place would have saved some time at the expense of a convenience fee. Tax implications, etc all apply, etc.",
"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": "0f8bff4246bf5e8c9e8ded7affa5caa8",
"text": "\"Gnucash is first and foremost just a general ledger system. It tracks money in accounts, and lets you make transactions to transfer money between the accounts, but it has no inherent concept of things like taxes. This gives you a large amount of flexibility to organize your account hierarchy the way you want, but also means that it sometimes can take a while to figure out what account hierarchy you want. The idea is that you keep track of where you get money from (the Income accounts), what you have as a result (the Asset accounts), and then track what you spent the money on (the Expense accounts). It sounds like you primarily think of expenses as each being for a particular property, so I think you want to use that as the basis of your hierarchy. You probably want something like this (obviously I'm making up the specifics): Now, when running transaction reports or income/expense reports, you can filter to the accounts (and subaccounts) of each property to get a report specific to that property. You mention that you also sometimes want to run a report on \"\"all gas expenses, regardless of property\"\", and that's a bit more annoying to do. You can run the report, and when selecting accounts you have to select all the Gas accounts individually. It sounds like you're really looking for a way to have each transaction classified in some kind of two-axis system, but the way a general ledger works is that it's just a tree, so you need to pick just one \"\"primary\"\" axis to organize your accounts by.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
4d41c81d0f6503ce1529c0485afb7ebe
|
Strategy to pay off car loan before selling the car
|
[
{
"docid": "92a61455d9f49c80b5be72ef8cd10f71",
"text": "As far as ease of sale transaction goes you'll want to pay off the loan and have the title in your name and in your hand at the time of sale. Selling a car private party is difficult enough, the last thing you want is some administrivia clouding your deal. How you go about paying the remaining balance on the car is really up to you. If you can make that happen on a CC without paying an additional fee, that sounds like a good option.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "4e5fd662a672e4645120d38ef17e20f9",
"text": "The main benefit of paying off the loan early is that it's not on your mind, you don't have to worry about missing a payment and incurring the full interest due at that point. Your loan may not be set up that way, but most 0% interest loans are set up so that there is interest that's accruing, but you don't pay it so long as all your payments are on time, oftentimes they're structured so that one late payment causes all of that deferred interest to be due. If you put the money in the bank you'd make a small amount of interest and also not have to worry about funds availability for your car payment. If you use the money for some other purpose, you're at greater risk of something going wrong in the next 21 months that causes you to miss a payment and being hit with a lot of interest (if applicable to your loan). If you already have an emergency fund (at least 3-6 months of expenses) then I would pay the loan off now so you don't have to think about it. If you don't have an emergency fund, then I'd bank the money and keep making payments, and pay it off entirely when you have funds in excess of your emergency fund to do so.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d8e2e72905068e2d95e805edefdab87",
"text": "\"Having just gone through selling a car, I can tell you that CarMax will most likely not be the best solution. I recently sold my '09 Pontiac Vibe which had a KBB and Edmonds value (private party sale) of around $6k. Trade-in value was around $4,800. I took it to the local CarMax for a quote, and they came back with $3,500. Refinancing is tricky. Banks have a set limit on how old a car they will finance. Many won't even offer financing if the vehicle has over 100k miles. We looked at refinancing our other car, and even getting the APR down over a point we would only have saved $15/mo or so. Banks typically offer much higher interest rates for used non-dealership cars and refinancing than they do for new cars, or even used cars purchased from a dealership. Assuming you have 2-3 years left on your loan, I don't think that refinancing would save you enough to be worth considering. CarMax sells cars in 1 of 2 ways. They are also up front with you about the process. They do not reference KBB or Edmonds or any other valuation tool other than their own internal system. They either take the car, spruce it up a bit, then resell it on their lot, or they sell it at auction. If they determine your car will be sold at auction, then they will offer you a rock bottom price. The determining factors that come into play include age of the car, mileage, and of course overall condition. If you Mini is still in good shape and doesn't have a lot of miles, then they may try to resell it on their lot, for which they could offer you closer to personal-sale price than trade-in. How many 2007's are for sale in your area? How much are they selling for? I did sell them a truck back in 2005 and received $200 more than KBB valued it for, but it was in great shape, only a couple of years old, relatively low mileage, and it was in high demand. God bless the South and their love for trucks! I ended up selling my Pontiac to another local car dealership. They offered me $5,300 (after negotiating, leaving the dealership, then negotiating more over the phone). It took me a day and a half and really very little effort. I have several friends that have gone through the same thing with selling cars, and all have had similar luck going to other dealerships, where prices can be negotiated, rather than CarMax. CarMax has no incentive to \"\"settle\"\" or forgive your loan. If you really want to pay it off, save up what you believe the difference will be, then shop your car around the local dealerships and get prices for your Mini. Remember that dealers have to turn a profit, so be reasonable with your negotiation. If you can find comparable vehicles in your area listed for $X,000 then knock $1,500 off that price and tell the dealerships that's what you want.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "238c47763010d660a605d51c8190b59a",
"text": "Assuming that partial payments are held (without interest) until enough money has accumulated to make at least a full payment, and assuming that overpayments are applied toward principal, a strategy of making three $ 96.00 payments per month will shorten your amortization period by less than one month. These calculations assume that the interest rate is 12.5 percent APR, compounded monthly (with an APY of 13.2416 percent). Instead of 71 payments of $ 285.56 plus a final payment of $ 285.38, you would make the equivalent of 71 payments of $ 288.00 plus a final payment of $ 28.10. If you make one $ 96.00 payment every ten days, you will make an average of 36.5… partial payments per year, instead of 36 partial payments per year. This will speed up your loan amortization by about another month-and-a-half over the course of the 72 month loan. One month of shortening is due to the extra principal payments, and the other half-month is due to interest savings. To a second approximation, this strategy is similar to paying $ 292.00 per month for 69 months plus a final payment of $ 195.38. In other words, this strategy will probably involve about 212 payments of $ 96.00 each, possibly with a small 213th payment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe53fc578ef231eb4f000c990378512f",
"text": "You have a good start (estimated max amount you will pay, estimated max down payment, and term) Now go to your bank/credit union and apply for the loan. Get a commitment. They will give you a letter, you may have to ask for it. The letter will say the maximum amount you can pay for the car. This max includes their money and your down payment. The dealer doesn't have to know how much is loan. You also know from the loan commitment exactly how much your monthly payment will be in the worst case. If you have a car you want to trade in, get an written estimate that is good for a week or so. This lets you know how much you can get from selling the car. Now visit the dealer and tell them you don't need a loan, and won't be trading in a car. Don't show them the letter. After all the details of the purchase are concluded, including any rebates and specials, then bring up financing and trade-in. If they can't beat the deal from your bank and the written estimate for the car you are selling, then the deal is done. Now show them the letter and discuss how much down they need today. Then go to the bank for the rest of the money. If they do have a better loan deal or trade in then go with the dealer offer, and keep the letter in your pocket. If you go to the dealer first they will confuse you because they will see the price, interest rate, length of loan, and trade in as one big ball of mud. They will pick the settings that make you happy enough, yet still make them the most money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b18376c746ec672517b49eeb64ac570",
"text": "\"It's not a bad strategy. I'd rather owe money at 4% interest than at 6-7%. However, there is something to consider. Consolidating debt into a new loan can backfire. When you have money borrowed at 7%, you want to get that paid off as quickly as possible. Once you have that converted to 4%, if you think, \"\"Now I can take my time paying off this debt,\"\" then you aren't really better off. In fact, if you take too long paying off the new loan, you might end up paying more interest than if you had kept the high interest loan and paid it as soon as possible. Don't lose your drive to get out of debt after you refinance. As far as how the student loans affect your debt-to-income ratio, I'm not sure; however, if they do count (I think they do), your ratio will not really be going up by taking out the new loan, since you are using the money to pay other debt. Make sure the new lender knows this, so they take that into consideration when making their decision. Overall, I like your strategy: pay off what you can right away (the car loan and the highest interest student loans) and reduce the interest on the rest. Just make sure that you continue to pay down that debt as quick as you can.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1fcdc5d9cd3b7f6107c1f75848119357",
"text": "\"There's two scenarios: the loan accrues interest on the remaining balance, or the total interest was computed ahead of time and your payments were averaged over x years so your payments are always the same. The second scenarios is better for the bank, so guess what you probably have... In the first scenario, I would pay it off to avoid paying interest. (Unless there is a compelling reason to keep the cash available for something else, and you don't mind paying interest) In the second case, you're going to pay \"\"interest over x years\"\" as computed when you bought the car no matter how quickly you pay it off, so take your time. (If you pay it earlier, it's like paying interest that would not have actually accrued, since you're paying it off faster than necessary) If you pay it off, I'm not sure if it would \"\"close\"\" the account, your credit history might show the account as being paid, which is a good thing.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "18d2a4d236f1778fbd6a809e214fd3c8",
"text": "I don't disagree with the current answers, but I feel like no one really answered your question directly. Seems to me like what you were asking is when to trade in your car in relation to when/whether your loan is paid off? Assuming you are committed to trading your car in (and not selling it privately as has been suggested), whether the car is paid off should have no impact on what you get for a trade-in. The car is worth what it's worth, and what you owe on it should not affect the transaction.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "78b784464b371298238b7268183212f8",
"text": "Do you need the car? It depends on what your goals are. You're going to keep losing money on the car via means of the debt (which I assume you can't pay off without selling the car) and depreciation. If it was me, I would sell the car. But if you like it and you can afford it, then keep it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "12bb7a7f585f4dd6444a5401f52d0b89",
"text": "If the car loan has 0% interest for 5 years, then paying off the student loan is cheaper. No matter when you pay off the car, you will pay the exact same amount (as long as its within 5 years). You could spend $20,000 right now to pay off the car loan or slowly spend $20,000 over the next 5 years. The gross amount paid for the car loan does not change. On the contrary, the longer you wait to pay off the student loans, the more you will end up paying for them. So why not get the student loans out of the way before they rack up more interest and pay the car loan over time? Update: I forgot to add, as Ben Miller said, congratulations on paying off the $40,000!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc69d3f6e641e3921c55c1180b6158e7",
"text": "\"Following up on @petebelford's answer: If you can find a less expensive loan, you can refinance the car and reduce the total interest you pay that way. Or, if your loan permits it (not all do; talk to the bank which holds the loan and,/or read the paperwork you didn't look at), you may be able to make additional payments to reduce the principal of the loan, which will reduce the amount and duration of the loan and could significantly reduce the total interest paid ... at the cost of requiring you pay more each month, or pay an additional sum up front. Returning the car is not an option. A new car loses a large portion of its value the moment you drive it off the dealer's lot and it ceases to be a \"\"new\"\" car. You can't return it. You can sell it as a recent model used car, but you will lose money on the deal so even if you use that to pay down the loan you will still owe the bank money. Given the pain involved that way, you might as well keep the car and just try to refinance or pay it off. Next time, read and understand all the paperwork before signing. (If you had decided this was a mistake within 3 days of buying, you might have been able to take advantage of \"\"cooling down period\"\" laws to cancel the contract, if such laws exist in your area. A month later is much too late.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3a794578c9ef2130d3f3bb40b9b97aa",
"text": "Everybody on the car title will need to participate in the selling process. The person who is buying the car will need everybody to sign the paperwork so that nobody months later tries to say they never agreed to sell the car. The money will have to be sent to the lender to pay off the rest of the loan. If the money isn't enough to pay off the loan everybody will have to decide how the extra money will be sent to the lender. This will have to be done as part of the selling process because the lender doesn't want you to sell the car and keep the cash. Once the car is gone so is the collateral and they can't take it back if you miss payments. If the cousin is too far away to participate in the selling of the car, you may need the buyer and the lender to tell you how to proceeded. If you are selling at a dealership they will know what documents and signatures will be needed, the bank will also know what to do. If the loan is almost paid off it may be easier to pay the loan first, and then get the title without the lenders name before trying to sell it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "29c366b66bc9ac78b881ee6be8d430e3",
"text": "That interest rate (13%) is steep, and the balloon payment will have him paying more interest longer. Investing the difference is a risky proposition because past performance of an investment is no guarantee of future performance. Is taking that risk worth netting 2%? Not for me, but you must answer that last question for yourself. To your edit: How disruptive would losing the car and/or getting negative marks on your credit be? If you can quantify that in dollars then you have your answer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "927daf0565187ad69e532a058862b42f",
"text": "The optimal down payment is 0% IF your interest rate is also 0%. As the interest rate increases, so does the likelihood of the better option being to pay for the car outright. Note that this is probably a binary choice. In other words, depending on the rate you will pay, you should either put 0% down, or 100% down. The interesting question is what formula should you use to determine which way to go? Obviously if you can invest at a higher return than the rate you pay on the car, you would still want to put 0% down. The same goes for inflation, and you can add these two numbers together. For example, if you estimate 2% inflation plus 1% guaranteed investment, then as long as the rate on your car is less than 3%, you would want to minimize the amount you put down. The key here is you must actually invest it. Other possible reasons to minimize the down payment would be if you have other loans with higher rates- then obviously use that money to pay down those loans before the car loan. All that being said, some dealers will give you cash back if you pay for the car outright. If you have this option, do the math and see where it lands. Most likely taking the cash back is going to be more attractive so you don't even have to hedge inflation at all. Tip: Make sure to negotiate the price of the car before you tell them how you are going to pay for it. (And during this process you can hint that you'll pay cash for it.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d39986d50b0e63031806e14e0e0c04a4",
"text": "\"Wow, you guys get really cheap finance. here a mortage is 5.5 - 9% and car loans about 15 - 20%. Anyway back to the question. The rule is reduce the largest interest rate first (\"\"the most expensive money\"\"). For 0% loans, you should try to never pay it off, it's literally \"\"free money\"\" so just pay only the absolute minimum on 0% loans. Pass it to your estate, and try to get your kids to do the same. In fact if you have 11,000 and a $20,000 @ 0% loan and you have the option, you're better to put the 11,000 into a safe investment system that returns > 0% and just use the interest to pay off the $20k. The method of paying off the numerically smallest debt first, called \"\"snowballing\"\", is generally aimed at the general public, and for when you can't make much progress wekk to week. Thus it is best to get the lowest hanging fruit that shows progress, than to try and have years worth of hard discipline just to make a tiny progress. It's called snowballing, because after paying off that first debt, you keep your lifestyle the same and put the freed up money on as extra payments to the next target. Generally this is only worth while if (1) you have poor discipline, (2) the interest gap isn't too disparate (eg 5% and 25%, it is far better to pay off the 25%, (3) you don't go out and immediately renew the lower debt. Also as mentioned, snowballing is aimed at small regular payments. You can do it with a lump sum, but honestly for a lump sum you can get better return taking it off the most expensive interest rate first (as the discipline issue doesn't apply). Another consideration is put it off the most renewable finance. Paying off your car... so your car's paid off. If you have an emergency, redrawing on that asset means a new loan. But if you put it off the house (conditional on interest rates not being to dissimilar) it means you can often redraw some or all of the money if you have an emergency. This can often be better than paying down the car, and then having to pay application fees to get a new unsecured loan. Many modern banks actually use \"\"mortgage offsetting\"\" which allows them to do this - you can keep your lump sum in a standard (or even fixed term) and the value of it is deducted \"\"as if\"\" you'd paid it off your mortgage. So you get the benefit without the commitment. The bank is contracted for the length of the mortgage to a third party financier, so they really don't want you to change your end of the arrangement. And there is the hope you might spend it to ;) giving them a few more dollars. But this can be very helpful arragement, especially if you're financing stuff, because it keeps the mortgage costs down, but makes you look liquid for your investment borrowing.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1c42f580bbe721965a6f98e30226dc44",
"text": "The other answers have offered some great advice, but here is an alternative that hasn't been mentioned yet. I'm assuming that you have an adequately-sized emergency fund in savings, and that your cars are your only non-mortgage debt. Since you still have car debt, you probably don't have anything saved for buying a new car when your current cars are at the end-of-life. Consider paying off your car loans early, then begin saving for your next car. Having cash in the bank for a car is very freeing, and it changes your mindset when it comes time to purchase a car, as it is easy to waste a lot of money on something that depreciates rapidly when you aren't paying for it immediately. This approach might be counterintuitive if your car loan interest rate is less than your mortgage rate, but you will probably need another car before you need another house, and paying cash for a car is worth doing.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ecbdd2331a27efad564d244f2ee2df01
|
What is the preferred way to set up personal finances?
|
[
{
"docid": "17ca7c806e458a344150bca1b1c60fa6",
"text": "\"There's a lot of personal preference and personal circumstance that goes into these decisions. I think that for a person starting out, what's below is a good system. People with greater needs probably aren't reading this question looking for an answer. How many bank accounts should I have and what kinds, and how much (percentage-wise) of my income should I put into each one? You should probably have one checking account and one savings / money market account. If you're total savings are too low to avoid fees on two accounts, then just the checking account at the beginning. Keep the checking account balance high enough to cover your actual debits plus a little buffer. Put the rest in savings. Multiple bank accounts beyond the basics or using multiple banks can be appropriate for some people in some circumstances. Those people, for the most part, will have a specific reason for needing them and maybe enough experience at that point to know how many and where to get them. (Else they ask specific questions in the context of their situation.) I did see a comment about partners - If you're married / in long-term relationship, you might replicate the above for each side of the marriage / partnership. That's a personal decision between you and your partner that's more about your philosophy in the relationship then about finance specifically. Then from there, how do I portion them out into budgets and savings? I personally don't believe that there is any generic answer for this question. Others may post answers with their own rules of thumb. You need to budget based on a realistic assessment of your own income and necessary costs. Then if you have money some savings. Include a minimal level of entertainment in \"\"necessary costs\"\" because most people cannot work constantly. Beyond that minimal level, additional entertainment comes after necessary costs and basic savings. Savings should be tied to your long term goals in addition to you current constraints. Should I use credit cards for spending to reap benefits? No. Use credit cards for the convenience of them, if you want, but pay the full balance each month and don't overdo it. If you lack discipline on your spending, then you might consider avoiding credit cards completely.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "35e287281564a37c8b1e70d7119053a3",
"text": "\"simplicity and roi are often at odds. the simplest plan that also supports a reasonable investment return would have 3 accounts: if you want to get better returns on your investments, things can get much more complicated. here are some optional accounts to consider: besides the mechanics of money flowing between accounts, a budget helps you understand and control your spending. while there are many methods for this (e.g. envelopes of cash, separate accounts for various types of expenses), the simplest might be using mint.com. just be sure to put all your spending on a credit or debit card, and you can see your spending by category when you log into mint. it can take a bit to get it set up, and your bank needs to be compatible, but it can give you a really good picture of where your money is going. once you know that, you can start making decisions like \"\"i should spend less on coffee\"\", or \"\"i should go to the zoo more\"\", based on how much things cost vs how much you enjoy them. if you feel like your spending is out of control, then you can set yourself hard limits on certain kinds of spending, but usually just watching and influencing your own choices is enough. notes: if you have a spouse or partner, you should each maintain your own separate accounts. there are many reasons for this including simplicity and roi, besides the obvious. if you feel you must have a joint account, be sure to clearly define how it should be used (e.g. only for paying the utilities) and funded (x$ per month each). particularly with your house, do not do joint ownership. one of you should be a renter and the other a landlord. some of these statements assume you are in the usa. on a personal note, i have about 20 credit cards, 2 checking accounts, 2 ira's, 2 brokerage accounts, and 3 401k's. but i consider myself a personal finance hobbyist, and spend an absurd amount of time chasing financial deals and tax breaks.\"",
"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": "498b2cf651edab1629d39879c3c86686",
"text": "The absolute best advice I ever received was this: You will need three categories of savings in your life: 1) Retirement Savings This is money you put away (in 401-Ks and IRAs) for the time in your life when you can no longer earn enough income to support yourself. You do not borrow against it nor do you withdraw from it in emergencies or to buy a house. 2) Catestrophic savings This is money you put back in case of serious events. Events like: prolonged job loss, hospitalization, extended illness, loss of home, severe and significant loss of transportation, very large aplliance loss or damage. You do not take trips to the Bahamas or buy diamond rings with this money. 3) Urgent, relatively small, need savings. This is the savings you can use from time to time. Use it for bills that arise unexpectedly, unforseen shortfalls in your budget, needed repairs such as car repairs and small appliance repairs, surprising fines, fees, and bills. Put 10% of your income into each category of savings. 10% intro retirement savings, another, separate, 10% intro Catestrophic savings, and yet another 10% intro urgent, small need, savings. So, as you can see, already 30% of your income is already spoken for. Divide up the remaining 70% intro fixed (I recommend 50% toward fixed expenses) and variable expenses. Fixed includes those things that you pay once every month such as housing, utilities, car payment, debt repayment, etc. Variable includes discretionary things like eating out, gifts, and splurges. Most importantly, partner with someone who is your opposite. If you are a saver at heart partner with a spender. If you are a spender partner with a saver. There are three rules to live by regarding the budget: A) no one spends any money unless it is in the budget B) the budget only includes those things to which both the saver and the spender agree C) the budget can, and will, be modified as the pay period unfolds. A budget is a plan not a means to beat the other person up. Plans change as new information arises. A budget must be flexible. The urgent use savings will help to make the budget flexible. Edit due to comments: @enderland Perhaps you do not have children living with you. I am a saver, my wife is a spender. When it came time to do the budget I would forget things like the birthdays of my children, school fees due next pay period, shopping for Christmas gifts, needed new clothes and shoes for the children, broken small appliances that needed to be fixed or replaced, special (non reoccurring) house maintenence (like steam cleaning the carpet), gifts to relatives and friends, exceptional assistance to relatives, etc. As my wife was the spender she would remind me of these things. Perhaps you do not have these events in your life. I am glad to have these events in my life as that means that I have people in my life that I care about. What good is a fat savings account if I have no loved ones that benefit from it?",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "a83f2509dd446926c5835164c3ac2c89",
"text": "\"First, you've learned a very good lesson that quite a few people miss out on: notice how easy it is to get out of debt when you get a windfall of money? The trouble is that if a person doesn't have the behavior to maintain their position, they will end up in the same place. Many lottery winners end up being poor in the long run because their behavior is the problem, not their finances. If you feel that you're going to end up in debt again, this means simply that somewhere in your finances, your expenses exceed your income. Simply put, there's only two fundamental things that can be done: You can do one or the other, or both. Over budgeting, I prefer automation - automate your bills and spending by setting up a bill and spending account and when the money's gone, it's gone (you can tell yourself at that point, \"\"I have to find another source of income before I spend more\"\"). This not only helps you show where your money is going now, it also puts a constraint on your spending, which sounds like most of the problem currently. Many of my friends and I make our saved/invested money VERY HARD to access, so that we can't get it immediately (like putting it in an account that will require three or four days to get to). The purpose of this is to shape your behavior into actions of either increasing your income, decreasing your spending, or both.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ded88302704edac9ccacb87a3e81e195",
"text": "Personally, I keep two regular checking accounts at different banks. One gets a direct deposit totaling the sum of my regular monthly bills and a prorated provision for longer term regular bills like semi-annual car insurance premiums. I leave a buffer in the account to account for the odd expensive electrical bill or rate increase or whatever. One gets a direct deposit of the rest which I then allocate to savings and spending. It makes sense to me to separate off regular planned expenses (rent/mortgage, utility bills, insurance premiums) from spending money because it lets me put the basics of my life on autopilot. An added benefit is I have a failover checking account in the event something happens to one of them. I don't keep significant amounts of money in either account and don't give transfer access to the savings accounts that store the bulk of my money. I wear a tinfoil hat when it comes to automatic bank transfers and account access... It doesn't make sense to me to keep deposits separate from spending, it makes less sense to me to spend off of a savings account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd7b2260cf22b2b28ded192e30046001",
"text": "\"I can only share with you my happened with my wife and I. First, and foremost, if you think you need to protect your assets for some reason then do so. Be open and honest about it. If we get a divorce, X stays with me, and Y stays with you. This seems silly, even when your doing it, but it's important. You can speak with a lawyer about this stuff as you need to, but get it in writing. Now I know this seems like planning for failure, but if you feel that foo is important to you, and you want to retain ownership of foo no mater what, then you have to do this step. It also works both ways. You can use, with some limitations, this to insulate your new family unit from your personal risks. For example, my business is mine. If we break up it stays mine. The income is shared, but the business is mine. This creates a barrier that if someone from 10 years ago sues my business, then my wife is protected from that. Keep in mind, different countries different rules. Next, and this is my advise. Give up on \"\"his and hers\"\" everything. It's just \"\"ours\"\". Together you make 5400€ decide how to spend 5400€ together. Pick your goals together. The pot is 5400€. End of line. It doesn't matter how much from one person or how much from another (unless your talking about mitigating losses from sick days or injuries or leave etc.). All that matters is that you make 5400€. Start your budgeting there. Next setup an equal allowance. That is money, set aside for non-sense reasons. I like to buy video games, my wife likes to buy books. This is not for vacation, or stuff together, but just little, tiny stuff you can do for your self, without asking \"\"permission\"\". The number should be small, and equal. Maybe 50€. Finally setup a budget. House Stuff 200€, Car stuff 400€. etc. etc. then it doesn't matter who bought the house stuff. You only have to coordinate so that you don't both buy house stuff. After some time (took us around 6 months) you will find out how this works and you can add on some rules. For example, I don't go to Best Buy alone. I will spend too much on \"\"house stuff\"\". My wife doesn't like to make the budget, so I handle that, then we go over it. Things like that.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "101bd8af9cec549d6f124020231f8ebe",
"text": "\"These sort of issues in structuring your personal finances relative to expenses can get complicated quickly, as your example demonstrates. I would recommend a solution that reduces duplication as much as possible- and depending on what information you're interested in tracking you could set it up in very different ways. One solution would be to create virtual sub accounts of your assets, and to record the source of money rather than the destination. Thus, when you do an expense report, you can limit on the \"\"his\"\" or \"\"hers\"\" asset accounts, and see only the expenses which pertain to those accounts (likewise for liabilities/credit cards). If, on the other hand, you're more interested in a running sum of expenses- rather than create \"\"Me\"\" and \"\"Spouse\"\" accounts at every leaf of the expense tree, it would make much more sense to create top level accounts for Expenses:His:etc and Expenses:Hers:etc. Using this model, you could create only the sub expense accounts that apply for each of your spending (with matching account structures for common accounts).\"",
"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": "6695d8b9d3c1974d985fe126d5ea2c9d",
"text": "A couple of things you can do to structure your accounts include:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c0364ea9ed924d97f3b4e2d2d2f20006",
"text": "This is a somewhat subjective question, but if you are following a particular personal finance methodology, just do whatever they recommend. For example, I believe that Dave Ramsey's program calls for the emergency fund to be in a different account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e398e303fb3180307362ca764a3a80b9",
"text": "\"As your financial situation becomes more complex, it becomes increasingly more difficult to keep track of everything with a simple spreadsheet. It is much easier to work with software that is specifically designed for personal finances. A good program will allow you to keep track of as many accounts as you want. A great program will completely separate the different account balances (location of the money) from the budget category balances (purpose of the money). Let me explain: When you set up the software, you will enter in all of your different bank accounts with their balances. Perhaps you have three savings accounts and two checking accounts. It doesn't matter. When you are done entering those, the software will total them up, and the next job you have is assigning this money into different budget categories: your spending plan. For example, you might put some of it into a grocery category, some into an entertainment category, some will be assigned to pay your next car insurance bill, and some will be an emergency fund. (These categories are completely customizable, and your budget can be as broad or as detailed as you wish.) When you deposit your paycheck, you assign that new income into budget categories as well. It doesn't matter at this point which accounts your money are located in; the only thing that matters is that you own this money and you have access to it. Now, you might want to use a certain account for a certain budget category, but you are not required to do so. (For example, your grocery category money will probably be in your checking account, since you will be spending from it regularly. Your emergency fund will hopefully be in an account that earns a little higher interest.) Once you take this approach, you might find you don't need as many bank accounts as you thought you did, because the software does the job of separating your money into different \"\"accounts\"\" for different purposes. I've written before about the different categories of personal finance software. YNAB, Mvelopes, and EveryDollar are three examples of software that will take this approach of separating the concepts of the bank account and the budget category.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "961e7e8d3ce6ff1e69785437be16b1be",
"text": "Unlike other responses, I am also not good with money. Actually, I understand personal finance well, but I'm not good at executing my financial life responsibly. Part is avoiding tough news, part is laziness. There are tools that can help you be better with your money. In the past, I used YNAB (You Need a Budget). (I'm not affiliated, and I'm not saying this product is better than others for OP.) Whether you use their software or not, their strategy works if you stick with it. Each time you get paid, allocate every dollar to categories where your budget tells you they need to be, prioritizing expenses, then bills, then debt reduction, then wealth building. As you spend money, mark it against those categories. Reconcile them as you spend the money. If you go over in one category (eating out for example), you have to take from another (entertainment). There's no penalties for going over, but you have to take from another category to cover it. So the trick to all of it is being honest with yourself, sticking to it, recording all expenditures, and keeping priorities straight. I used it for three months. Like many others, I saved enough the first month to pay the cost of the software. I don't remember why I stopped using it, but I wish I had not. I will start again soon.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8dbae2056c5926e326a8d52d42980146",
"text": "\"What I would do, in this order: Get your taxes in order. Don't worry about fancy tricks to screw the tax man over; you've already admitted that you're literally making more money than you know what to do with, and a lot of that is supported, one way or another, by infrastructure that's supported by tax money. Besides, your first priority is to establish basic security for yourself and your family. Making sure you won't be subjected to stressful audits is an important part of that! Pay off any and all outstanding debts you may have. This establishes a certain baseline standard of living for you: no matter what unexpected tragedies may come up, at least you won't have to deal with them while also keeping the wolves at bay at the same time! Max out a checking account. I believe the FDIC maximum insured value is $250,000. Fill 'er up, get a debit card, and just sit on it. This is a rainy day fund, highly liquid and immediately usable in case you lose your income. Put at least half of it into an IRA or other safe investments. Bonds and reliable dividend-paying stocks are strongly preferred: having money is good but having income is much better, especially in retirement! Quality of life. Splurge a little. (Emphasis on a little!) Look around your life. There are a few things that it would be nice if you just had, but you've never gotten around to getting. Pick up a few of them, but don't go overboard. Spending too much too quickly is a good way to end up with no money and no idea what happened to it. Also, note that this isn't just for you; family members deserve some love too! Charitable giving. If you have more money than you know what to do with, there are plenty of people out there who know exactly what to do--try to go on living and build a basic life for themselves--but have no money with which to do so. Do your research. Scam charities abound, as do more-or-less legitimate ones who actually do help those in need, but also end up sucking up a surprisingly high percentage of donations for \"\"administrative costs\"\". Try and avoid these and send your money where it will actually do some good in the world. Reinvest in yourself. You're running a business. Make sure you have the best tools and training you can afford, now that you can afford more!\"",
"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": ""
},
{
"docid": "c3d454d4eac15d202c95e8a03bd20526",
"text": "I use GNUCash. It's a bit more like Quickbooks than plain Quicken, but it's not all that complicated. Probably the most difficult part is understanding the idea of income accounts. Benefits: For short term planning, I use scheduled transactions. If I'm spending more than I have, it'll show up here. Every paycheck and dollar spent or invested is recorded with the exact date I anticipate it will happen, 30 days in advance. If that would overdraw my checking account, the Future Minimum Balance field will go negative and red. This lets me move float to higher interest savings and retirement funds, and avoids overdraft fees or other mishaps. By looking 30 days ahead in detail, I have enough time to transfer from illiquid assets. For longer term planning, I keep a spreadsheet around that plans out annual expenses. If I'm spending more than I earn, it shows up here. I estimate everything: expenses, savings, taxes, and income. I need this because I have a lot of expenses that are far less frequent than monthly or paycheck-ly. The beauty of it is that once I've got it in place, I can duplicate the sheet and consider tweaks for say taking a new job or moving, or even just changing an insurance plan (probably less relevant for those with access to NHS). Especially when moving to take a new job, it's not as straightforward as comparing salaries, and thus having a document for the status quo to start from lets you focus on the parts that changed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e1ac63c2ee53b60ddd1be6b29be37ba6",
"text": "\"but there's that risk of me simply logging on to my online banking and transferring extra cash over if I cave in. Yep, there's no reasonable substitute for self-control. You could pay someone else to manage your money and dole out an allowance for your discretionary spending, but that's not reasonable for most people. Your money will be accessible to you, you don't need it inaccessible, you need to change the way you think about your available money. Many people struggle with turning a corner when it comes to saving, a tool that helps many is a proper budget. Plan ahead how all of your money will be used, including entertainment. If you want to spend £200/month on entertainment, then plan for it in a budget, and track your spending to help keep within that budget. It's a discipline thing, but a budget makes it easier to be disciplined, having a defined plan makes it easier to say \"\"I can't\"\" rather than \"\"I shouldn't, but... okay!\"\" There are many budgeting tools, just pick one that has you planning how all your money is spent, you want to be proactive and plan for saving, not hoping you have some leftover at the end of the month. Here's a good article on How and Why to Use a Zero-Sum Budget. Some people have envelopes of cash for various budget items, and that can be helpful if you struggle to stick to your budget, once the entertainment envelope is empty, you can't spend on entertainment until next month, but it won't stop you from blowing the budget by just getting more cash, as you mentioned.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "830ab9fb4caf0738837905aa1d8a5b57",
"text": "I generally concur with your sentiments. mint.com has 'hack me' written all over it. I know of two major open source tools for accounting: GNUCash and LedgerSMB. I use GNUCash, which comes close to meeting your needs: The 2.4 series introduced SQL DB support; mysql, postgres and sqlite are all supported. I migrated to sqlite to see how the schema looked and ran, the conclusion was that it runs fine but writing direct sql queries is probably beyond me. I may move it to postgres in the future, just so I can write some decent reports. Note that while it uses HTML for reporting, there is no no web frontend. It still requires a client, and is not multi-user safe. But it's probably about the closest to what you what that still falls under the heading of 'personal finance'. A fork of SQL Ledger, this is postgreSQL only but does have a web frontend. All the open source finance webapps I've found are designed for small to medium busineses. I believe it should meet your needs, though I've never used it. It might be overkill and difficult to use for your limited purposes though. I know one or two people in the regional LUG use LedgerSMB, but I really don't need invoicing and paystubs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f95098e67fcd7635e3e6cf608ddf168c",
"text": "\"First of all, I have to recognize up front that my \"\"spending personality\"\" is frugal. I don't recreational shop, and I save a lot of my total income. Building a budget and sticking to it is difficult, especially for people who are closer to living paycheck to paycheck than I. Theoretically, it should be easy to stick to a budget by overestimating expenses, but for many people planning to spend more than necessary isn't a luxury available. That said, I have a system that works for me, maybe it can work for you. This system lets me see how much I have to spend, and close to optimally arranges assets. As you can see, this system relies on some pretty strong upfront planning and adherence to the plan. And what you might not realize is that you can deviate from the plan in two ways: by spending variations and by timing variations. Credit should really help with a lot of the timing variations; it takes a series of expenses and translates them into one lump payment every month. As for spending variations, like spending 20 dollars for lunch when you only budgeted 5, it turns out this technique helps a lot. Some academic work suggests that spending with plastic is more likely to blow your budget than cash, unless you make detailed plans. But it sounds like your main problem is knowing whether you can afford to splurge. And the future minimum balance of your checking account can be your splurge number.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
355fc8090bbb438e307362e0af3565ed
|
Why does shorting a call option have potential for unlimited loss?
|
[
{
"docid": "dc97090be3ab27139fd98f9ac08e954b",
"text": "\"You are likely making an assumption that the \"\"Short call\"\" part of the article you refer to isn't making: that you own the underlying stock in the first place. Rather, selling short a call has two primary cases with considerably different risk profiles. When you short-sell (or \"\"write\"\") a call option on a stock, your position can either be: covered, which means you already own the underlying stock and will simply need to deliver it if you are assigned, or else uncovered (or naked), which means you do not own the underlying stock. Writing a covered call can be a relatively conservative trade, while writing a naked call (if your broker were to permit such) can be extremely risky. Consider: With an uncovered position, should you be assigned you will be required to buy the underlying at the prevailing price. This is a very real cost — certainly not an opportunity cost. Look a little further in the article you linked, to the Option strategies section, and you will see the covered call mentioned there. That's the kind of trade you describe in your example.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "388c7482b2633eb9ef23f43a18b04792",
"text": "\"No. The more legs you add onto your trade, the more commissions you will pay entering and exiting the trade and the more opportunity for slippage. So lets head the other direction. Can we make a simple, risk-free option trade, with as few legs as possible? The (not really) surprising answer is \"\"yes\"\", but there is no free lunch, as you will see. According to financial theory any riskless position will earn the risk free rate, which right now is almost nothing, nada, 0%. Let's test this out with a little example. In theory, a riskless position can be constructed from buying a stock, selling a call option, and buying a put option. This combination should earn the risk free rate. Selling the call option means you get money now but agree to let someone else have the stock at an agreed contract price if the price goes up. Buying the put option means you pay money now but can sell the stock to someone at a pre-agreed contract price if you want to do so, which would only be when the price declines below the contract price. To start our risk free trade, buy Google stock, GOOG, at the Oct 3 Close: 495.52 x 100sh = $49,552 The example has 100 shares for compatibility with the options contracts which require 100 share blocks. we will sell a call and buy a put @ contract price of $500 for Jan 19,2013. Therefore we will receive $50,000 for certain on Jan 19,2013, unless the options clearing system fails, because of say, global financial collapse, or war with Aztec spacecraft. According to google finance, if we had sold a call today at the close we would receive the bid, which is 89.00/share, or $8,900 total. And if we had bought a put today at the close we would pay the ask, which is 91.90/share, or $9190 total. So, to receive $50,000 for certain on Jan 19,2013 we could pay $49,552 for the GOOG stock, minus $8,900 for the money we received selling the call option, plus a payment of $9190 for the put option we need to protect the value. The total is $49,842. If we pay $49,842 today, plus execute the option strategy shown, we would have $50,000 on Jan 19,2013. This is a profit of $158, the options commissions are going to be around $20-$30, so in total the profit is around $120 after commissions. On the other hand, ~$50,000 in a bank CD for 12 months at 1.1% will yield $550 in similarly risk-free interest. Given that it is difficult to actually make these trades simultaneously, in practice, with the prices jumping all around, I would say if you really want a low risk option trade then a bank CD looks like the safer bet. This isn't to say you can't find another combination of stock and contract price that does better than a bank CD -- but I doubt it will ever be better by very much and still difficult to monitor and align the trades in practice.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9f7480c531b54617d48b4209eb223fc5",
"text": "Depending on the structure of you're portfolio, it could be that your portfolio is delta neutral to take advantage of diminishing time value on options, short straddles/strangles would be an example.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "795835496c8e45d42558433f2339eb59",
"text": "The day trader in the article was engaging in short selling. Short selling is a technique used to profit when a stock goes down. The investor borrows shares of a stock from someone else and sells them. After the stock price goes down, the investor buys the shares back and returns them, pocketing the difference. As the day trader in the article found out, it is a dangerous practice, because there is no limit to the amount of money you can lose. The stock was trading at $2, and the day trader thought the stock was going to go down to $1. He borrowed and sold 8,400 shares at $2. He hoped to buy them back at $1 and earn $8,400 profit. Instead, the stock went up a lot, and he was forced to buy back the shares at $18.50 per share, or about $155,400. He had had $37,000 with E-Trade, which they took, and he is now over $100,000 in debt.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a16dce6dfae89c8957a21dedaf4f3116",
"text": "\"Q: A: Everyone that is short is paying interest to the owners of the shares that the short seller borrowed. Although this quells your conundrum, this is also unrelated to the term. Interest in this context is just the number. In the options market, each contract also has an open interest, which tells you how many of that contract is being held. For your sake, think of it as \"\"how many are interested\"\", but really its just a completely different context.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "726bcd53a303cde3ab05e01634862981",
"text": "When you buy a call option, you transfer the risk to the owner of the asset. They are risking losing out on gains that may accumulate in addition to the strike price and paid premium. For example, if you buy a $25 call option on stock XYZ for $1 per contract, then any additional gain above $26 per share of XYZ is missed out on by the owner of the stock and solely benefits the option holder.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6507e8f241b4987bd91346cf5ee8cd93",
"text": "\"Being \"\"Long\"\" something means you own it. Being \"\"Short\"\" something means you have created an obligation that you have sold to someone else. If I am long 100 shares of MSFT, that means that I possess 100 shares of MSFT. If I am short 100 shares of MSFT, that means that my broker let me borrow 100 shares of MSFT, and I chose to sell them. While I am short 100 shares of MSFT, I owe 100 shares of MSFT to my broker whenever he demands them back. Until he demands them back, I owe interest on the value of those 100 shares. You short a stock when you feel it is about to drop in price. The idea there is that if MSFT is at $50 and I short it, I borrow 100 shares from my broker and sell for $5000. If MSFT falls to $48 the next day, I buy back the 100 shares and give them back to my broker. I pocket the difference ($50 - $48 = $2/share x 100 shares = $200), minus interest owed. Call and Put options. People manage the risk of owning a stock or speculate on the future move of a stock by buying and selling calls and puts. Call and Put options have 3 important components. The stock symbol they are actionable against (MSFT in this case), the \"\"strike price\"\" - $52 in this case, and an expiration, June. If you buy a MSFT June $52 Call, you are buying the right to purchase MSFT stock before June options expiration (3rd Saturday of the month). They are priced per share (let's say this one cost $0.10/share), and sold in 100 share blocks called a \"\"contract\"\". If you buy 1 MSFT June $52 call in this scenario, it would cost you 100 shares x $0.10/share = $10. If you own this call and the stock spikes to $56 before June, you may exercise your right to purchase this stock (for $52), then immediately sell the stock (at the current price of $56) for a profit of $4 / share ($400 in this case), minus commissions. This is an overly simplified view of this transaction, as this rarely happens, but I have explained it so you understand the value of the option. Typically the exercise of the option is not used, but the option is sold to another party for an equivalent value. You can also sell a Call. Let's say you own 100 shares of MSFT and you would like to make an extra $0.10 a share because you DON'T think the stock price will be up to $52/share by the end of June. So you go to your online brokerage and sell one contract, and receive the $0.10 premium per share, being $10. If the end of June comes and nobody exercises the option you sold, you get to keep the $10 as pure profit (minus commission)! If they do exercise their option, your broker makes you sell your 100 shares of MSFT to that party for the $52 price. If the stock shot up to $56, you don't get to gain from that price move, as you have already committed to selling it to somebody at the $52 price. Again, this exercise scenario is overly simplified, but you should understand the process. A Put is the opposite of a Call. If you own 100 shares of MSFT, and you fear a fall in price, you may buy a PUT with a strike price at your threshold of pain. You might buy a $48 June MSFT Put because you fear the stock falling before June. If the stock does fall below the $48, you are guaranteed that somebody will buy yours at $48, limiting your loss. You will have paid a premium for this right (maybe $0.52/share for example). If the stock never gets down to $48 at the end of June, your option to sell is then worthless, as who would sell their stock at $48 when the market will pay you more? Owning a Put can be treated like owning insurance on the stock from a loss in stock price. Alternatively, if you think there is no way possible it will get down to $48 before the end of June, you may SELL a $48 MSFT June Put. HOWEVER, if the stock does dip down below $48, somebody will exercise their option and force you to buy their stock for $48. Imagine a scenario that MSFT drops to $30 on some drastically terrible news. While everybody else may buy the stock at $30, you are obligated to buy shares for $48. Not good! When you sold the option, somebody paid you a premium for buying that right from you. Often times you will always keep this premium. Sometimes though, you will have to buy a stock at a steep price compared to market. Now options strategies are combinations of buying and selling calls and puts on the same stock. Example -- I could buy a $52 MSFT June Call, and sell a $55 MSFT June Call. I would pay money for the $52 Call that I am long, and receive money for the $55 Call that I am short. The money I receive from the short $55 Call helps offset the cost of buying the $52 Call. If the stock were to go up, I would enjoy the profit within in $52-$55 range, essentially, maxing out my profit at $3/share - what the long/short call spread cost me. There are dozens of strategies of mixing and matching long and short calls and puts depending on what you expect the stock to do, and what you want to profit or protect yourself from. A derivative is any financial device that is derived from some other factor. Options are one of the most simple types of derivatives. The value of the option is derived from the real stock price. Bingo? That's a derivative. Lotto? That is also a derivative. Power companies buy weather derivatives to hedge their energy requirements. There are people selling derivatives based on the number of sunny days in Omaha. Remember those calls and puts on stock prices? There are people that sell calls and puts based on the number of sunny days in Omaha. Sounds kind of ridiculous -- but now imagine that you are a solar power company that gets \"\"free\"\" electricity from the sun and they sell that to their customers. On cloudy days, the solar power company is still on the hook to provide energy to their customers, but they must buy it from a more expensive source. If they own the \"\"Sunny Days in Omaha\"\" derivative, they can make money for every cloudy day over the annual average, thus, hedging their obligation for providing more expensive electricity on cloudy days. For that derivative to work, somebody in the derivative market puts a price on what he believes the odds are of too many cloudy days happening, and somebody who wants to protect his interests from an over abundance of cloudy days purchases this derivative. The energy company buying this derivative has a known cost for the cost of the derivative and works this into their business model. Knowing that they will be compensated for any excessive cloudy days allows them to stabilize their pricing and reduce their risk. The person selling the derivative profits if the number of sunny days is higher than average. The people selling these types of derivatives study the weather in order to make their offers appropriately. This particular example is a fictitious one (I don't believe there is a derivative called \"\"Sunny days in Omaha\"\"), but the concept is real, and the derivatives are based on anything from sunny days, to BLS unemployment statistics, to the apartment vacancy rate of NYC, to the cost of a gallon of milk in Maine. For every situation, somebody is looking to protect themselves from something, and somebody else believes they can profit from it. Now these examples are highly simplified, many derivatives are highly technical, comprised of multiple indicators as a part of its risk profile, and extremely difficult to explain. These things might sound ridiculous, but if you ran a lemonade stand in Omaha, that sunny days derivative just might be your best friend...\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b4d93b9dbd732db251e4c0d6cecbf1e",
"text": "You haven't said why you think you will gain at $41, but the graph never lies. Take it one piece at a time: At $41, your stock will lose a big chunk of value. Your short calls will expire. Your puts will gain a bit of value. The stock's loss outweighs the option gains.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e2d062f068f98ea49fdcfd0b131105c",
"text": "The problem with short would be that even if the stock eventually falls, it might raise a lot in the meantime, and unless you have enough collateral, you may not survive till it happens. To sell shares short, you first need to borrow them (as naked short is currently prohibited in US, as far as I know). Now, to borrow you need some collateral, which is supposed to be worth more that the asset you are borrowing, and usually substantially more, otherwise the risk for the creditor is too high. Suppose you borrowed 10K worth of shares, and gave 15K collateral (numbers are totally imaginary of course). Suppose the shares rose so that total cost is now 14K. At this moment, you will probably be demanded to either raise more collateral or close the position if you can not, thus generating you a 4K loss. Little use it would be to you if next day it fell to 1K - you already lost your money! As Keynes once said, Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent. See also another answer which enumerates other issues with short selling. As noted by @MichaelPryor, options may be a safer way to do it. Or a short ETF like PSQ - lists of those are easy to find online.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d0a8c9d8471a51c859d2375e59ba45f",
"text": "\"> It just has to finish below the strike price of the short (which can be higher than the stock's current price). You're talking about a put option. That's one \"\"short\"\" strategy, but it's not shorting a stock, so the terminology is a little jumbled. There are reasons to not do straight options, because they can be quite risky, and you have to get the time frame correct.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d84f603fa1ede82d7a84beee52e7fa18",
"text": "You sold a call, and have a risk if the stock rises. You bought a put and gain when the stock drops. You, sir, have a synthetic short position. It's Case 3 from your linked example: Suppose you own Long Stock and the company is going to report earnings but you’re going on vacation. How can you hedge your position without selling your stock? You can short the stock synthetically with options! Short Stock = Short Call + Long Put They conclude with the net zero remark, because the premise was an existing long position. A long plus this synthetic short results in a neutral set of positions (and the author's ability to go on vacation not concerned about any movement in the stock.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3018fd0bd74a8511d779d2d89662bff",
"text": "You would generally have to pay interest for everyday you hold the position overnight. If you never close the position and the stock price goes to zero, you will be closed out and credited with your profit. If you never close the position and the stock price keeps going up and up, your potential loss is an unlimited amount of money. Of course your broker may close you out early for a number of reasons, particularly if your loss goes above the amount of capital you have in your trading account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2502f030fa961b4e3a9fc48d7cbecae3",
"text": "Sounds like an illiquid option, if there are actually some bidders, market makers, then sell the option at market price (market sell order). If there are not market makers then place a really low limit sell order so that you can sit at the ask in the order book. A lot of time there is off-book liquidity, so there may be a party looking for buy liquidity. You can also exercise the option to book the loss (immediately selling the shares when they get delivered to you), if this is an American style option. But if the option is worthless then it is probably significantly underwater, and you'd end up losing a lot more as you'd buy the stock at the strike price but only be able to sell at its current market value. The loss could also be increased further if there are even MORE liquidity issues in the stock.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a13b1f7a0b23ecf4403d488458be2568",
"text": "The uptick rule is gone, but it was weakly reintroduced in 2010, applied to all publicly traded equities: Under the terms of the rule, a circuit breaker would be triggered if a stock falls by 10% or more in a single day. At that point, short selling would only be allowed if the price is above the current national best bid, a restriction that would apply for the rest of the day and the whole of the following day. Derivatives are not yet restricted in such ways because of their spontaneous nature, requiring a short to increase supply; however, this latest rule widens options spreads during collapses because the exemption for hedging is now gone, and what's more a tool used by options market makers, shorting the underlying to offset positive delta, now has to go to the back of the selling line during a panic. Bonds are not restricted because for one there isn't much interest in shorting because bonds usually don't have enough variance to exceed the cost of borrowing, and many do not trade frequently enough because even the cost to trade bonds is expensive, so arranging a short in its entirety will be expensive. The preferred method to short a bond is with swaps, swaptions, etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2fa651968b3a4f892eda43d1753a3401",
"text": "In India the only way to short a stock is using F&O which I personally find to be sufficient for any shorting needs. However, Futures can be generally sold for upto 3 months but options have more choices which are even upto 5 years you can buy a put of a longer duration and when you want to do buy-back, you can directly sell the same option by squaring-off the trade before expiry date. You generally get approximately the same profit as shorting but you get to limit your risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "85d58a18e68588f99c66ec5f8a8d3e2f",
"text": "Adding to the answers above, there is another source of risk: if one of the companies you are short receives a bid to be purchased by another company, the price will most probably rocket...",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b9249f78f2e10312a67d190e101058c2
|
Annuities question - Equations of value
|
[
{
"docid": "c7cf50b1d08c74636ecff24bf8c02aa3",
"text": "These are the steps I'd follow: $200 today times (1.04)^10 = Cost in year 10. The 6 deposits of $20 will be one time value calculation with a resulting year 7 final value. You then must apply 10% for 3 years (1.1)^3 to get the 10th year result. You now have the shortfall. Divide that by the same (1.1)^3 to shift the present value to start of year 7. (this step might confuse you?) You are left with a problem needing 3 same deposits, a known rate, and desired FV. Solve from there. (Also, welcome from quant.SE. This site doesn't support LATEX, so I edited the image above.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "abdd072491ef76018f5ae6da88ba5c38",
"text": "The solution is x = 8.92. This assumes that Chuck's six years of deposits start from today, so that the first deposit accumulates 10 years of gain, i.e. 20*(1 + 0.1)^10. The second deposit gains nine years' interest: 20*(1 + 0.1)^9 and so on ... If you want to do this calculation using the formula for an annuity due, i.e. http://www.financeformulas.net/Future-Value-of-Annuity-Due.html where (formula by induction) you have to bear in mind this is for the whole time span (k = 1 to n), so for just the first six years you need to calculate for all ten years then subtract another annuity calculation for the last four years. So the full calculation is: As you can see it's not very neat, because the standard formula is for a whole time span. You could make it a little tidier by using a formula for k = m to n instead, i.e. So the calculation becomes which can be done with simple arithmetic (and doesn't actually need a solver).",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "09848b9331b52609b3aa51f93f586f3a",
"text": "There is always some fine print, read it. I doubt there is any product out there that can guarantee an 8% return. As a counter example - a 70 yr old can get 6% in a fixed immediate annuity. On death, the original premium is retained by the insurance company. Whenever I read the prospectus of a VA, I find the actual math betrays a salesman who misrepresented the product. I'd be really curious to read the details for this one.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9dee813e8d2ce9340ec2beb8f7d87dfc",
"text": "\"An annuity is a product. In simple terms, you hand over a lump sum of cash and receive an agreed annual income until you die. The underlying investment required to reach that income level is not your concern, it's the provider's worry. So there is a huge mount of security to the retiree in having an annuity. It is worth pointing out that with simple annuities where one gives a lump sum of money to (typically) an insurance company, the annuity payments cease upon the death of the annuitant. If any part of the lump sum is still left, that money belongs to the company, not to the heirs of the deceased. Fancier versions of annuities cover the spouse of the annuitant as well (joint and survivor annuity) or guarantee a certain number of payments (e.g. 10-year certain) regardless of when the annuitant dies (payments for the remaining certain term go to the residual beneficiary) etc. How much of an annuity payment the company offers for a fixed lump sum of £X depends on what type of annuity is chosen; usually simple annuities give the maximum bang for the buck. Also, different companies may offer slightly different rates. So, why should one choose to buy an annuity instead of keeping the lump sum in a bank or in fixed deposits (CDs in US parlance), or invested in the stock market or the bond market, etc., and making periodic withdrawals from these assets at a \"\"safe rate of withdrawal\"\"? Safe rates of withdrawal are often touted as 4% per annum in the US, though there are newer studies saying that a smaller rate should be used. Well, safe rates of withdrawal are designed to ensure that the retiree does not use up all the money and is left destitute just when medical bills and other costs are likely to be peaking. Indeed, if all the money were kept in a sock at home (no growth at all), a 4% per annum withdrawal rate will last the retiree for 25 years. With some growth of the lump sum in an investment, somewhat larger withdrawals might be taken in good years, but that 4% is needed even when the investments have declined in value because of economic conditions beyond one's control. So, there are good things and bad things that can happen if one chooses to not buy an annuity. On the other hand, with an annuity, the payments will continue till death and so the retiree feels safer, as Chris mentioned. There is also the serenity in not having to worry how the investments are doing; that's the company's business. A down side, of course, is that the payments are fixed and if inflation is raging, the retiree still gets the same amount. If extra cash is needed one year for unavoidable expenses, the annuity will not provide it, whereas the lump sum (whether kept in a sock or invested) can be drawn on for the extra expense. Another down side is that any money remaining is gone, with nothing left for the heirs. On the plus side, the annuity payments are usually larger than those that the retiree will get via the safe rate of withdrawal method from the lump sum. This is because the insurance company is applying the laws of large numbers: many annuitants will not survive past their life expectancy, and their leftover monies are pure profit to the insurance company, often more than enough (when invested properly by the company) to pay those old codgers who continue to live past their life expectancy. Personally, I wouldn't want to buy an annuity with all my money, but getting an annuity with part of the money is worthwhile. Important: The annuity discussed in this answer is what is sometimes called a single-premium or an immediate annuity. It is purchased at the time of retirement with a single (large) lump sum payment. This is not the kind of annuity that is described in JAGAnalyst's answer which requires payment of (much smaller) premiums over many years. Search this forum for variable annuity to learn about these types of annuities.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "85000bed497e6334aa780dbb0d8bbd83",
"text": "Annuities, like life insurance, are sold rather than bought. Once upon a time, IRAs inherited from a non-spouse required the beneficiary to (a) take all the money out within 5 years, or (b) choose to receive the value of the IRA at the time of the IRA owner's death in equal installments over the expected lifetime of the beneficiary. If the latter option was chosen, the IRA custodian issued the fixed-term annuity in return for the IRA assets. If the IRA was invested in (say) 15000 shares of IBM stock, that stock would then belong to the IRA custodian who was obligated to pay $x per year to the beneficiary for the next 23 years (say). There was no investment any more that could be transferred to another broker, or be sold and the proceeds invested in Facebook stock (say). Nor was the custodian under any obligation to do anything except pay $x per year to the beneficiary for the 23 years. Financial planners loved to get at this money under the old IRA rules by suggesting that if all the IRA money were taken out and invested in stocks or mutual funds through their company, the company would pay a guaranteed $y per year, would pay more than $y in each year that the investments did well, would continue payment until the beneficiary died (or till the death of the beneficiary or beneficiary's spouse - whoever died later), and would return the entire sum invested (less payouts already made, of course) in case of premature death. $y typically would be a little larger than $x too, because it factored in some earnings of the investment over the years. So what was not to like? Of course, the commissions earned by the planner and the lousy mutual funds and the huge surrender charges were always glossed over.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "481708893828cf324c2970066f90a2ed",
"text": "The general concept is that your money will grow at an accelerating rate because you start getting interest paid on your returns in addition to the original investment. As a simple example, assume you invest $100 and get 10% interest per year paid annually. -At the end of the first year you have your $100 + $10 interest for a total of $110. -So you start the second year with $110 and so 10% would be $11 for a total of $121. -The third year you start with $121 so 10% would be $12.10 for a total of $133.10 See how the amount it goes up each year increases? If we were talking a higher initial amount or a larger number of years that can really add up. That is essence is compound interest. Most of the complicated looking formulas you see out there for compound interest are just shortcuts so you don't have to iteratively go through the above exercise a bunch of times to find out how much you would have after some number of years. This formula tells you how much you would have(A) after a certain number of years(t) at a given interest rate(r) assuming they pay interest n times per year, for example you would use 12 for n if it paid interest monthly instead of yearly. P represents the amount you started out with. If you keep investing monthly (as shown in your example) instead of just depositing it and letting it sit, you have to use a more complicated formula. Finance people refer to this as calculating the future value of an annuity. That formula looks like this: A = PMT [((1 + r)N - 1) / r] x (1+r) A : Is the amount you would have at the end of the time period. N : The number of compounding periods (months if you get interest calculated monthly) PMT : The total amount you are putting in each period (N) r: Just like before, the interest rate you are getting paid. Be sure to adjust this to a monthly number if N represents months (divide APR by 12)* *Most interest rates are quoted as APR, which is the annualized interest rate not counting compounding. Don't confuse this with APY, which has compounding built into it and is not appropriate for use in this formula. Inserting your example: r (monthly interest rate) = 15% APR / 12 = .0125 n = 30 years * 12 months/year = 360 months A = $150 x [((1 + .0125)360 - 1) / .0125] x (1+.0125) A = $1,051,473.09 (rounded)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "24968d889f8165acac29fd0adf07240e",
"text": "\"The extent that you would have problems would depend on if the annuity is considered Qualified or Non-Qualified. If the annuity is qualified that means that the money that was put into it has never been taxed and a rollover to an IRA is simple. The possible issues here are tax issues and a CPA is likely the best person to answer this question. Two other things to consider in such an event is the loss of any 'living benefit' or 'death benefit'. Variable annuities have been through quite the evolution in the last 15 years. Death benefits have been around longer than living benefits but both are usually based on some derrivitive of a 'high water' mark of the variable sub accounts. You might want to ask Hartford the question \"\"...how will my living or death benefits be affected if I roll this over\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9f38bd0a46bf85a3c29ba74acc1ff4e3",
"text": "\"Sometimes an assumptions is so fundamentally flawed that it essentially destroys the relevance and validity of any modelling outputs. \"\"Obviously, we're assuming the company can pay it back\"\" Is one of those assumptions. The person gets a notes stating that they will get $525 'IN ONE YEAR' You need to divide $525/(1+Cost of Capital)^n n being the number of periods to find out what the note will be worth today. Google 'Present Value of an Annuity' to deal with debt that is more complex than you have $500 now and give me $525 in a year...\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f33e67e30613c29876555d2a8cce0588",
"text": "\"An index annuity is almost the same as Indexed Universal Life, except the equity-index annuity is an investment with a guaranteed minimum return, with sometimes a higher return that is a function of the gain in the stock market, but is not associated with a life insurance policy. After a time, you can convert the EIA to a lifetime income (the annuity part) or just cash it out. They often are very complicated, but are constructed by combining bonds with index options (puts) just like indexed universal life. Unfortunately these tend to have high fees and/or commissions, and high (early) surrender charges, which can make them a poor investment. Of course you could just \"\"roll your own\"\" by buying bonds and puts FINRAS bulletin on EIAs, pdf warning. Here's a description of one of these securities: pdf.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "25c349cec0a4b8347e29078653079818",
"text": "Let's break this into two parts, the future value of the initial deposit, and the future value of the payments: D(1 + i)n For the future value of the payments A((1+i)n-1) / i) Adding those two formulas together will give you the amount of money that should be in your account at the end. Remember to make the appropriate adjustments to interest rate and the number of payments. Divide the interest rate by the number of periods in a year (four for quarterly, twelve for monthly), and multiply the number of periods (p) by the same number. Of course the monthly deposit amount will need to be in the same terms. See also: Annuity (finance theory) - Wikipedia",
"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": "c883abf8ed36a71a6c5a99486ff7e32f",
"text": "\"Be very careful about terminology when talking about annuities. You used the phrase \"\"4% return\"\" in your question. What exactly do you mean by that? An annuity that pays out 4% of its principle is not giving you a \"\"4% return\"\" in the sense of ROI, because most of that was your money to begin with. But to achieve a true 4% return in the current environment where interest rates are at historic lows on anything safe (10 year UK Gilts at 0.91%) would make me very nervous about what the insurance company is investing my annuity in.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2bff6cd7047ca4577a71b8922e71219c",
"text": "First let's define some terms. Your accrued benefit is a monthly benefit payable at your normal retirement age (usually 65). It is usually a life-only benefit but may have a number of years guaranteed or may have a survivor piece. It is defined by a plan formula (ie, it is a defined benefit). A lump sum is how much that accrued benefit is worth right now. Lump sums are based on applicable interest rates and mortality tables specified by the IRS (interest rates are released monthly, mortality annually). Your plan can either use the same interest rates for a whole year, or they can use new ones each month. Affecting your lump sum is whether your accrued benefit is payable now (immediately, you are age 65), or later (deferred, you are now age 30). For example, instead of being paid an annuity assume you are paid just one payment of $1,000 on your 65th birthday. The lump sum of that for a 65 year old would be $1,000 since there would be no interest discount, and no chance of dying before payment. For a 30 year old, at 4% interest the lump sum would be about $237 (including mortality discount). At age 36 the lump sum is $246. So the lump sum will get bigger just because you get older. Very important is the interest discount. At age 30 in the example, 2% interest would produce a $467 lump sum. And at 6% $122. The bigger the rate, the smaller the lump sum because interest helps an amount now grow bigger in the future. To complicate things, since 2008 the IRS bases lump sums on 3 different interest rates. The monthy annuity payments made within 5 years of the lump sum date use the 1st rate, past 5 and within 20 years use the 2nd rate, and past that use the 3rd rate. Since you are age 30, all of your monthly annuity payments would be made after 20 years, so that makes it simple since we'll only have to look at the 3rd rate. When you reach age 45 the 2nd rate will kick in. Here is the table of interest rates published by the IRS: http://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Minimum-Present-Value-Segment-Rates You'll find your rates above on the 2013 line for Aug-12. That means your lump sum is being made in 2013 and it is being based on the month August 2012. Most likely your plan will use the same rates for its entire plan year. But what is your plan year? If it is the calendar year, then you would have a 5 month lookback for the rates. But if is a September to August plan year with a 1 month lookback, the rates would have changed between August and September. Your August lump sum would be based on 4.52%, your September on would be based on 5.58% (see the All line for Aug-13). For comparison, a 30 year old with a $100 annuity payable at age 65 would have a lump sum value of $3,011 at 4.52%, but a lump sum value of $1,931 at 5.58%. The change in your accrued benefit by month will obviously have some impact on the lump sum value, but not as much as the change in interest rates if there is one. The amount they actually contribute to the plan has nothing to do with the value of the lump sum though.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0a476021c07a157a45dea1b455012954",
"text": "Beware of surrender charges also Surrender Charges Many annuities will impose a surrender charge if the annuity is cashed in before a specific period of time. That period may run anywhere from 1 to 12 years. A typical surrender charge is one that starts at 7% in the first year of the contract, and declines by 1% per year thereafter until it reaches zero. The charge is made against the value of the investment when the annuity is surrendered, and its purpose (other than simply to make money for the insurance company) is to discourage a short-term investment by the purchaser. For that reason, an annuity should always be considered a long-term investment. In the typical fixed annuity, though, this charge will not apply provided no more than 10% of the investment is withdrawn per year. source: http://www.fool.com/retirement/annuities/annuities02.htm If you've held it for 10 years as you claim, you may not owe any or much in surrender charges, but you definitely want to know what the situation is before you make a move.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fdb012344bb1443fc5a22c7647a6ca73",
"text": "\"There is no equation. Only data that would help you come to the decision that's right for you. Assuming the 401(k) is invested in a stock fund of one sort or another, the choice is nearly the same as if you had $5K cash to either invest or pay debt. Since stock returns are not fixed, but are a random distribution that somewhat resembles a bell curve, median about 10%, standard deviation about 14%. It's the age old question of \"\"getting a guaranteed X% (paying the debt) or a shot at 8-10% or so in the market.\"\" This come up frequently in the decision to pre-pay mortgages at 4-5% versus invest. Many people will take the guaranteed 4% return vs the risk that comes with the market. For your decision, the 401(k) loan, note that the loan is due if you separate from the company for whatever reason. This adds an additional layer of risk and another data point to the mix. For your exact numbers, the savings is barely $50. I'd probably not do it. If the cards were 18%, I'd lean toward the loan, but only if I knew I could raise the cash to pay it back to not default.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "84285f1c7b71bb6ca3ea25892aa61c50",
"text": "With the formula you are using you assume that the issued bond (bond A) is a perpetual. Given the provided information, you can't really do more than this, it's only an approximation. The difference could be explained by the repayment of the principal (which is not the case with a perpetual). I guess the author has calculated the bond value with principal repayment. You can get more insight in the calculation from the excel provided at this website: http://breakingdownfinance.com/finance-topics/bond-valuation/fixed-rate-bond-valuation/",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fceae85b48ddff092e9d08092eecabbd",
"text": "You need to see that prospectus. I just met with some potential new clients today that wanted me to take a look at their investments. Turns out they had two separate annuities. One was a variable annuity with Allianz. The other was with some company named Midland Insurance (can't remember the whole name). Turns out the Allianz VA has a 10 year surrender contract and the Midland has a 14 year contract. 14 years!!! They are currently in year 7 and if they need any money (I'm hoping they at least have a 10% free withdrawal) they will pay 6% surrender on the Allianz and a 15% surrender on the other. Ironically enough, they guy who sold this to them is now in jail. No joke.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
68056f4501fae807dbccc0bd496e3991
|
Calculating savings from mortgage interest deduction vs. standard deduction?
|
[
{
"docid": "266260faec9cc263180d42275dbabe8c",
"text": "Those choices aren't mutually exclusive. Yes, most discussion of the mortgage interest deduction ignores the fact that for a standard itemizer, much, if not all of this deduction can be lost. For 2011, the std deduction for a single is $5,800. It's not just mortgage interest that's deductible, state income tax, realestate tax, and charitable contributions are among the other deductions. If this house is worth $350K, the property tax is about $5K, and since it's not optional, I'd be inclined to assume that it's the deduction that offsets the std deduction. Most states have an income tax, which tops off the rest. You are welcome to toss this aside as sophistry, but I view it as these other deductions as 'lost' first. I'm married, and our property tax is more than our standard deduction, so when doing the math, the mortgage is fully deductible, as are our contributions. In your case, the numbers may play out differently. No state tax? Great, so it's the property tax and deductions you'd add up first and decide on the value the mortgage deduction brings. Last, I don't have my mortgage for the deduction, I just believe that long term my other investments will exceed, after tax, the cost of that mortgage.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "35d71c3a6ce50b1edd296236ec48a960",
"text": "It's true that the standard deduction makes the numbers less impressive. I ran your scenario through my favorite, most complete rent vs buy calculator, and your math isn't far off. However, there are a lot of deductions only available if you itemize. Medical expenses, moving expenses, job expenses, charitable contributions, local income/sales taxes, property tax, private mortgage insurance, etc. Property tax on that house alone is going to be nearly equal to the standard deduction, so the point is nearly moot. Anyways, the above linked calculator handles all of those, and more.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7eda81d131c6cc41b3b3c91503b40e8a",
"text": "Keep in mind, when talking about other deductions, such as mortgage interest, you need to look at your overall situation and whether the taxpayer is near the standard deduction amount. For some, their interest deduction and property tax are below the standard deduction, and therefore, they'd not itemize.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2e2b8e1b662b20dea5898333403d78e0",
"text": "\"Depending on what your other deductions are and the amount you are wanting to donate, you can save some money by \"\"batching\"\" deductions into every other year. For example, if you are single in 2015, the standard deduction is $6,300. This means the first $6,300 in deductions you have basically don't \"\"matter\"\" because the standard deduction is larger. You only \"\"count\"\" itemized deductions greater than $6,300. Let's imagine you are donating $10k in 2015 and 2016 and have no other itemized deductions. If you donate in both years, you basically get a net deduction of ($10,000 - $6,300) * 2 = $7,400 over the standard deduction. However, if you donate $10k in 2015 and the next $10k on Dec31, 2015, then you now have donated $20k in 2015 and $0k in 2016. This affects your taxes because you now get ($20,000 - $6,300) = $13,700 in \"\"bonus\"\" deductions. You still get the full $6,300 standard deduction in 2016 as well. This can be a significant impact on your taxes (especially if you are married as the married deduction is double the single or have minimal other itemizable deductions)..\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "393fe3161714ab5897fec44c4c53f2bb",
"text": "The eligibilty of the deduction is based on what the borrowed money is used to purchase and NOT what asset is used as collateral. So at the beginning of your mortgage, 10% of the interest is deductible because the entire loan was used to purchase the condo. But when you withdraw money from the account the additional interest is usually not deductible. It can get confusing with all the withdrawals and payments that will be coming in and out of the account if you happen to use it a lot like a chequing account. An easy example would be if you only paid the interest on the loan... Say you had a $100 000 loan at 5% APY (for simplicity's sake). After one year, you would have paid $5000 interest. $500 of the would be deductible given that your office is 10% of the condo. Then you buy a $1000 couch and continue to only pay interest for the next year. You would have paid $5100 interest... $5000 on money borrowed to buy the condo, and $100 on money borrowed to buy the couch. So you can still only deduct $500. What happens when you pay back $500 against the line of credit? Could you designate that 100% of the money should be applied to the non-deductible interest? Or does it have to applied proportionally? I don't know. I think it'd would be wise to separate the loans somehow. Manulife may even have some tools to facilitate that. However, I wouldn't recommend the Manulife One product. I looked into when I was buying my house two years ago, and at that time it was too expensive. The rate was the same that other banks were charging for a home equity line of credit (which was prime at the time). You can replicate the Manulife One in a cheaper way using a traditional mortgage and a home equity line of credit... The majority of the loan will be the traditional mortgage at (hopefully) a cheap rate. Then you can use your line of credit as the chequing account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "90b272b16d3db982961db359ed6ecedc",
"text": "Very simple. If it wasn't rented, it's deductible as a schedule A home mortgage interest. If it was rented, you go into Schedule E land, still a deduction along with any/every expense incurred.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d5a8298c41dbfe1d3ded257f82ae06b",
"text": "The Finance functions in spreadsheet software will calculate this for you. The basic functions are for Rate, Payment, PV (present value), FV (Future value), and NPER, the number of periods. The single calculation faces a couple issues, dealing with inflation, and with a changing deposit. If you plan to save for 30 years, and today are saving $500/mo, for example, in ten years I hope the deposits have risen as well. I suggest you use a spreadsheet, a full sheet, to let you adjust for this. Last, there's a strange effect that happens. Precision without accuracy. See the results for 30-40 years of compounding today's deposit given a return of 6%, 7%, up to 10% or so. Your forecast will be as weak as the variable with the greatest range. And there's more than one, return, inflation, percent you'll increase deposits, all unknown, and really unknowable. The best advice I can offer is to save till it hurts, plan for the return to be at the lower end of the range, and every so often, re-evaluate where you stand. Better to turn 40, and see you are on track to retire early, than to plan on too high a return, and at 60 realize you missed it, badly. As far as the spreadsheet goes, this is for the Google Sheets - Type this into a cell =nper(0.01,-100,0,1000,0) It represents 1% interest per month, a payment (deposit) of $100, a starting value of $0, a goal of $1000, and interest added at month end. For whatever reason, a starting balance must be entered as a negative number, for example - =nper(0.01,-100,-500,1000,0) Will return 4.675, the number of months to get you from $500 to $1000 with a $100/mo deposit and 1%/mo return. Someone smarter than I (Chris Degnen comes to mind) can explain why the starting balance needs to be entered this way. But it does show the correct result. As confirmed by my TI BA-35 financial calculator, which doesn't need $500 to be negative.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2b7dca82d5a3566ac7bb43869420fd74",
"text": "You understand it perfectly right. The thing with PMI is that when your home price rises (or your loan balance goes down) so that your loan balance is below the 80% of the current house price, the PMI goes away. The higher rate - does not. So, no-PMI option is much better. To the bank, as you suspected. Your calculations are correct. With the PMI you'll pay less interest, and more balance. As to the tax deductions, interest can be deducted, but the PMI - no (starting of 2012, to the best of my understanding, at least). See details here, consult a tax professional for more current information.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7581bf8f1cb7cf427aacac0e7886d54e",
"text": "\"This answer is based on Australian tax, which is significantly different. I only offer it in case others want to compare situations. In Australia, a popular tax reduction technique is \"\"Negative Gearing\"\". Borrow from a bank, buy an investment property. If the income frome the new property is not enough to cover interest payments (plus maintenance etc) then the excess each year is a capital loss - which you claim each year, as an offset to your income (ie. pay less tax). By the time you reach retirement, the idea is to have paid off the mortgage. You then live off the revenue stream in retirement, or sell the property for a (taxed) lump sum.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "593cbd452c7286b4358b8973a7511d16",
"text": "\"First off, the \"\"mortgage interest is tax deductible\"\" argument is a red herring. What \"\"tax deductible\"\" sounds like it means is \"\"if I pay $100 on X, I can pay $100 less on my taxes\"\". If that were true, you're still not saving any money overall, so it doesn't help you any in the immediate term, and it's actually a bad idea long-term because that mortgage interest compounds, but you don't pay compound interest on taxes. But that's not what it actually means. What it actually means is that you can deduct some percentage of that $100, (usually not all of it,) from your gross income, (not from the final amount of tax you pay,) which reduces your top-line \"\"income subject to taxation.\"\" Unless you're just barely over the line of a tax bracket, spending money on something \"\"tax deductible\"\" is rarely a net gain. Having gotten that out of the way, pay down the mortgage first. It's a very simple matter of numbers: Anything you pay on a long-term debt is money you would have paid anyway, but it eliminates interest on that payment (and all compoundings thereof) from the equation for the entire duration of the loan. So--ignoring for the moment the possibility of extreme situations like default and bank failure--you can consider it to be essentially a guaranteed, risk-free investment that will pay you dividends equal to the rate of interest on the loan, for the entire duration of the loan. The mortgage is 3.9%, presumably for 30 years. The car loan is 1.9% for a lot less than that. Not sure how long; let's just pull a number out of a hat and say \"\"5 years.\"\" If you were given the option to invest at a guaranteed 3.9% for 30 years, or a guaranteed 1.9% for 5 years, which would you choose? It's a no-brainer when you look at it that way.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4de563418f99abb697400b8828af05ba",
"text": "Standard deduction is $6300, and exemption is $4050, totaling $10,350. (For 2016) Twice this for a couple ($20,700). The tax on money just above this is 10%, so the few thousand above will be taxed at a few hundred dollars. Where are you getting the number you showed? Can you edit your question to clarify exactly what you are asking?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0b0630331cf653228dcda6caa4ac50c8",
"text": "Talk about coincidence, we just recieved letters from our bank saying that our interest only loans will be going up by 0.46% and if we want to keep our lower rate we will need to change early to P&I. Now our Interest only periods end in 6 months to about 16 months anyway. We have decided to change to P&I early and save on our interest expenses. Why? Because the main purpose of investing is to make money not to save on tax. Even if you are on the highest marginal tax rate for every extra dollar of expenses you spend and claim as a deduction you will only get about 50 cents back through tax savings. If you are on the lowest marginal tax rate your tax savings will reduce to less than 20 cents for every extra dollar spent. If you are investing in order to save on tax you may be investing for the wrong reasons. Your primary reason for investing should be to make money, for wealth creation. A good reason to stay with an Interest only loan for an investment property would be if you require the extra cash flow you would receive compared with an I&P loan.",
"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": "74b3f1e58bda2b062d3ad816837fd262",
"text": "Certainly, paying off the mortgage is better than doing nothing with the money. But it gets interesting when you consider keeping the mortgage and investing the money. If the mortgage rate is 5% and you expect >5% returns from stocks or some other investment, then it might make sense to seek those higher returns. If you expect the same 5% return from stocks, keeping the mortgage and investing the money can still be more tax-efficient. Assuming a marginal tax rate of 30%, the real cost of mortgage interest (in terms of post-tax money) is 3.5%*. If your investment results in long-term capital gains taxed at 15%, the real rate of growth of your post-tax money would be 4.25%. So in post-tax terms, your rate of gain is greater than your rate of loss. On the other hand, paying off the mortgage is safer than investing borrowed money, so doing so might be more appropriate for the risk-averse. * I'm oversimplifying a bit by assuming the deduction doesn't change your marginal tax rate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "436d904961c3151d719d57448dbd71e6",
"text": "When discussing buying a home I often hear people say they like having a mortgage because they get the benefit of writing off the interest. I assume this is the United States. You need to also consider that many people can take the standard deduction of about $12k for married couples filing jointly, so even if they itemize the interest, it would only make sense to 'write it off' if you are able to itemize deductions greater than the standard deduction: Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2013/10/31/irs-announces-2014-tax-brackets-standard-deduction-amounts-and-more/ So some people will input the mortgage interest and other related deductions into the computer only to find out that their itemized deductions don't add up. Where it benefits people sometimes is if they have medical bills which are greater than 10% of their income in addition to the mortgage interest. So it benefits them to itemize. There are other major sources of itemization but medical bills are very common. Other common items are auto registration taxes or interest from student loans. It is going to be situation dependent, but if you are within a few years of paying off the mortgage it would make sense to make micropayments to accelerate the payoff date. If you have 30 years to go, it would make more sense to generate an emergency fund, pay off a car, or save up for other things in life than worry about paying off a mortgage. Take the benefit of deducting the mortgage interest if you can, but I imagine that many people would be surprised to hear that it's not always black and white.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a03334002934853b3c52dd87d276af9f",
"text": "\"In a Roth IRA scenario, this $5,000 would be reduced to $3,750 if we assume a (nice and round) 25% tax rate. For the Traditional IRA, the full $5,000 would be invested. No, that's not how it works. Taxes aren't removed from your Roth account. You'll have $5,000 invested either way. The difference is that you'll have a tax deduction if you invest in a traditional IRA, but not a Roth. So you'll \"\"save\"\" $1,250 in taxes up front if you invest in a traditional IRA versus a Roth. The flip side is when you withdraw the money. Since you've already paid tax on the Roth investment, and it grows tax free, you'll pay no tax when you withdraw it. But you'll pay tax on the investment and the gains when you withdraw from a traditional IRA. Using your numbers, you'd pay tax on $2.2MM from the traditional IRA, but NO TAX on $2.2MM from the Roth. At that point, you've saved over $500,000 in taxes. Now if you invested the tax savings from the traditional IRA and it earned the same amount, then yes, you'd end up in the same place in the end, provided you have the same marginal tax rate. But I suspect that most don't invest that savings, and if you withdraw significant amount, you'll likely move into higher tax brackets. In your example, suppose you only had $3,750 of \"\"discretionary\"\" income that you could put toward retirement. You could put $5,000 in a traditional IRA (since you'll get a $1,250 tax deduction), or $3,750 in a Roth. Then your math works out the same. If you invest the same amount in either, though, the math on the Roth is a no-brainer.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4e9aa8fec1c4ee7274257bfb57bcf9d3",
"text": "\"The mortgage tax deduction can at most apply to two mortgages. IRS Publication 936 lays this out pretty clearly. There might be other deductions available if you are using the houses as a commercial entity, but that's more \"\"corporate taxes\"\" than \"\"personal taxes\"\". I know there are tax laws for dealing with interest, depreciation, capital expenses that businesses use.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
bfdf67317b19d0c5f05c8dac44e86353
|
Current accounts reward schemes and reciprocal standing orders?
|
[
{
"docid": "9021ee044ffe953dad127d98ff65fa9e",
"text": "\"I don't think it would be counted as income, and if it's a short-term loan it doesn't really matter as the notional interest on the loan would be negligible. But you can avoid any possible complications by just having two accounts in the name of the person trying to get the account benefits, particularly if you're willing to just provide the \"\"seed\"\" money to get the loop started.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "596c851ead1b66cb3bf36f4853c6a8e8",
"text": "Based on my research while asking How are unmarketable market orders (other side of the order book is empty) matched with incoming orders? and the one answer there, it seems like there are a few things for certain: All of this of course depends on the exact algorithm specified by the given exchange - I don't think there's a standard here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1c964a9c684aca655197840dd636a5b7",
"text": "\"There is no \"\"should\"\", but I am strongly of the view that if you have savings of several months' salary or more, they should not only be in a separate account, but with a separate financial institution, or even split between two others. A fraction of a percent of extra interest is scant reward for massively increased personal risk. The reason for this is buried in the T&Cs. There is almost always a \"\"right of set off\"\": if one account is overdrawn, the bank reserves the right to take money from your other accounts. Which sounds fair enough, until you consider the imbalance of power. Maybe your salary account gets hacked? Maybe that's the bank's fault? Maybe the bank has made an accounting error? Maybe the bank has gone bust? Maybe you need to employ a lawyer to act on your behalf? Oh dear, you no longer have any savings. (*) This cannot happen if your savings are with a completely separate institution. Then, the only way that the salary account bank can touch your savings is by winning in the courts. If you split the savings two ways, you have also given yourself the reassurance that in the worst case only half your savings have been affected. \"\"Don't put all your eggs in one basket\"\" is proverbial. And there's a folk song that's lodged in my memory... \"\"As through this world I wander, I've met all kinds of funny men. Some rob you with a six-gun, some with a fountain pen. Yet as far as I have wandered, as far as I have roamed, I've never seen an outlaw drive a family from their home\"\". I've never been in this sort of trouble and the UK's laws tend to favour the banks' customers. I don't even hate bankers. Yet even so, why take this risk when it can so easily be reduced? (*) If this sounds far-fetched, read the news, for example https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/feb/02/hbos-manager-and-other-city-financiers-jailed-over-245m-loans-scam\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "954c15a2906ae58f160e91c32a0a1c96",
"text": "I wouldn't get too caught up with this. Doesn't sound like this is even stock reconciliation, more ensuring the cash you've received for dividends & other corporate actions agrees to your expected entitlements and if not raising claims etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5717dc64a0a7d6b53568555d1bbece24",
"text": "Citizens of India who are not residents to India (have NRI status) are not entitled to have ordinary savings accounts in India. If you have such accounts (e.g. left them behind to support your family while you are abroad), they need to be converted to NRO (NonResident Ordinary) accounts as soon as possible. Your bank will have forms for completion of this process. Any interest that these accounts earn will be taxable income to you in India, and possibly in the U.K. too, though tax treaties (or Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements) generally allow you to claim credit for taxes paid to other countries. Now, with regard to your question, NRIs are entitled to make deposits into NRO accounts as well as NRE (NonResident External) accounts. The differences are that money deposited into an NRE account, though converted to Indian Rupees, can be converted back very easily to foreign currency if need be. However, the re-conversion is at the exchange rate then in effect, and you may well lose that 10% interest earned because of a change in exchange rate. Devaluation of the Indian Rupee as occurred several times in the past 70 years. Once upon a time, it was essentially impossible to take money in an NRO account and convert it to foreign currency, but under the new recently introduced schemes, money in an NRO account can also be converted to foreign currencies, but it needs certification by a CA, and various forms to be filled out, and thus is more hassle. interest earned by the money in an NRE account is not taxable income in India, but is taxable income in the U.K. There is no taxable event (neither in U.K. nor in India) when you change an ordinary savings account held in India into an NRO account, or when you deposit money from abroad into an NRE or NRO account in an Indian bank. What is taxable is the interest that you receive from the Indian bank. In the case of an NRO account, what is deposited into your NRO account is the interest earned less the (Indian) income tax (usually 20%) deducted at the source (TDS) and sent to the Income Tax Authority on your behalf. In the case of an NRE account, the full amount of interest earned is deposited into the NRE account -- no TDS whatsoever. It is your responsibility to declare these amounts to the U.K. income tax authority (HM Revenue?) and pay any taxes due. Finally, you say that you recently moved to the U.K. for a job. If this is a temporary job and you might be back in India very soon, all the above might not be applicable to you since you would not be classified as an NRI at all.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd1d479b3ef0591db81ed22afc57b378",
"text": "\"I'm not personally familiar with this, but I had a look at the Companies House guidance. Unfortunately, it seems you've done things in the wrong order. You should have first got the funds out, distributed them to yourself as a dividend or salary, and then closed the account, and then wound up the company. Legally speaking, the remaining funds now belong to the government (\"\"bona vacantia\"\"). It's possible you could apply to have the company restored, but I think that might be difficult; I don't think the administrative restoration procedure applies in your situation. Given the amount involved, I'd suggest just forgetting about it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b571809824f8d4516f9f62c50bb3d418",
"text": "\"I use the (gratis, libre) command-line program ledger for my personal accounts. It handles funds across accounts gracefully, through a feature called \"\"Virtual Accounts\"\". A transaction can add or subtract money from a virtual account, which need not balance with all the other entries in the transaction. Then it's just a matter of setting up reports to include or exclude these accounts.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa1f9c1214d7c33fb2a1e73c46fcb482",
"text": "\"You don't. No one uses vanilla double entry accounting software for \"\"Held-For-Trading Security\"\". Your broker or trading software is responsible for providing month-end statement of changes. You use \"\"Mark To Market\"\" valuation at the end of each month. For example, if your cash position is -$5000 and stock position is +$10000, all you do is write-up/down the account value to $5000. There should be no sub-accounts for your \"\"Investment\"\" account in GNUCash. So at the end of the month, there would be the following entries:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "196f6e8ceb6634d81fc30af25de21f2f",
"text": "Without knowing the company it’s hard to say 100%, but any regulated company in Europe or one floated on a major stock exchange will not renege on paying winnings/ban accounts for no reason. You will have either breached a term of service such as opening multiple accounts (or opening accounts while self excluded/on time out), or exhibited a behaviour that is heavily linked to fraud/other fraudulent accounts. If you are using any UK regulated site/Europe site floated in London, and you believe you are in the right and have not broken any terms and conditions, IBAS is the place to start, and to mention to the company that you are going to IBAS before you do start a case (this is often enough to turn a decision in your favour if it is a marginal case, as it is a large amount of hassle for an operator to become involved with them). If you are using an unregulated site you are out with the wolves and basically any behaviour from them is to be expected and there is very little you can do about it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd6eecc9738b213f4a0e3ccc7411900f",
"text": "You have two different operations going on: They each have of a set of rules regarding amounts, timelines, taxes, and penalties. The excess money can't be recharacterized except during a specific window of time. I would see a tax professional to work through all the details.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f719c01ac03e037a88ca3dd067d103db",
"text": "This depends on the stock exchange in question. Generally if you modify an existing order [including GTC], these are internally treated as Cancel/Replace Orders. Depending on the action, you may lose the time priority position and a new position would get assigned. More here. (f) Cancel/Replace Orders. Depending on how a quote or order is modified, the quote or order may change priority position as follows: (1) If the price is changed, the changed side loses position and is placed in a priority position behind all orders of the same type (i.e., customer or non-customer) at the same price. (2) If one side's quantity is changed, the unchanged side retains its priority position. (3) If the quantity of one side is decreased, that side retains its priority position. (4) If the quantity of one side is increased, that side loses its priority position and is placed behind all orders of the same type at the same price.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b93de284953fa5486669f0c77bcc3907",
"text": "You seem to think that the term “held”is used correctly. There lies your logical fallacy. I made no such assumption. In my question I test both the use of the term “US economy” AND the term “held”. It is obvious you can’t “hold” income but if you want to get down to technicalities, both asset and income/expenses are types of accounts while the notion of “trust” is a legal construct to limit the rights of external creditors.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d7818ae9d9068f5953344459e340be74",
"text": "\"In a way yes but I doubt you'd want that. A \"\"Stop-Limit\"\" order has both stop and limit components to it but I doubt this gives you what you want. In your example, if the stock falls to $1/share then the limit order of $3/share would be triggered but this isn't quite what I'd think you'd want to see. I'd suggest considering having 2 orders: A stop order to limit losses and a limit order to sell that are separate rather than fusing them together that likely isn't going to work.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af9cad4ce61545afe2d0ebb76674b5e6",
"text": "No you can't, as you would have to have a different order for each security. Usually the bigger the order the more the brokerage you would also pay.",
"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": "5bd8685331f03c0d85e8e13ef0b3d9be",
"text": "It is the first time I encounter redemption programme and I would like to know what are my options here You can hold on to the shares and automatically receive 2.25 SEK per share some time after 31-May; depending on how fast the company and its bank process the payouts. Alternatively you can trade in the said window for whatever the market is offering. how is this different from paying the dividend? I don't know much about Sweden laws. Structuring this way may be tax beneficial. The other benefit in in company's books the shareholders capital is reduced. can I trade these redemption shares during these 2 weeks in May? What is the point of trading them if they have fixed price? Yes you can. If you need money sooner ... generally the price will be discounted by few cents to cover the interest for the balance days.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
4b6d72d79cc97709e6953fe5042b6d76
|
Investing Account Options
|
[
{
"docid": "5768adeca0219e72d67ccb5dbb924ded",
"text": "Immediately move your Roth IRA out of Edward Jones and into a discount broker like Scottrade, Ameritrade, Fidelity, Vanguard, Schwab, or E-Trade. Edward Jones will be charging you a large fraction of your money (probably at least 1% explicitly and maybe another 1% in hidden-ish fees like the 12b-1). Don't give away several percent of your savings every year when you can have an account for free. Places like Edward Jones are appropriate only for people who are unwilling to learn about personal finance and happy to pay dearly as a result. Move your money by contacting the new broker, then requesting that they get your money out of Edward Jones. They will be happy to do so the right way. Don't try and get the money out yourself. Continue to contribute to your Roth as long as your tax bracket is low. Saving on taxes is a critically important part of being financially wise. You can spend your contributions (not gains) out of your Roth for any reason without penalty if you want/need to. When your tax bracket is higher, look at traditional IRA's instead to minimize your current tax burden. For more accessible ways of saving, open a regular (non-tax-advantaged) brokerage account. Invest in diversified and low-cost funds. Look at the expense ratios and minimize your portfolio's total expense. Higher fee funds generally do not earn the money they take from you. Avoid all funds that have a nonzero 12b-1 fee. Generally speaking your best bet is buying index funds from Fidelity, Vanguard, Schwab, or their close competitors. Or buying cheap ETF's. Any discount brokerage will allow you to do this in both your Roth and regular accounts. Remember, the reason you buy funds is to get instant diversification, not because you are willing to gamble that your mutual funds will outperform the market. Head to the bogleheads forum for more specific advice about 3 fund portfolios and similar suggested investment strategies like the lazy portfolios. The folks in the forums there like to give specific advice that's not appropriate here. If you use a non-tax-advantaged account for investing, buy and sell in a tax-smart way. At the end of the year, sell your poor performing stocks or funds and use the loss as a tax write-off. Then rebalance back to a good portfolio. Or if your tax bracket is very low, sell the winners and lock in the gains at low tax rates. Try to hold things more than a year so you are taxed at the long-term capital gains rate, rather than the short-term. Only when you have several million dollars, then look at making individual investments, rather than funds. In a non-tax-advantaged account owning the assets directly will help you write off losses against your taxes. But either way, it takes several million dollars to make the transactions costs of maintaining a portfolio lower than the fees a cheap mutual/index fund will charge.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1e3cdc7396f7f31fd63aa01e35c6083b",
"text": "\"Roth is currently not an option, unless you can manage to document income. At 6, this would be difficult but not impossible. My daughter was babysitting at 10, that's when we started her Roth. The 529 is the only option listed that offers the protection of not permitting an 18 year old to \"\"blow the money.\"\" But only if you maintain ownership with the child as beneficiary. The downside of the 529 is the limited investment options, extra layer of fees, and the potential to pay tax if the money is withdrawn without child going to college. As you noted, since it's his money already, you should not be the owner of the account. That would be stealing. The regular account, a UGMA, is his money, but you have to act as custodian. A minor can't trade his own stock account. In that account, you can easily manage it to take advantage of the kiddie tax structure. The first $1000 of realized gains go untaxed, the next $1000 is at his rate, 10%. Above this, is taxed at your rate, with the chance for long tern capital gains at a 15% rate. When he actually has income, you can deposit the lesser of up to the full income or $5500 into a Roth. This was how we shifted this kind of gift money to my daughter's Roth IRA. $2000 income from sitting permitted her to deposit $2000 in funds to the Roth. The income must be documented, but the dollars don't actually need to be the exact dollars earned. This money grows tax free and the deposits may be withdrawn without penalty. The gains are tax free if taken after age 59-1/2. Please comment if you'd like me to expand on any piece of this answer.\"",
"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": "7513669b507e34a1436fd1b73c0e25b7",
"text": "\"Here are the few scenarios that may be worth noting in terms of using different types of accounts: Traditional IRA. In this case, the monies would grow tax-deferred and all monies coming out will be taxed as ordinary income. Think of it as everything is in one big black box and the whole thing is coming out to be taxed. Roth IRA. In this case, you could withdraw the contributions anytime without penalty. (Source should one want it for further research.) Past 59.5, the withdrawals are tax-free in my understanding. Thus, one could access some monies earlier than retirement age if one considers all the contributions that are at least 5 years old. Taxable account. In this case, each year there will be distributions to pay taxes as well as anytime one sells shares as that will trigger capital gains. In this case, taxes are worth noting as depending on the index fund one may have various taxes to consider. For example, a bond index fund may have some interest that would be taxed that the IRA could shelter to some extent. While index funds can be a low-cost option, in some cases there may be capital gains each year to keep up with the index. For example, small-cap indices and value indices would have stocks that may \"\"outgrow\"\" the index by either becoming mid-cap or large-cap in the case of small-cap or the value stock's valuation rises enough that it becomes a growth stock that is pulled out of the index. This is why some people may prefer to use tax-advantaged accounts for those funds that may not be as tax-efficient. The Bogleheads have an article on various accounts that can also be useful as dg99's comment referenced. Disclosure: I'm not an accountant or work for the IRS.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a5e26a54c14df9789647c1dea47ee96",
"text": "There are some brokers in the US who would be happy to open an account for non-US residents, allowing you to trade stocks at NYSE and other US Exchanges. Some of them, along with some facts: DriveWealth Has support in Portuguese Website TD Ameritrade Has support in Portuguese Website Interactive Brokers Account opening is not that straightforward Website",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd7c234f7265e788866e04770fab0c5f",
"text": "As an alternative to investing you'll find at least some banks eg. Rakuten that will give you preferential interest rates(still 0.1% though) just for opening a free brokering account. As this is still your individual savings account your money is as safe as it was before opening your account. I certainly wouldn't buy to hold any stock or fund that is linked to the Nikkei right now. Income stocks outside of the 225 may be safer, but you'd still need to buy enough of them that their individual results don't affect your bottom line.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9035e3042845744753020ebe12989ddf",
"text": "I can't provide a list, but when I took out my Stocks and Shares, I extensively researched for a good, cheap, flexible option and I went with FoolShareDealing. I've found them to be good, and their online trading system works well. I hope that's still the case.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7fb2ffdbc44f0f39716c4966623450b3",
"text": "\"First, you mentioned your brother-in-law has \"\"$100,000 in stock options (fully vested)\"\". Do you mean his exercise cost would be $100,000, i.e. what he'd need to pay to buy the shares? If so, then what might be the estimated value of the shares acquired? Options having vested doesn't necessarily mean they possess value, merely that they may be exercised. Or did you mean the estimated intrinsic value of those options (estimated value less exercise cost) is $100,000? Speaking from my own experience, I'd like to address just the first part of your question: Have you treated this as you would a serious investment in any other company? That is, have you or your brother-in-law reviewed the company's financial statements for the last few years? Other than hearing from people with a vested interest (quite literally!) to pump up the stock with talk around the office, how do you know the company is: BTW, as an option holder only, your brother-in-law's rights to financial information may be limited. Will the company share these details anyway? Or, if he exercised at least one option to become a bona-fide shareholder, I believe he'd have rights to request the financial statements – but company bylaws vary, and different jurisdictions say different things about what can be restricted. Beyond the financial statements, here are some more things to consider: The worst-case risk you'd need to accept is zero liquidity and complete loss: If there's no eventual buy-out or IPO, the shares may (effectively) be worthless. Even if there is a private market, willing buyers may quickly dry up if company fortunes decline. Contrast this to public stock markets, where there's usually an opportunity to witness deterioration, exit at a loss, and preserve some capital. Of course, with great risk may come great reward. Do your own due diligence and convince yourself through a rigorous analysis — not hopes & dreams — that the investment might be worth the risk.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cc13c4bd1503bbb1b62c7955bea94d58",
"text": "\"An alternative to a savings account is a money market account. Not a bank \"\"Money Market\"\" account which pays effectively the same silly rate as a savings account, but an actual Money Market investment account. You can even write checks against some Money Market investment accounts. I have several accounts worth about 13,000 each. Originally, my \"\"emergency fund\"\" was in a CD ladder. I started experimenting with two different Money market investment accounts recently. Here's my latest results: August returns on various accounts worth about $13k: - Discover Bank CD: $13.22 - Discover Bank CD: $13.27 - Discover Bank CD: $13.20 - Discover Savings: $13.18 - Credit Union \"\"Money Market\"\" Savings account: $1.80 - Fidelity Money Market Account (SPAXX): $7.35 - Vanguard Money market Account (VMFXX): $10.86 The actual account values are approximate. The Fidelity Money Market Account holds the least value, and the Credit Union account by far the most. The result of the experiment is that as the CDs mature, I'll be moving out of Discover Bank into the Vanguard Money Market account. You can put your money into more traditional equities mutual fund. The danger with them is the stock market may drop big the day before you want to make your withdrawl... and then you don't have the down payment for your house anymore. But a well chosen mutual fund will yield better. There are 3 ways a mutual fund increase in value: Here's how three of my mutual funds did in the past month... adjusted as if the accounts had started off to be worth about $13,000: Those must vary wildly month-to-month. By the way, if you look up the ticker symbols, VASGX is a Vanguard \"\"Fund of Funds\"\" -- it invests not 100% in the stock market, but 80% in the stock market and 20% in bonds. VSMGX is a 60/40 split. Interesting that VASGX grew less than VSMGX...but that assumes my spreadsheet is correct. Most of my mutual funds pay dividends and capital gains once or twice a year. I don't think any pay in August.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f23e3365d2baf8d026f99b1755e53154",
"text": "\"Trying to \"\"time the market\"\" is usually a bad idea. People who do this every day for a living have a hard time doing that, and I'm guessing you don't have that kind of time and knowledge. So that leaves you with your first and third options, commonly called lump-sum and dollar cost averaging respectively. Which one to use depends on where your preferences lie on the risk/reward scpectrum. Dollar cost averaging (DCA) has lower risk and lower reward than lump sum investing. In my opinion, I don't like it. DCA only works better than lump sum investing if the price drops. But if you think the price is going to drop, why are you buying the stock in the first place? Example: Your uncle wins the lottery and gives you $50,000. Do you buy $50,000 worth of Apple now, or do you buy $10,000 now and $10,000 a quarter for the next four quarters? If the stock goes up, you will make more with lump-sum(LS) than you will with DCA. If the stock goes down, you will lose more with LS than you will with DCA. If the stock goes up then down, you will lose more with DCA than you will with LS. If the stock goes down then up, you will make more with DCA than you will with LS. So it's a trade-off. But, like I said, the whole point of you buying the stock is that you think it's going to go up, which is especially true with an index fund! So why pick the strategy that performs worse in that scenario?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "120d3a55e9a0033859dcfe02e5756f69",
"text": "You are suggesting something called dollar cost averaging (or its cousin, dollar value averaging) - http://www.investopedia.com/articles/stocks/07/dcavsva.asp This is certainly a valid investment strategy, although personally, I feel that for long term investment, it is not necessary unless you plan on being an active trader. I still strongly encourage you to research these two methods and see if they would work well for your personal investment strategy and goals. As far as what sorts of investments for a taxable account, I have three general recommendations: As far as which company to use for your brokerage, I personally have accounts at Voya, TRowe Price and Fidelity. I would strongly recommend Fidelity out of those three, mostly due to customer service and quality and ease of use of their website. Vanguard is a great brokerage, but you don't have to choose them just because you plan to mostly invest in Vanguard funds. I also recommend you research how capital gains and dividend taxing works (and things like lost harvesting), so that you can structure your investments with taxes in mind. Do this ahead of time, don't wait until April of 2016 because it will be too late to save on taxes by then.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "156ea79111ede80e9923c3ebe543a75e",
"text": "I think that those options might well be your best bet, given the potential 700% return in one year if you're right. You could look and see if any Synthetic Zeros (a Synthetic Zero is a derivative that will pay out a set amount if the underlying security is over a certain price point) exist for the share but chances are if they do they wouldn't offer the 700% return. Also might be worth asking the question at the quant stack exchange to see if they have any other ideas.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cabb237fffd7db5cb951c9fa74e91e1c",
"text": "The easiest way to deal with risks for individual stocks is to diversify. I do most of my investing in broad market index funds, particularly the S&P 500. I don't generally hold individual stocks long, but I do buy options when I think there are price moves that aren't supported by the fundamentals of a stock. All of this riskier short-term investing is done in my Roth IRA, because I want to maximize the profits in the account that won't ever be taxed. I wouldn't want a particularly fruitful investing year to bite me with short term capital gains on my income tax. I usually beat the market in that account, but not by much. It would be pretty easy to wipe out those gains on a particularly bad year if I was investing in the actual stocks and not just using options. Many people who deal in individual stocks hedge with put options, but this is only cost effective at strike prices that represent losses of 20% or more and it eats away the gains. Other people or try to add to their gains by selling covered call options figuring that they're happy to sell with a large upward move, but if that upward move doesn't happen you still get the gains from the options you've sold.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fb7489191787be6458bb24d48707cb7c",
"text": "You are not limited in these 3 choices. You can also invest in ETFs, which are similar to mutual funds, but traded like stocks. Usually (at least in Canada), MERs for ETFs are smaller than for mutual funds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f50607ffadab1c7bacb18fce2adec8de",
"text": "\"The way I've implemented essentially \"\"value averaging\"\", is to keep a constant ratio between different investment types in my portfolio. Lets say (in a simple example), 25% cash, 25% REIT (real estate), 25% US Stock, 25% Foreign stock. Lets say I deposit a set $1000 per month into this account. If the stock portion goes up, it will look like I need more cash & REIT, so all of that $1000 goes into cash & the REIT portion to get them towards their 25%. I may spend months investing only in cash & the REIT while the stock goes up. Of course if the stock goes down, that $1000 per month goes into the stock accounts. Now you can also balance your account if you'd like, regularly selling stock (or the REIT), and making the account balanced. So if the stock goes down, you'd use the cash & REIT to purchase more stock. If the stock went up, you'd sell the stock, and buy REIT & leave more in cash.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "685f41d0666957a5964f2687f3f79aee",
"text": "\"The \"\"Yield Pledge\"\" looks like a marketing promise to me. It may well be true, but I'm not sure it's useful. As you say, it's currently not the best account out there. If those extra $24 per $10000 are really important to you, why not do your own analysis? Put the money in the highest interest account you can find, and then every three months survey the accounts available and, if it isn't still the highest, transfer the funds to the one that is. Personally I wouldn't put that much effort in for $24, but you may be different.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
198cd7e5b10ed8adfddf1c5ff06f0bb7
|
Construction loan for new house replacing existing mortgaged house?
|
[
{
"docid": "441cb33517b78809ab0bb9a2dcf44c46",
"text": "So let's assume some values to better explain this. For simplicity, all of these are in thousands: So in this example, you're going to destroy $250 in value, pay off the existing $150 loan and have to invest $300 in to build the new house and this example doesn't have enough equity to cover it. You typically can't get a loan for much more than the (anticipated) property value. Basically, you need to get a construction loan to cover paying off the existing loan plus whatever you want to spend to pay for the new house minus whatever you're planning to contribute from savings. This new loan will need to be for less than the new total market value. The only way this will work out this way is if you bring significant cash to closing, or you owe less than the lot value on the current property. Note, that this is in effect a simplification. You can spend less building a house than it's worth when you're done with it, etc., but this is the basic way it would work - or NOT work in most cases.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d43fcc68268ff0da832453bd4ae2fc5f",
"text": "\"Presumably the existing house has some value. If you demolish the existing house, you are destroying that value. If the value of the new house is significantly more than the value of the old house, like if you're talking about replacing a small, run-down old house worth $50,000 with a big new mansion worth $10,000,000, then the value of the old house that is destroyed might just get lost in the rounding errors for all practical purposes. But otherwise, I don't see how you would do this without bringing cash to the table basically equal to what you still owe on the old house. Presumably the new house is worth more than the old, so the value of the property when you're done will be more than it was before. But will the value of the property be more than the old mortgage plus the new mortgage? Unless the old mortgage was almost paid off, or you bring a bunch of cash, the answer is almost certainly \"\"no\"\". Note that from the lienholder's point of view, you are not \"\"temporarily\"\" reducing the value of the property. You are permanently reducing it. The bank that makes the new loan will have a lien on the new house. I don't know what the law says about this, but you would have to either, (a) deliberately destroy property that someone else has a lien on while giving them no compensation, or (b) give two banks a lien on the same property. I wouldn't think either option would be legal. Normally when people tear down a building to put up a new building, it's because the value of the old building is so low as to be negligible compared to the value of the new building. Either the old building is run-down and getting it into decent shape would cost more than tearing it down and putting up a new building, or at least there is some benefit -- real or perceived -- to the new building that makes this worth it.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "97a18181ea7766c38540dd8c3eadfd38",
"text": "Just as a renter doesn't care what the landlord's mortgage is, the buyer of a house shouldn't care what the seller paid, what the current mortgage is, or any other details of the seller's finances. Two identical houses may be worth $400K. One still has a $450K loan, the other is mortgage free. You would qualify for the same value mortgage on both houses. All you and your bank should care about is that the present mortgage is paid or forgiven by the current mortgage holder so your bank can have first lien, and you get a clean title. To answer the question clearly, yes, it's common for a house with a mortgage to be sold, mortgage paid off, and new mortgage put in place. The profit or loss of the homeowner is not your concern.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ce16917eb1b24ba0bc42750a62d3cad",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/issuing-new-loans-against-unrealised-capital-gains-has-created-an-australian-house-of-cards/news-story/853e540ce0a8ed95d5881a730b6ed2c9) reduced by 87%. (I'm a bot) ***** > THE Australian mortgage market has &quot;Ballooned&quot; due to banks issuing new loans against unrealised capital gains of existing investment properties, creating a $1.7 trillion &quot;House of cards&quot;, a new report warns. > The report describes the system as a &quot;Classic mortgage Ponzi finance model&quot;, with newly purchased properties often generating net rental income losses, adversely impacting upon cash flows. > Melbourne&#039;s median house price has risen by 12.7 per cent over the past year to $695,500, with Brisbane up 3 per cent to $488,757, Adelaide 5.2 per cent to $430,109, Hobart 13.6 per cent to $383,438 and Canberra 12.9 per cent to $575,173. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6z9ea1/issuing_new_loans_against_unrealised_capital/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~207582 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*: **property**^#1 **per**^#2 **cent**^#3 **report**^#4 **market**^#5\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "250a7730477a33972e154998d713b752",
"text": "You're in the same situation I'm in (bought new house, didn't sell old house, now renting out old house). Assuming that everything is stable, right now I'd do something besides pay down your new mortgage. If you pay down the mortgage at your old house, that mortgage payment will go away faster than if you paid down the one on the new house. Then, things start to get fun. You then have a lot more free cash flow available to do whatever you like. I'd tend to do that before searching for other investments. Then, once you have the free cash flow, you can look for other investments (probably a wise risk) or retire the mortgage on your residence earlier.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6a30438a8e0fe678ad8874732fadef31",
"text": "In short, your scenario could work in theory, but is not realistic... Generally speaking, you can borrow up to some percentage of the value of the property, usually 80-90% though it can vary based on many factors. So if your property currently has a value of $100k, you could theoretically borrow a total of $80-90k against it. So how much you can get at any given time depends on the current value as compared to how much you owe. A simple way to ballpark it would be to use this formula: (CurrentValue * PercentageAllowed) - CurrentMortgageBalance = EquityAvailable. If your available equity allowed you to borrow what you wanted, and you then applied it to additions/renovations, your base property value would (hopefully) increase. However as other people mentioned, you very rarely get a value increase that is near what you put into the improvements, and it is not uncommon for improvements to have no significant impact on the overall value. Just because you like something about your improvements doesn't mean the market will agree. Just for the sake of argument though, lets say you find the magic combination of improvements that increases the property value in line with their cost. If such a feat were accomplished, your $40k improvement on a $100k property would mean it is now worth $140k. Let us further stipulate that your $40k loan to fund the improvements put you at a 90% loan to value ratio. So prior to starting the improvements you owed $90k on a $100k property. After completing the work you would owe $90k on what is now a $140k property, putting you at a loan to value ratio of ~64%. Meaning you theoretically have 26% equity available to borrow against to get back to the 90% level, or roughly $36k. Note that this is 10% less than the increase in the property value. Meaning that you are in the realm of diminishing returns and each iteration through this process would net you less working capital. The real picture is actually a fair amount worse than outlined in the above ideal scenario as we have yet to account for any of the costs involved in obtaining the financing or the decreases in your credit score which would likely accompany such a pattern. Each time you go back to the bank asking for more money, they are going to charge you for new appraisals and all of the other fees that come out at closing. Also each time you ask them for more money they are going to rerun your credit, and see the additional inquires and associated debt stacking up, which in turn drops your score, which prompts the banks to offer higher interest rates and/or charge higher fees... Also, when a bank loans against a property that is already securing another debt, they are generally putting themselves at the back of the line in terms of their claim on the property in case of default. In my experience it is very rare to find a lender that is willing to put themselves third in line, much less any farther back. Generally if you were to ask for such a loan, the bank would insist that the prior commitments be paid off before they would lend to you. Meaning the bank that you ask for the $36k noted above would likely respond by saying they will loan you $70k provided that $40k of it goes directly to paying off the previous equity line.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "623dfa0df8931700ed0fa255c994972d",
"text": "\"This seems to be a very emotional thing for people and there are a lot of conflicting answers. I agree with JoeTaxpayer in general but I think it's worth coming at it from a slightly different angle. You are in Canada and you don't get to deduct anything for your mortgage interest like in the US, so that simplifies things a bit. The next thing to consider is that in an amortized mortgage, the later payments include increasingly more principal. This matters because the extra payments you make earlier in the loan have much more impact on reducing your interest than those made at the end of the loan. Why does that matter? Let's say for example, your loan was for $100K and you will end up getting $150K for the sale after all the transaction costs. Consider two scenarios: If you do the math, you'll see that the total is the same in both scenarios. Nominally, $50K of equity is worth the same as $50K in the bank. \"\"But wait!\"\" you protest, \"\"what about the interest on the loan?\"\" For sure, you likely won't get 2.89% on money in a bank account in this environment. But there's a big difference between money in the bank and equity in your house: you can't withdraw part of your equity. You either have to sell the house (which takes time) or you have to take out a loan against your equity which is likely going to be more expensive than your current loan. This is the basic reasoning behind the advice to have a certain period of time covered. 4 months isn't terrible but you could have more of a cushion. Consider things like upcoming maintenance or improvements on the house. Are you going to need a new roof before you move? New driveway or landscape improvements? Having enough cash to make a down-payment on your next home can be a huge advantage because you can make a non-contingent offer which will often be accepted at a lower value than a contingent offer. By putting this money into your home equity, you essentially make it inaccessible and there's an opportunity cost to that. You will also earn exact 0% on that equity. The only benefit you get is to reduce a loan which is charging you a tiny rate that you are unlikely to get again any time soon. I would take that extra cash and build more cushion. I would also put as much money into any tax sheltered investments as you can. You should expect to earn more than 2.89% on your long-term investments. You really aren't in debt as far as the house goes as long as you are not underwater on the loan: the net value of that asset is positive on your balance sheet. Yes you need to keep making payments but a big account balance covers that. In fact if you hit on hard times and you've put all your extra cash into equity, you might ironically not being able to make your payments and lose the home. One thing I just realized is that since you are in Canada, you probably don't have a fixed-rate on your mortgage. A variable-rate loan does make the calculation different. If you are concerned that rates may spike significantly, I think you still want to increase your cushion but whether you want to increase long-term investments depends on your risk tolerance.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b93a5d77409254fa60210ce84930525a",
"text": "\"The first red-flag here is that an appraisal was not performed on an as-is basis - and if it could not be done, you should be told why. Getting an appraisal on an after-improvement basis only makes sense if you are proposing to perform such improvements and want that factored in as a basis of the loan. It seems very bizarre to me that a mortgage lender would do this without any explanation at all. The only way this makes sense is if the lender is only offering you a loan with specific underwriting guidelines on house quality (common with for instance VA-loans and how they require the roof be of a certain maximum age - among dozens of other requirements, and many loan products have their own standards). This should have been disclosed to you during the process, but one can certainly never assume anyone will do their job properly - or it may have only mentioned in some small print as part of pounds of paper products you may have been offered or made to sign already. The bank criteria is \"\"reasonable\"\" to the extent that generally mortgage companies are allowed to set underwriting criteria about the current condition of the house. It doesn't need to be reasonable to you personally, or any of us - it's to protect lender profits by aiding their risk models. Your plans and preferences don't even factor in to their guidelines. Not all criteria are on a a sliding scale, so it doesn't necessarily matter how well you meet their other standards. You are of course correct that paying for thousands of dollars in improvements on a house you don't own is lunacy, and the fact that this was suggested may on it's own suggest you should cut your losses now and seek out a different lender. Given the lender being uncooperative, the only reason to stick with it seems to be the sunk cost of the appraisal you've already paid for. I'd suggest you specifically ask them why they did not perform an as-is appraisal, and listen to the answer (if you can get one). You can try to contact the appraiser directly as well with this question, and ask if you can have the appraisal strictly as-is without having a new appraisal. They might be helpful, they might not. As for taking the appraisal with you to a new bank, you might be able to do this - or you might not. It is strictly up to each lender to set criteria for appraisals they accept, but I've certainly known of people re-using an appraisal done sufficiently recently in this way. It's a possibility that you will need to write off the $800 as an \"\"education expense\"\", but it's certainly worth trying to see if you can salvage it and take it with you - you'll just have to ask each potential lender, as I've heard it go both ways. It's not a crazy or super-rare request - lenders backing out based on appraisal results should be absolutely normal to anyone in the finance business. To do this, you can just state plainly the situation. You paid for an appraisal and the previous lender fell through, and so you would like to know if they would be able to accept that and provide you with a loan without having to buy a whole new appraisal. This would also be a good time to talk about condition requirements, in that you want a loan on an as-is basic for a house that is inhabitable but needs cosmetic repair, and you plan to do this in cash on your own time after the purchase closes. Some lenders will be happy to do this at below 75%-80% LTV, and some absolutely do not want to make this type of loan because the house isn't in perfect condition and that's just what their lending criteria is right now. Based on description alone, I don't think you really should need to go into alternate plans like buy cash and then get a home equity loan to get cash out, special rehab packages, etc. So I'd encourage you to try a more straight-forward option of a different lender, as well as trying to get a straight answer on their odd choice of appraisal order that you paid for, before trying anything more exotic or totally changing your purchase/finance plans.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e907d422e9d3d798ba1f276f896040e",
"text": "\"Assumption - you live in a country like Australia, which has \"\"recourse\"\" mortgages. If you buy the apartment and take out a mortgage, the bank doesn't care too much if your apartment gets built or not. If the construction fails, you still owe the bank the money.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f9ea72f98104d3270a942ed21b839709",
"text": "You could consider turning your current place into a Rental Property. This is more easily done with a fixed rate loan, and you said you have an ARM. The way it would work: If you can charge enough rent to cover your current mortgage plus the interest-difference on your new mortgage, then the income from your rental property can effectively lower the interest rate on your new home. By keeping your current low rate, month-after-month, you'll pay the market rate on your new home, but you'll also receive rental income from your previous home to offset the increased cost. Granted, a lot of your value will be locked up in equity in your former home, and not be easily accessible (except through a HELOC or similar), but if you can afford it, it is a good possibility.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c805b4bd5c0bdcc9a481645e470d3ae8",
"text": "You're effectively looking for a mortgage for a new self-build house. At the beginning, you should be able to get a mortgage based on the value of the land only. They may be willing to lend more as the build progresses. Try to find a company that specializes in this sort of mortgage.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3110b4b6766a0e1dac9a4b4944d29138",
"text": "\"Construction loans are typically short term that then get rolled into conventional mortgages at the end of the construction period. Since the actual construction loan is short term, you cannot combine it with a long-term land loan as well. You could do the two separate loans up front to buy the land and finance the construction, then at the end roll both into a conventional mortgage to close out the land and construction loans. This option will only work if you do all three through the same lender. Trying to engage various lenders will require a whole new refinance process, which I very much doubt you would want to go through. These are sometimes called combo loans, since they aggregate several different loan products in one \"\"transaction.\"\" Not a lot of places do land loans, so I would suggest first find a lender that will give you a land loan and set an appoint with a loan representative. Explain what you are trying to do and see what they can offer you. You might have better luck with credit unions as well instead of traditional banks.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f398ad2294afdfaf8c2e0f39a65b251",
"text": "The underlying investment is usually somewhat independent of your mortgage, since it encompasses a bundle of mortgages, and not only yours. It works similarly to a fund. When, you pay off the old mortgage while re-financing, the fund receives the outstanding debt in from of cash, which can be used to buy new mortgages.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b22c2489d586e3c1cfc01bb3f21219c3",
"text": "If you intend to flip this property, you might consider either a construction loan or private money. A construction loan allows you to borrow from a bank against the value of the finished house a little at a time. As each stage of the construction/repairs are completed, the bank releases more funds to you. Interest accrues during the construction, but no payments need to be made until the construction/repairs are complete. Private money works in a similar manner, but the full amount can be released to you at once so you can get the repairs done more quickly. The interest rate will be higher. If you are flipping, then this higher interest rate is simply a cost of doing business. Since it's a private loan, you ca structure the deal any way you want. Perhaps accruing interest until the property is sold and then paying it back as a single balloon payment on sale of the property. To find private money, contact a mortgage broker and tell them what you have in mind. If you're intending to keep the property for yourself, private money is still an option. Once the repairs are complete, have the bank reassess the property value and refinance based on the new amount. Pay back the private loan with equity pulled from the house and all the shiny new repairs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e5d0aae8c372fa841d206c133d72eb68",
"text": "The cleanest way to accomplish this is to make the purchase of your new house contingent on the sale of your old one. Your offer should include that contingency and a date by which your house needs to sell to settle the contract. There will also likely be a clause that lets the seller cancel the contract within a period of time (like 24-48 hours) if another offer is received. This gives you (the buyer) at least an opportunity to either sell the house or come up with financing to complete the deal. For example, suppose you make an offer to buy a house for $300,000 contingent on the sale of your house, which the seller accepts. In the meantime, the seller gets an offer of $275,000 in cash (no contingency). The seller has to notify you of the offer and give you some time to make good on your offer, either by selling your house or obtaining $300,000 in financing. If you cannot, the seller can accept the cash offer. This is just a hypothetical example; the offer can have whatever clauses you agree to, but since sale contingencies benefit the buyer, the seller will generally want some compensation for that benefit, e.g. a larger offer or some other clause that benefits them. Or do I find a house to buy first, set a closing date far out and then use that time to sell my current one? Most sellers will not want to set a closing date very far out. Contingency clauses are far more common. In short, yes it's possible, and any competent realtor should be able to handle it. It also may mean that you have to either make a higher offer to compensate for the contingency and to dissuade the seller from entertaining other offers, or sell your home for less than you'd like to get the cash sooner. You can weigh those costs against the cost of financing the new house until yours sells.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "928f578d51d5e2b352fe5022b90e524e",
"text": "If they own the old house outright, they can mortgage it to you. In many jurisdictions this relieves you of the obligation to chase for payment, and of any worry that you won't get paid, because a transfer of ownership to the new owner cannot be registered until any charge against a property (ie. a mortgage) has been discharged. The cost of to your friends of setting up the mortgage will be less than the opulent interest they are offering you, and you will both have peace of mind. Even if the sale of the old house falls through, you will still be its mortgagee and still assured of repayment on any future sale (or even inheritance). Complications arise if the first property is mortgaged. Although second mortgages are possible (and rank behind first mortgages in priority of repayment) the first mortgagee generally has a veto on the creation of second mortgages.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ded606c0cebdfa826fce881e5532323",
"text": "\"To some extent, I suppose, most people are okay with paying Some taxes. But, as they teach in Intro to Economics, \"\"Decisions are made on the margin\"\". Few are honestly expecting to get away with paying no taxes at all. They are instead concerned about how much they spend on taxes, and how effectively. The classic defense of taxes says \"\"Roads and national defense and education and fire safety are all important.\"\" This is not really the problem that people have with taxes. People have problems with gigantic ongoing infrastructure boondoggles that cost many times what they were projected to cost (a la Boston's Big Dig) while the city streets aren't properly paved. People don't have big problems with a city-run garbage service; they have problems with the garbagemen who get six-figure salaries plus a guaranteed union-protected job for life and a defined-benefit pension plan which they don't contribute a penny to (and likewise for their health plans). People don't have a big problem with paying for schools; they have a big problem with paying more than twice the national average for schools and still ending up with miserable schools (New Jersey). People have a problem when the government issues bonds, invests the money in the stock market for the public employee pension plan, projects a 10% annual return, contractually guarantees it to the employees, and then puts the taxpayers on the hook when the Dow ends up at 11,000 instead of ~25,000 (California). And people have a problem with the attitude that when they don't pay taxes they're basically stealing that money, or that tax cuts are morally equivalent to a handout, and the insinuation that they're terrible people for trying to keep some of their money from the government.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
02d9e8acb2820b38b294ca4fc6cf71ac
|
What are some sources of information on dividend schedules and amounts?
|
[
{
"docid": "6efc06d196afec374bb60ee6e801f6e6",
"text": "I second the Yahoo! Finance key stats suggestion, but I like Morningstar even better: http://quote.morningstar.com/stock/s.aspx?t=roic They show projected yield, based on the most recent dividend; the declared and ex-dividend dates, and the declared amount; and a table of the last handful of dividend payments. Back to Yahoo, if you want to see the whole dividend history, select Historical Prices, and from there, select Dividends Only. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=ROIC&a=10&b=3&c=2009&d=00&e=4&f=2012&g=v",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "28fd1acdbc2eb2164ba1402e0d88a13a",
"text": "There are dividend newsletters that aggregate dividend information for interested investors. Other than specialized publications, the best sources for info are, in my opinion:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "16b63e18f2e95db3e1bdd38ff0c20108",
"text": "You can use Yahoo! Finance to pull this information in my use. It is listed under Key Statistics -> Dividends & Splits. For example here is Exxon Mobile (XOM): Dividend Payout Information",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f546a579450b87a61ba2b7d0f2569303",
"text": "\"I have 3 favorite sites that I use. http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/mcd/dividend-history - lists the entire history of dividends and what dates they were paid so you can predict when future dividends will be paid. http://www.dividend.com/dividend-stocks/services/restaurants/mcd-mcdonalds/ - this site lists key stats like dividend yield, and number of years dividend has increased. If the next dividend is announced, it shows the number of days until the ex-dividend date, the next ex-div and payment date and amount. If you just want to research good dividend stocks to get into, I would highly recommend the site seekingalpha.com. Spend some time reading the articles on that site under the dividends section. Make sure you read the comments on each article to make sure the author is not way off base. Finally, my favorite tool for researching good dividend stocks is the CCC Lists produced by Seeking Alpha's David Fish. It is a giant spreadsheet of stocks that have been increasing dividends every year for 5+, 10+, or 25+ years. The link to that spreadsheet is here: http://dripinvesting.org/tools/tools.asp under \"\"U.S. Dividend Champions\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d65e2d5329fa3d2f3b1c4b2a853847b7",
"text": "\"Yahoo Finance is definitely a good one, and its ultimately the source of the data that a lot of other places use (like the iOS Stocks app), because of their famous API. Another good dividend website is Dividata.com. It's a fairly simple website, free to use, which provides tons of dividend-specific info, including the highest-yield stocks, the upcoming ex-div dates, and the highest-rated stocks based on their 3-metric rating system. It's a great place to find new stocks to investigate, although you obviously don't want to stop there. It also shows dividend payment histories and \"\"years paying,\"\" so you can quickly get an idea of which stocks are long-established and which may just be flashes in the pan. For example: Lastly, I've got a couple of iOS apps that really help me with dividend investing: Compounder is a single-stock compound interest calculator, which automatically looks up a stock's info and calculates a simulated return for a given number of years, and Dividender allows you to input your entire portfolio and then calculates its growth over time as a whole. The former is great for researching potential stocks, running scenarios, and deciding how much to invest, while the latter is great for tracking your portfolio and making plans regarding your investments overall.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "16b0f346130714809d8295fe35c92f4d",
"text": "\"Dividend-paying securities generally have predictable cash flows. A telecom, electric or gas utility is a great example. They collect a fairly predictable amount of money and sells goods at a fairly predictable or even regulated markup. It is easy for these companies to pay a consistent dividend since the business is \"\"sticky\"\" and insulated by cyclical factors. More cyclic investments like the Dow Jones Industrial Average, Gold, etc are more exposed to the crests and troughs of the economy. They swing with the economy, although not always on the same cycle. The DJIA is a basket of 30 large industrial stocks. Gold is a commodity that spikes when people are faced with uncertainty. The \"\"Alpha\"\" and \"\"Beta\"\" of a stock will give you some idea of the general behavior of a stock against the entire market, when the market is trending up and down respectively.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4ed058f7de8d238c01c3ce90f9ae86b7",
"text": "\"Someone (I forget who) did a study on classifying total return by the dividend profiles. In descending order by category, the results were as follows: 1) Growing dividends. These tend to be moderate yielders, say 2%-3% a year in today's markets. Because their dividends are starting from a low level, the growth of dividends is much higher than stocks in the next category. 2) \"\"Flat\"\" dividends. These tend to be higher yielders, 5% and up, but growing not at all, like interest on bonds, or very slowly (less than 2%-3% a year). 3) No dividends. A \"\"neutral\"\" posture. 4) Dividend cutters. Just \"\"bad news.\"\"\"",
"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": "d424b29f29d724e29c526bee6f6ce5bf",
"text": "The yield on Div Data is showing 20% ((3.77/Current Price)*100)) because that only accounts for last years dividend. If you look at the left column, the 52 week dividend yield is the same as google(1.6%). This is calculated taking an average of n number of years. The data is slightly off as one of those sites would have used an extra year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "add0a2e26607e3e2f5a0795ea12c2485",
"text": "I also prefer to crunch the numbers myself. Here are some resources:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1aa6e57fcc88ff4c8206e366d19db581",
"text": "As mentioned, dividends are a way of returning value to shareholders. It is a conduit of profit as companies don't legitimately control upward appreciation in their share prices. If you can't wrap your head around the risk to the reward, then this simply means you partially fit the description for a greater investment risk profile, so you need to put down Warren Buffett's books and Rich Dad Poor Dad and get an investment book that fits your risk profile.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f2b2cd5d67aa4c7040942dcefbcbc302",
"text": "The biggest issue with Yahoo Finance is the recent change to the API in May. The data is good quality, includes both dividend/split adjusted and raw prices, but it's much more difficult to pull the data with packages like R quantmod than before. Google is fine as well, but there are some missing data points and you can't unadjust the prices (or is it that they're all unadjusted and you can't get adjusted? I can't recall). I use Google at home, when I can't pull from Bloomberg directly and when I'm not too concerned with accuracy. Quandl seems quite good but I haven't tried them. There's also a newer website called www.alphavantage.co, I haven't tried them yet either but their data seems to be pretty good quality from what I've heard.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "46651b3b3476d6ee2c361efaaa80b1bb",
"text": "It's difficult to compile free information because the large providers are not yet permitted to provide bulk data downloads by their sources. As better advertising revenue arrangements that mimic youtube become more prevalent, this will assuredly change, based upon the trend. The data is available at money.msn.com. Here's an example for ASX:TSE. You can compare that to shares outstanding here. They've been improving the site incrementally over time and have recently added extensive non-US data. Non-US listings weren't available until about 5 years ago. I haven't used their screener for some years because I've built my own custom tools, but I will tell you that with a little PHP knowledge, you can build a custom screener with just a few pages of code; besides, it wouldn't surprise me if their screener has increased in power. It may have the filter you seek already conveniently prepared. Based upon the trend, one day bulk data downloads will be available much like how they are for US equities on finviz.com. To do your part to hasten that wonderful day, I recommend turning off your adblocker on money.msn and clicking on a worthy advertisement. With enough revenue, a data provider may finally be seduced into entering into better arrangements. I'd much rather prefer downloading in bulk unadulterated than maintain a custom screener. money.msn has been my go to site for mult-year financials for more than a decade. They even provide limited 10-year data which also has been expanded slowly over the years.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f8ff70696e06a1a1df44938f4de14eb",
"text": "If you have access, factset and bloomberg have this. However, these aren't standardized due to non-existent reporting regulations, therefore each company may choose to categorize regions differently. This makes it difficult to work with a large universe, and you'll probably end up doing a large portion manually anyways.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f86a8a4bb3fa8d170e7d2cb5f67b104",
"text": "Thanks for your thorough reply. Basically, I found a case study in one of my old finance workbooks from school and am trying to complete it. So it's not entirely complicated in the sense of a full LBO or merger model. That being said, the information that they provide is Year 1 EBITDA for TargetCo and BuyerCo and a Pro-Forma EBITDA for the consolidated company @ Year 1 and Year 4 (expected IPO). I was able to get the Pre-Money and Post-Money values and the Liquidation values (year 4 IPO), as well as the number of shares. I can use EBITDA to get EPS (ebitda/share in this case) for both consolidated and stand-alone @ Year 1, but can only get EPS for consolidated for all other years. Given the information provided. One of the questions I have is do I do anything with my liquidation values for an accretion/dilution analysis or is it all EPS?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "04870e2e53ff714d4ec85e6dec4a22ee",
"text": "One big difference: Interest is contracted. They can change the rate in the future but for any given time period you know what you're going to get. Dividends are based on how the company did, there is no agreed-upon amount.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2136538e1c183dd41f933085eadd0b7f",
"text": "\"The mathematics site, WolframAlpha, provides such data. Here is a link to historic p/e data for Apple. You can chart other companies simply by typing \"\"p/e code\"\" into the search box. For example, \"\"p/e XOM\"\" will give you historic p/e data for Exxon. A drop-down list box allows you to select a reporting period : 2 years, 5 years, 10 years, all data. Below the chart you can read the minimum, maximum, and average p/e for the reporting period in addition to the dates on which the minimum and maximum were applicable.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ebd7b8b4d4c3a2ee667131466eae36f4",
"text": "I second @DumbCoder, every company seems to have its own way of displaying the next dividend date and the actual dividend. I keep track of this information and try my best to make it available for free through my little iphone web app here http://divies.nazabe.com",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "34e4ff8c31dc911644bb906c3fa47495",
"text": "No - there are additional factors involved. Note that the shares on issue of a company can change for various reasons (such as conversion/redemption of convertible securities, vesting of restricted employee shares, conversion of employee options, employee stock purchase programs, share placements, buybacks, mergers, rights issues etc.) so it is always worthwhile checking SEC announcements for the company if you want an exact figure. There may also be multiple classes of shares and preferred securities that have different levels of dividends present. For PFG, they filed a 10Q on 22 April 2015 and noted they had 294,385,885 shares outstanding of their common stock. They also noted for the three months ended March 31 2014 that dividends were paid to both common stockholders and preferred stockholders and that there were Series A preferred stock (3 million) and Series B preferred stock (10 million), plus a statement: In February 2015, our Board of Directors authorized a share repurchase program of up to $150.0 million of our outstanding common stock. Shares repurchased under these programs are accounted for as treasury stock, carried at cost and reflected as a reduction to stockholders’ equity. Therefore the exact amount of dividend paid out will not be known until the next quarterly report which will state the exact amount of dividend paid out to common and preferred shareholders for the quarter.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e99da3dcb69407b14e31d57a876e9de",
"text": "\"Yea. Almost every form I fill out wants to know \"\"Employer Name\"\". They don't even bother checking \"\"Are you Self Employed\"\". Of course, I end up writing \"\"Self Employed\"\" in employer name field anyway. In the United States, it is even harder because EVERY state has their own labor and employment laws. You are a freelancer but what if you need to travel to a client site in a different state. Bam, you gotta file taxes for that state as well even if you made like a few hundred bucks. Too much red tape and it is really hard to change.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
047f0f057d4c0e6c0cf600bf8af8fe94
|
Using credit cards online: is it safe?
|
[
{
"docid": "cc29b3625d992e08e17d8740d18e3086",
"text": "You're right that someone who, say, photographed the front of your card at the store could use it to make some online purchases. Schemes like Visa's 3-D Secure provide additional online security by having you enter your password on the issuer's website, but they aren't common yet in the US. But as littleadv says, you as the cardholder generally aren't liable for fraud (except $50 in some cases). Just be sure to check your statement monthly and notify the issuer of any fraud within 60 days. To issuers, fraud losses are fairly predictable, and the cost is acceptable.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "44eeacf3e01e8a9cfbae847a310f1752",
"text": "So, my questions: Are payment cards provide sufficient security now? Yes. If so, how is that achieved? Depending on your country's laws, of course. In most places (The US and EU, notably), there's a statutory limit on liability for fraudulent charges. For transactions when the card is not present, proving that the charge is not fraudulent is merchants' task. Why do online services ask for all those CVV codes and expiration date information, if, whenever you poke the card out of your wallet, all of its information becomes visible to everyone in the close area? What can I do to secure myself? Is it? Try to copy someones credit card info next time you're in the line at the local grocery store. BTW, some of my friends tend to rub off the CVV code from the cards they get immediately after receiving; nevertheless, it could have already been written down by some unfair bank employee. Rubbish.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "267b4402f53ee29f4dc1807766846c22",
"text": "\"Why do online services ask for all those CVV codes and expiration date information, if, whenever you poke the card out of your wallet, all of its information becomes visible to everyone in the close area? What can I do to secure myself? I'd guess that's to protect the card company, not you. The number of the card is guessable, but each other bit of information makes it much harder to guess (the CVV code makes it ~1000 times harder, the expiration date makes it about 50-100 times harder). Since you wouldn't be responsible for the payment anyway, adding security for online transactions provides the company with less liability. As for the security of your information online, that's trickier. It depends entirely on the site you're using whether they've implemented the appropriate security measures or not (and, given the SSL attacks we've seen, even that might not help). (source: I'm a web developer, and have worked on payments systems before that implemented the security mandated by the cards). At the very least never, ever type in your information on a non-https site (there's normally a little \"\"lock\"\" icon that will display if you're on HTTPS instead of HTTP).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1b589743eea1b2902666058542dc64af",
"text": "The answer: don't use your actual card number. Some banks offer virtual credit card numbers (services like Apple Pay are functionally the same). Bank of America's virtual cards work like this: The virtual card number is different from your actual card number, so the merchant never sees your real card number. In fact, the merchant cannot even tell that you are using a virtual card. You can set the maximum amount to be charged. You can set the expiration date from 2 to 12 months. Once the merchant has made a charge on that virtual card, only THAT MERCHANT can make any further charges on that same virtual card. It is not possible to discover the real card number from the virtual card number. So the result is that your risk is reduced to the merchant not delivering the order, or charging too much (but not over the limit you set). There is nothing to be stolen since your real info never goes over the internet, and once a merchant has used the virtual card once, no other merchant can use it. Other banks may have virtual cards which have fewer features. The only DISadvantage of this is that you have to go to the bank's website whenever you want to make a purchase from a new merchant. But you don't have to worry about them stealing your real credit card information.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "56b01badf3f52009978c270470a6887f",
"text": "There's no requirement to use these OTP systems to process Internet transactions. Some merchants are using them, some are not. PayPal does not since they are not the receiver of the money but rather a merchant processor - so they don't assume any risk anyway and wouldn't bother.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "99b2e09db1f6383c04614ec2f30ed333",
"text": "\"Most cards, through most banks, already have limits on how much you might be liable for if the card is misused, and have mechanisms for \"\"charging back\"\" unauthorized transactions. I'm not sure using a prepaid card would significantly improve your security.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c22d700fbd117eef17a7c1ab81b51933",
"text": "There are API libraries available to various banks in various programming languages. For example, in Perl there are many libraries in the Finance::Bank:: namespace. Some of these use screen-scraping libraries and talk to the GUI underneath, so they are vulnerable to any changes the bank makes to their interface, but some of the better banks do seem to provide back-end interfaces, which can then be used directly. In either case, you should still be sure that the transactions are secure. Some bank sites have appallingly bad security. :( A good place to start is to call your bank and ask if they offer any programming APIs for accessing their back end.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a41c9f182f2aa4a77e16a1f6c6a69eb4",
"text": "USAA does - that's my bank. Wells Fargo tries to determine whether the online activity is a risk; if it is, they'll require an SMS code or phoned code be entered. You can get a fairly definitive list of online companies at twofactorauth.org.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "91efabcf23d61de83dcd17e01d95c055",
"text": "\"I think what you are looking for is a secured credit card. They are mostly used by people who have ruined their credit and want to rebuild it, but it might also serve your purpose. Essentially you deposit some money in an account and the credit card can be used up to the amount left in the account. Each month when you pay the bill, it resets the balance that you can charge. Also, many credit card providers also offer \"\"disposable\"\" or \"\"one use\"\" credit card numbers for the express purpose of using it online. It still gets charged against your regular account, but you get a separate number that can only be used for up to X dollars of transactions.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8be8ac7ecbba0a10b649f7028804137c",
"text": "I've had a card cloned 15 years ago and used to buy over 5k of goods in another country. So the inconvenience of having a card closed and re-issued is quite annoying even though the charges were reversed and I was made whole. But these days most CC fraud isn't from a card scanned by a waiter and cloned then used elsewhere. Mostly it is poorly secured databases or point of sale terminal malware. The latter is getting curtailed by chipped cards and the largest source of fraud is now online transactions (so called card not present) where the merchant has your CC number. If their system is breached the bad guys have a wealth of card numbers they sell in an E-bay like site on the dark web. This is where the Citi virtual CC comes in handy. Here's how it works to protect the bank and the hassles you go through when a card as to be re-issued. Citi's virtual CCs let you generate an actual credit card, complete with security code and expiration date. What is unique is that once the virtual CC is used it can only be used subsequently by that same merchant and is declined by any other. You can also set a total limit on what the merchant can charge as well as an expiration date. I use them for all my online accounts because they are, for all practical purposes, immune to the malware that steals CC info. Even if somehow the virtual CC is used before the merchant makes the initial charge that locks in the CC to their account the charge can be reversed without closing your actual card which has a different number. You can manage multiple Citi virtual CCs and view charge status, close, or adjust limits over time so managing them is quite easy with no risk to your primary account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c8f019a27ed05f78e83063182b5f864b",
"text": "In Addition to @JoeTaxpayer's answer, in the UK credit cards offer additional protection than if you were to pay by debit card. This includes (but is not limited to) getting your money back if the company you've bought something from goes bust before your order is complete.",
"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": "55ffd718f6d814e05d9b1f6be1336852",
"text": "\"With regard to your edit (although I didn't downvote): one way to reduce the security risk is to separate the payment from the ability to drain your account. A considerable part of the security risk is inherent in giving people a number which is directly linked to a bank account where you keep all your money. If you don't want that risk, don't do that. Instead of (or in addition to) trying to reduce the chance of fraud, you can reduce the impact of fraud, even if it occurs, by not paying for things using the details of an account where you have all your money. Trying to protect against fraud while keeping all your money in the account is sort of like carrying around thousands of dollars in cash in your wallet and then worrying about how to defend against robbery. Yes, you can carry a weapon or hire a bodyguard, but it's probably simpler to just not carry that much money in the first place. You already mentioned one solution with your option #1, which is to just keep a small amount of money in a separate account and use that for online payments. Assuming you can easily transfer money in and out of this account via online banking, this effectively is what you say you want in your edit: you log in to your bank online, but rather than \"\"informing it\"\" you're about to make a payment, you just transfer money in. You'll probably have to keep a small amount of money in the account to keep it open, but if this is an important issue for you, that shouldn't be that big a deal. Another solution is a credit card. With a credit card, you simply make the payment online. In the US, if the merchant (or someone else stealing the info) makes fraudulent charges, the credit card company assumes the liability and the consumer suffers only the inconvenience of having to get a new card issued. I don't know what the UK laws are regarding credit vs. debit fraud, but some sites I found seem to suggest that credit cards have fraud protection in the UK as well. This is probably worth looking into if you are concerned about fraud.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e2725a626169f8bb0452fe6787d91dd",
"text": "The credit limit is not going to be the problem; the daily spending limit is more likely be tripped first. I'm not a lawyer but if you are not responsible for the credit card details being leaked it is very unlikely that the bank will be able to charge you for fraudulent spending on the card. The important thing is to notify the bank as soon as possible once you realize there is a problem and if practical keep evidence of that notification, it will then be the banks problem to fix. From my understanding Singapore has relatively good consumer protection and it is unlikely the bank will get very far even if they try to charge you.",
"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": "f668293a44aa11b7f4bf48fcf050ab1d",
"text": "If I remember correctly my own experience : no you can't. Paypal will block the money even if it's only for online payement.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "28349274456d5728c148fd4f35165880",
"text": "This is a question with a flawed premise. Credit cards do have two-factor authentication on transactions they consider more at risk to be fraudulent. I've had several times when I bought something relatively expensive and unusual for me, where the CC either initially declined and sent me a text asking to confirm immediately (after which they would approve the charges), or approved but sent me a text right away asking to confirm (after which they'd automatically dispute if I told them to). The first is legitimately what you are asking for; the second is presumably for less risky but still some risk transactions). Ultimately, the reason they don't allow it for every transaction is that not enough people would make use of it to be worth their time to implement it. Particularly given it slows down the transaction significantly (and look at the complaints at the ~10-15 seconds extra EMV authentication takes, imagine that as a minute or more), I think you'd get a single digit percentage of people using that service.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d60f647cfc6e70cf3e87b185dc54f7a",
"text": "One can't, this is a systemic problem and when One bank goes pop, it drags a couple down with it. While swaps should have worked to keep the system safe at one time, when money was real, they now act as anchors that drag the entire chain down because the volume of funny money debt is so great its just not ever getting paid back. Best bet is to burn the Fed down",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "75e2293fcce852f69103ce344758c510",
"text": "\"A slower approach: keep any discussion of income out of it to begin with. Remaining within discretionary income Z, just go back to the charities your SO has proposed, and say that you would like to set up monthly donations. You would also like to donate a similar amount to charities of your choice. Say what bills your proposed contribution is less than. Once your SO has got used to the idea of charitable giving as a regular expenditure, and has got back the grateful charity newsletters and whatnot, then address the issue of how much you \"\"should\"\" give by comparison with income. Whenever you do consider income, your SO doesn't really seem to want anything to do with this. So I'd approach it as seeking agreement. Eric Lippert has a more long-term approach for seeking involvement. So, present the following information however seems best, probably with a pre-amble establishing that you both want to support charities, so the question is how much and how to get it done. \"\"We earn U. This means we are fortunate enough to be in the top V% of households. Our income breaks down as: This being the case, we can afford to be generous. I would like us to give to the charities that we each care about, to the extent of N. Charitable giving is important to me because ... The amount I suggest we give is less than what we spend annually on ..., and I chose that amount because ... \"\" Depending on the tax situation, you may then have to explain how N from gross income translates to an actual amount available to give to charity. Or charitable giving might be tax free. If the N you want is greater than Z-A then it might be wise to suggest a smaller amount, but ask that you both make a plan in increase it in a year or whatever. Similarly if N strikes your SO as a scarily large number then I would think the best thing to do is just reduce it so that at least you start somewhere. If Y is low or zero, and your SO suffers from anxiety about financial security, then increasing Y at the same time might be a good way to offset the fear of N. When stating income you might want to exclude any income from savings/investments. Although legally it's income your SO might see it psychologically as capital gains and hence touching it would endanger your savings/investment/pension returns. Even though it's all fungible.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
1a8ab46ff75ca3351ad17f2a25189956
|
Book or web site resources for an absolute beginner to learn about stocks and investing?
|
[
{
"docid": "a06e5c925c92154d705db524fe9cb372",
"text": "The Motley Fool's How to Invest How To Invest Benjamin Graham's The Intelligent Investor The Intelligent Investor If you like The Intelligent Investor then try Benjamin's Security Analysis. But that one is not a beginner book.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9268699a8e454c4bfa37870d0f661398",
"text": "If you just want to save for retirement, start with a financial planning book, like this one: http://www.amazon.com/Smart-Simple-Financial-Strategies-People/dp/0743269942 and here's my editorial on the investing part: http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ If you're thinking of spending time stock-picking or trading for fun, then there are lots of options. Web site: Morningstar Premium (http://morningstar.com) has very good information. They analyze almost all large-cap stocks and some small caps too, plus mutual funds and ETFs, and have some good general information articles. It doesn't have the sales-pitch hot-blooded tone of most other sites. Morningstar analyzes companies from a value investing point of view which is probably what you want unless you're day trading. Also they analyze funds, which are probably the most practical investment. Books: If you want to be competent (in the sense that a professional investor trying to beat the market or control risk vs. the market would be) then I thought the CFA curriculum was pretty good: However, this will quickly teach you how much is involved in being competent. The level 1 curriculum when I did it was 6 or 7 thick textbooks, equivalent to probably a college semester courseload. I didn't do level 2 or 3. I don't think level 1 was enough to become competent, it's just enough to learn what you don't know. The actual CFA charter requires all three levels and years of work experience. If you more want to dabble, then Benjamin Graham's The Intelligent Investor certainly isn't a bad place to start, but you'd also want to read some efficient markets stuff (Random Walk Down Wall Street, or something by Bogle, or The Intelligent Asset Allocator http://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-Asset-Allocator-Portfolio-Maximize/dp/0071362363, are some options). It wouldn't be bad to just read a textbook like http://www.amazon.com/Investments-Irwin-Finance-Zvi-Bodie/dp/0256146381 which would be the much-abridged version of the CFA level 1 stuff. If you're into day trading / charting, then I don't know much about that at all, some of the other answers may have some ideas. I've never been able to find info on this that didn't seem like it had a sketchy sales pitch kind of vibe. Honestly in a world of high-frequency trading computers I'm skeptical this is something to get into. Unless you want to program HFT computers: http://howtohft.wordpress.com/",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7008b550403bc155de22a04bc7a30bb3",
"text": "\"There is only one book worth reading in my opinion: One Up on Wall Street. It's short and no other book even comes close to it for honesty, correctness and good sense. Also, it is written by the second most successful investor of all time, Peter Lynch. The Intelligent Investor has some good technical content, but the book is dated and a lot of it is irrelevant to the modern investment environment. When I was younger I used to ready books like this and when a friend of mine asked for investment advice. I said \"\"Look at stocks with a PE ratio of 5-10\"\". A few days later he comes back to me and says \"\"There are none\"\". Right. That pretty much sums up the problem with the I.I. Graham himself in interviews during the 1970s said that his book was obsolete and he no longer recommended those methods.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22af96183990e99ea272e24693ee0fa9",
"text": "The Winning Investor http://winninginvestor.quickanddirtytips.com/ This is a blog and a podcast. Load a bunch of these onto your iPod and start listening. Stikky Stock Charts http://www.amazon.com/Stikky-Stock-Charts-professionals-smart/dp/1932974008 This is a beginner's guide on how to read charts. Lots of charts, not too many words.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0b63109af1da36960a00830ab8c58c94",
"text": "Los Angeles Times Investing 101 http://www.latimes.com/business/la-moneylib,0,3098409.htmlstory Clark Howard's Investing Guide http://www.clarkhoward.com/news/clark-howard/personal-finance-credit/clarks-investment-guide/nFZK/",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7dad2954cd0f1d2bdec3fb269c948ed4",
"text": "Books are a great place to start, Jason Kelly's The Neatest Little Guide to Stock Market Investing will give you a broad foundation of the stock & bond market.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ab5e1c25f0ae028667ac6fd6f605c2b",
"text": "Those are some very broad questions and I don't think I can answer them completely, but I will add what I can. Barron's Finance and Investment Handbook is the best reference book I have found. It provides a basic description/definition for every type of investment available. It covers stocks, preferred stocks, various forms of bonds as well as mortgage pools and other exotic instruments. It has a comprehensive dictionary of finance terms as well. I would definitely recommend getting it. The question about how people invest today is a huge one. There are people who simply put a monthly amount into a mutual fund and simply do that until retirement on one side and professional day traders who move in and out of stocks or commodities on a daily basis on the other.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "18fdf9e3dfc67a60abdd1702ae7f00b6",
"text": "Start at Investopedia. Get basic clarification on all financial terms and in some cases in detail. But get a book. One recommendation would be Hull. It is a basic book, but quite informative. Likewise you can get loads of material targeted at programmers. Wilmott's Forum is a fine place to find coders as well as finance guys.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f4d2782016a99449f0364ecead401b2",
"text": "https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/most-important-finance-books-2017-1 Bloomberg, finacial times, chat with traders, calculated risk, reuters, wsj, cnbc(sucks), bnn (if canadian) Audio books on youtube helped me read a lot of finance books in a short amount of time, listen while working out. One thing that helped me stand out at my student terms (4th year here) was learning outside of the classroom and joining an investment club. Learning programming can help if thats a strength, but its really not needed and it can waste time if yoi wont reach a point to build tools. Other than that at 18 you have more direction than i did, good luck!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "008d38f36cb1fbdd6598ba45df4674a4",
"text": "I would recommend reading Intelligent Investor first. It was written slightly more recently (1949) than Security Analysis (1934). More important is that a recently revised edition* of Intelligent Investor was published. The preface and appendix were written by Warren Buffett. Intelligent Investor is more practical as an introduction for a novice. You may decide not to read Security Analysis at all, as it seems more like an academic text or professional's guide i.e. for accounting. Benjamin Graham's Intelligent Investor remains relevant. It is used, successfully, as a guide for value investing, despite the hysteria of market sentiment and day-to-day variations, even extreme volatility. For example, I just read a nice article about applying the value investing principles extolled in Intelligent Investor a few weeks ago. It was written in the context of current markets, which is amazing, to be so applicable, despite the passage of decades. For reference, you might want to glance at this book review (published in March 2010!) of the original 1934 edition of Security Analysis. * The URL links to a one-paragraph summary by U.S. News & World Report. It does not link to a book sales website!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e115213cea0d6d0665e16da2d9d06d79",
"text": "I'd go to specialist community web sites such as The Motley Fool and read their investing articles, and their forums, and everything. You cannot get enough information and advice to get going, as it is really easy to think investing is easy and returns are guaranteed. A lot of people found that out in 2008 and 2000! For example, they have a 'beginners portfolio' that will teach you the very basics of investing (though not necessarily what to invest in)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "164f357b28487a92dd220457fa1bda24",
"text": "\"I tell you how I started as an investor: read the writings of probably the best investor of the history and become familiarized with it: Warren Buffett. I highly recommend \"\"The Essays of Warren Buffett\"\", where he provides a wise insight on how a company generates value, and his investment philosophy. You won't regret it! And also, specially in finance, don't follow the advice from people that you don't know, like me.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a9e85fef9a7ce8d96c6130af5e3c8ef",
"text": "If you're looking to invest using stocks and shares, I recommend you set up an account at something like Google Finance - it is free and user-friendly with lots of online help. You can set up some 'virtual cash' and put it into a number of stocks which it'll track for you. Review your progress and close some positions and open others as often as you want, but remember to enter some figure for the cost of the transaction, say $19.95 for a trade, to discourage you from high-frequency trading. Take it as seriously as you want - if you stick to your original cash input, you'll see real results. If you throw in more virtual cash than you could in real life, it'll muddle the outcome. After some evaluation period, say 3 months, look back at your progress. You will learn a tremendous amount from doing this and don't need to have read any books or spent any money to get started. Knowing which stocks to pick and when to buy or sell is much more subtle - see other answers for suggestions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc6465a444d8872f0a0363390dbde207",
"text": "\"Good ones, no there are not. Go to a bookstore and pick up a copy of \"\"The Intelligent Investor.\"\" It was last published in 1972 and is still in print and will teach you everything you need to know. If you have accounting skills, pick up a copy of \"\"Security Analysis\"\" by Benjamin Graham. The 1943 version was just released again with a 2008 copyright and there is a 1987 version primarily edited by Cottle (I think). The 1943 book is better if you are comfortable with accounting and the 1987 version is better if you are not comfortable and feel you need more direction. I know recent would seem better, but the fact that there was a heavy demand in 2008 to reprint a 1943 book tells you how good it is. I think it is in its 13th printing since 2008. The same is true for the 72 and 87 book. Please don't use internet tutorials. If you do want to use Internet tutorials, then please just write me a check now for all your money. It will save me effort from having to take it from you penny by penny because you followed bad advice and lost money. Someone has to capture other people's mistakes. Please go out and make money instead. Prudence is the mother of all virtues.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7739215dc5ad176dd502605902b72e7a",
"text": "As a follow-up, I ended up buying: * Financial Modeling and Valuation: A Practical Guide to Investment Banking and Private Equity (Pignataro, Paul; Hardcover) * Mergers, Acquisitions, Divestitures, and Other Restructurings, + Website (Pignataro, Paul; Hardcover) * The Essential CFO: A Corporate Finance Playbook (Nolop, Bruce P.; Paperback)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a978da7bde624c5d93998b4f2d709006",
"text": "Try wallstreetsurvivor.com It gives you $100k of pretend money when you sign up, using which you can take various courses on the website. It will teach you how to buy/sell stocks and build your portfolio. I am not sure if they do have Options Trading specifically, but their course line up is great!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "699745e7c7937d1720f0f1a34cb89933",
"text": "Hi guys, This is an app I've been working on over the summer. It's my belief that a lot of people want to learn about the stock market but in the end can't because they're turned off by long walls of text you get when you Google about them/read a textbook. I know there are other simplified solutions out there but they're not widely adopted yet and I don't think there are any (?) that were made app first. Anyway, check it out if you can. Appreciate all feedback/comments.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "691d30be5ea3ac2d0d01dfe13974d43d",
"text": "For economics I recommend mises or these videos to get you started. For daily critical analysis of financial markets, keynesian government policies, and other interesting reading I recommend zerohedge. I've learned more about financial markets and government regulations by reading the comments section on zerohedge articles than anywhere else on the internet. The comment section is very raw (i.e. lots of fucking cursing) but there are some jewels of information in there. For daily critical thinking I suggest lewrockwell.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "012987ba2771a182c17825ec9343c062",
"text": "I’ll start with what worked for me, to get me hooked. This list is by no means exhaustive. *One Up On Wall Street* by Peter Lynch discusses competitive advantages and staying close to the story of a business. Explores the concept of ‘buy what you know’. He has also written *Beating the Street*. *The Drunkard’s Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives* by Leonard Mlodinow is not dissimilar to *A Random Walk Down Wall Street*, but I preferred this book as it explores the concepts of randomness and survivors bias. *Against the Gods* by Peter Bernstein is a dense book, but in my opinion is the definitive text on the development of numbers, probability theory, and risk management. I absolutely love this book. *The Most Important Thing* by Howard Marks is immensely readable, enjoyable, and looks at value investing for the long run. Howard Marks has been a macro behavioural investor before behavioural investing was a thing. Speaking of behavioural biases, *Thinking, Fast and Slow* by Daniel Kahneman is a spectacular look at how your brain’s quick-trigger responses can often be wrong. On the subject of behaviour and biases, *Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion* by Robert Cialdini is another topic-defining book More books by long term veteran professional investment managers that should be enjoyed: - *The Little Book That (Still) Beats the Market* by Joel Greenblatt - *Beat the Crowd* by Ken Fisher - *Big Money Thinks Small* by Joel Tillinghast - *Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits* by Philip A. Fisher - *The Little Book of Behavioural Investing* by James Montier - *Margin of Safety* by Seth Klarman And I’ll be banned from this forum without mentioning *The Intelligent Investor* by Benjamin Graham. As per some other comments, my personal opinion is that books that describe events or periods of time like *Liars’ Poker* [80s Junk Bonds], *The Big Short* [Financial Crisis], *When Genius Failed* [the LTCM collapse, excellent read by Rogers Lowenstein], *All The Devils Are Here* [by McLean and Nocera, another Financial Crisis book, much better than Lewis’s, IMO] are all educational and quite entertaining, but don’t honestly have much to do with the actual nuts and bolts of the real financial industry. Enjoy!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1064fdecc92155663d3b8808178a2388",
"text": "\"First off, monozok is right, at the end of the day, you should not accept what anyone says to do without your money - take their suggestions as directions to research and decide for yourself. I also do not think what you have is too little to invest, but that depends on how liquid you need to be. Often in order to make a small amount of money grow via investments, you have to be willing to take all the investment profits from that principle and reinvest it. Thus, can you see how your investment ability is governed by the time you plan to spend without that money? They mantra that I have heard from many people is that the longer you are able to wait, the more 'risk' you can take. As someone who is about the same age as you (I'm 24) I can't exactly say yet that what I have done is sure fire for the long term, but I suggest you adopt a few principles: 1) Go read \"\"A Random Walk Down Wall Street\"\" by Burton G. Malkiel. A key point for you might be that you can do better than most of these professional investors for hire simply by putting more money in a well selected index fund. For example, Vanguard is a nice online service to buy indexes through, but they may require a minimum. 2) Since you are young, if you go into any firm, bank, or \"\"financial planner,\"\" they will just think you are naive and try to get you to buy whatever is best for them (one of their mutual funds, money market accounts, annuities, some flashy cd). Don't. You can do better on your own and while it might be tempting because these options look more secure or well managed, most of the time you will barely make above inflation, and you will not have learned very much. 3) One exciting thin you should start learning now is about algorithmic trading because it is cool and super efficient. quantopian.com is a good platform for this. It is a fun community and it is also free. 4) One of the best ways I have found to watch the stock market is actually through a stock game app on my phone that has realtime stock price feed. Seeking Alpha has a good mobile app interface and it also connects you to news that has to do with the companies you are interested in.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
1f24c06b30ebf391f6f565f02cd4f3c3
|
What is the best use of “spare” money?
|
[
{
"docid": "d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e",
"text": "",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d636f7f7ecf7b891f7c3dac59f4a737c",
"text": "Congratulations! You're making enough money to invest. There are two easy places to start: I recommend against savings accounts because they will quite safely lose your money: the inflation rate is usually higher than the interest rate on a savings account. You may have twice as much money after 50 years, but if everything costs four times as much, then you've lost buying power. If, in the course of learning about investing, you'd like to try buying individual stocks, do it only with money you wouldn't mind losing. Index funds will go down slightly if one of the companies in that index fails entirely, but the stock of a failed company is worthless.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd46514c70ab8b5eb92be9dea2566c09",
"text": "\"With 40% of your take-home available, you have a golden opportunity here. Actually two, and the second builds out easily from the first. Golden Opportunity # 1: Layoff Immunity Ok, not really immunity. Most people don't think of themselves getting laid off, and don't prepare. Of course it may not happen to you, but it can. It's happened to me twice. The layoff itself is an emotional burden (getting rejected is hard), but then you're suddenly faced with a gut-wrenching, \"\"how am I gonna pay the rent????\"\" If you have no savings, it's terrifying. Put yourself in that spot. Imagine that tomorrow, you're out of a job. For how many months could you pay your expenses with the money you have? Three months? One? Not even that? How about shooting for 12 months? It's really, really comforting to be able to say: \"\"I don't have to worry about it for a year\"\". 12 months saved up gives you emotional and financial stability, and it gives you options -- you don't have to take the first job that comes along. Now, saving 12 months of expenses is huge. But, you're in the wonderful spot where you can save 40% of your income. It would only take 2.5 years to save up a year's worth of income! But, actually, it's better than that. Because your 12-month Layoff Immunity fund doesn't have to include the amount for retirement, or taxes, or that 40% we're talking about. Your expenses are less than 60% of take-home -- you'd only need 12 months of that. So, you could have a fully funded 12-Month Layoff Immunity Fund only in a year and a half! Golden Opportunity #2: Freedom Fund Do you like your Job? Would you still do it, if you didn't need the money? If so, great. But if not, why not get yourself into a position where you don't need it? That is, build up enough money from saving and investing to where you can pay your expenses - forever - from your investments. The number to keep in mind is 25. Figure out your annual expenses, and multiply it by 25. That's the amount you'd need to never need a job again. (That works out to a 4% withdrawal rate, adjusting for inflation every year, with a low risk of running out of money. It's a rule of thumb, but smart people doing a lot of math worked it out.) Here you keep saving and investing that 40% in solid mutual funds in a regular, taxable account. Between your savings and the compounding returns off the investments, you could easily have a fully funded \"\"Freedom Fund\"\" by the time you're 50. In fact, by 45 isn't unreasonable. It could be even better. If you live in that high-rent area because of the job, and wouldn't mind living were the rents are lower once you quit, your target amount would be lower. Between that, working dedicatedly toward this goal, and maybe a little luck, you might even be able to do this by age 40. Final Thoughts There are other things you could put that money toward, like a house, of course. The key take-away here, is to save it, and invest it. You're in a unique position of being able to do that with 40% of your income. That's fabulous! But don't think it's the norm. Most people can't save that much, and, once you lose the ability to save that much, it's very difficult to get it back. Expenses creep in, lifestyle \"\"wants\"\" become \"\"needs\"\", and so on. If you get into the habit of spending it, it's very difficult to shrink your lifestyle back down - down to what right now you're perfectly comfortable with. So, spend some time figuring out what you want out of life -- and in the mean time, sock that 40% away.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e33d6cc87fcb2c47d6eb1a0b9675d66",
"text": "You may also want to consider short term, low risk investments. Rolling Certificate of Deposits can be good for this. They don't grow like an Index Fund but there's 0 risk and they will grow faster than your bank. For my bank as an example today's rates on my Money Market is 0.10% APY while the lowest CD (90 days) is 0.20% APY with a 5 year going up to 0.90% APY. It's not substantial by any stretch but its secure and the money would just be sitting in my bank otherwise. For more information look at: What is CD laddering and what are its pros and cons?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b1c24e36f701c54d0d64e560d2838b03",
"text": "\"There's a hellova lot to be said for investing in real estate (simple residential real estate), even though it's grandma's advice. The two critical elements are 1) it's the only realistic way for a civilian to get leverage. this is why it almost always blows away \"\"tinkering in the stock markets\"\" in the 10-year frame. 2) but perhaps more importantly - it's a really \"\"enforced\"\" saving plan. you just have to pay it off every month. There are other huge advantages like, it's the best possible equity for a civilian, so you can get loans in the future to start your dotcom, etc. Try to buy yourself a very modest little flat (perhaps to rent out?) or even something like a garage or storeroom. Real estate can crash, but it's very unlikely; it only happens in end of the world situations where it won't matter anyway. When real estate drops say 30% everyone yells about that being a \"\"crash\"\" - I've never, ever owned a stock that hasn't had 30% down times. Food for thought!\"",
"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": "435c3470e17746d6233f856852a9e7d9",
"text": "After retirement nobody want to get low on cash. So, the best way to stay safe is to make some investments. Compare the saving with regular expenses and invest the rest. You can put some money in short-term reserves such as bank accounts, market funds, and deposit certificates. You will not be able to make much money on it but, it will ensure the financing of at least two to three years. There’s no need to take the money out from stocks but, if the stocks are doing good and there is a possibility that there will be no further profits then you can think of taking them out otherwise leave it alone.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb592fe2d1053d02c5d2d66161179cb3",
"text": "\"US currency, today, can be used for useful things like selling a car, but there's nothing stopping you for trading it for something else. On edit; I've been thinking about this, and I think that the problem is that currency exists as a. edium to pay taxes. The usefulness of it for non-governmental transactions is a secondary benefit. However, without them full faith and credit ofma government somewhere the currency would be worthless. For example, see Zimbbwean currency or any non-convertible currency. *extra edit--altogether too many \"\"m's.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ffdf27fb9f7077c4a6d7ea0ba512f87f",
"text": "Three ideas: PayPal is probably the best/cheapest way to transfer small/medium amounts of money overseas.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "46ef1c349a7e585f5f3bd1e59c73d059",
"text": "Here's how I think about money. There are only 3 categories / contexts (buckets) that my earned money falls into. Savings is my emergency fund. I keep 6 months of total expenses (expenses are anything in the consumption bucket). You can be as detailed as you want with this area but I tend to leave a fudge factor. In other words, if I estimate that I spend approximately $3,000 a month in consumption dollars then I'll save $3,500 times 6 in the bank. This money needs to be liquid. Some people use a HELOC, other people use their ROTH contributions. In any case, you need to put this money some place you can get access to it in case you go from accumulation (income exceed expenses) to decumulation mode (expenses exceed income). This money is distinct from consumption which I will cover in paragraph three. Investments are stocks, bonds, income producing real estate, small businesses, etc. These dollars require a strategy. The strategy can include some form of asset allocation but more importantly a timeline. These are the dollars that are working for you. Each dollar placed here will multiply over time. Once you put a dollar here it shouldn't be taken out unless there is some sort of catastrophe that your savings can't handle or your timeline has been achieved. Notice that rental real estate is included so liquidating stocks to purchase rental real estate is NOT considered removing investment dollars. Just reallocating based on your asset allocation. This bucket includes 401k's, IRAs, all tax-sheltered accounts, non-sheltered brokerage accounts, and rental real estate. In general your primary residence is not included in this bucket. Some people include the equity of their primary residence in the investment column but it can complicate the equation and I prefer to leave it out. The consumption bucket is the most important bucket and the one you spend the most time with. It requires a budget. This includes your $5 magazine and your $200 bottle of wine. Anything in this bucket is gone. You can recover a portion of it by selling it on ebay for $3 (these are earned dollars) but the original $5 is still considered spent. The reason your thought process in this area is distinct from the other two, the decisions made in this area will have the biggest impact on your personal finances. Warren Buffett was famous for skimping on haircuts because they are worth thousands of dollars down the road if they are invested instead. Remember this is a zero-sum game so every $1 not consumed is placed in one of the other buckets. Once your savings bucket is full every dollar not consumed is sent to investments. Remember to include everything that does not fit in the other two buckets. Most people forget their car insurance, life insurance, tax bill at the end of the year, accountant bill, etc. In conclusion, there are three buckets. Savings, which serve as your emergency bucket. This money should not be touched unless you switch from accumulation to decumulation. Investments, which are your dollars that are working for you over time. They require a strategy and a timeline. Consumption, which are your monthly expenses. These dollars keep you alive and contribute to your enjoyment. This is a short explanation of my use of money. It can get as complicated and detailed as you want it to be but as long as you tag your dollars correctly you'll be okay IMHO. HTH.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "26939aa6eeca2b834916babe29f760bf",
"text": "At this stage of the game your best investment is yourself. Rather than putting it in stocks, use any spare money you have to get yourself the best education you can. See if you can drop that part-time job and give yourself more time to study. Or maybe you can go to a better, more expensive college. Or maybe college will give you some opportunity to travel and learn more that way. You don't want to exclude yourself from those opportunities by not having enough spare cash. So in short, spend what you need to get yourself the best education you can, and keep any spare money you have somewhere you can use it to take advantage of any opportunities that come your way.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca6173c58c16201cc1774fe3a875ea43",
"text": "\"I have been trying to find information about how banks \"\"create\"\" money by giving out loans while only having a portion of the money to lend. And any broader implications this may have (ie, all new money is debt?). And the implications of the the government increasing or decreasing the required reserve amount. I hope I explained that in a coherent way. BTW, I love the investopedia videos. If you can in any way emulate that technique, it should be a hit. good luck.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e155a7538f8822b59bcea7d7e2f5090d",
"text": "In addition to what others have said, I think it is important to consider that government retirement assistance (whatever it is called in each instance) is basically a promise that can be revoked. I talked to a retired friend of mine just yesterday and we got onto that subject; she mentioned that when she was young, the promise was for 90% of one's pay, paid by the government after retiring. It is very different today. Yes, you can gamble that you won't need the saved money, and thus decide not to save anything. What then if you do end up needing the money you did not set aside, but rather spent? You are just now graduating college, and assuming of course that you get a decently-paying job, are likely going to have loads more money than you are used to. If you make an agreement with yourself to set aside even just 10-15% of the difference in income right from the start, that is going to grow into a pretty sizable nest egg by the time you approach retirement age. Then, you will have the option of continuing to work (maybe part-time) or quitting in a way you would not have had otherwise. Now I'm going to pull numbers out of thin air, but suppose that you currently have $1000/month net, before expenses, and can get a job that pays $1800/month net starting out. 10-15% of the difference means you'll be saving around $100/month for retirement. In 35 years, assuming no return on investment (pessimistic, but works if returns match inflation) and no pay rises, that will still be over $40K. That's somewhere on the order of $150/month added to your retirement income for 25 years. Multiply with whatever inflation rate you think is likely if you prefer nominal values. It becomes even more noticable if you save a significant fraction of the additional pay; if you save 1/3 of the additional money (note that you still effectively get a 50% raise compared to what you have been living on before), that gives you a net income of $1500/month instead of $1800 ($500/month more rather than $800/month more) which grows into about $110K in 35 years assuming no return on investment. Nearly $400 per month for 25 years. $100 per week is hardly chump change in retirement, and it is still quite realistic for most people to save 30% of the money they did not have before.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eb6cf381a81bcc5bf1f0ada803b42b6f",
"text": "Gold and silver are for after the crisis, not during. Gold and silver are far more likely to be able to be exchanged for things you need, since they are rare, easily divided, etc. Getting land away from where the crap is happening is also good, but it's more than that. Say you have land somewhere. How will the locals view you if you move there to hunker down only when things go bad? They won't really trust you, and you'll inherit a new set of problems. Building relationships in an off-the-beaten-path area requires a time investment. Investing in lifestyle in general is good. Lifestyle isn't just toys, but it's privacy, peace of mind, relationships with people with whom you can barter skills, as well as the skills you might think you'd need to do more than just get by in whatever scenario you envision. For the immediate crisis, you'd better have the things you'll need for a few months. Stores probably won't be supplied on any regular basis, and the shelves will be bare. Trying to use gold or silver during the crisis just makes you a target for theft. With regard to food, it's best to get acclimated to a diet of what you'd have on hand. If you get freeze-dried food, eat it now, so that it's not a shock to your system when you have to eat it. (Can you tell I've been thinking about this? :) )",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8cc00e61174d102fff008e8fa1aad7fa",
"text": "\"For a two year time frame, a good insured savings account or a low-cost short-term government bond fund is most likely the way I would go. Depending on the specific amount, it may also be reasonable to look into directly buying government bonds. The reason for this is simply that in such a short time period, the stock market can be extremely volatile. Imagine if you had gone all in with the money on the stock market in, say, 2007, intending to withdraw the money after two years. Take a broad stock market index of your choice and see how much you'd have got back, and consider if you'd have felt comfortable sticking to your plan for the duration. Since you would likely be focused more on preservation of capital than returns during such a relatively short period, the risk of the stock market making a major (or even relatively minor) downturn in the interim would (should) be a bigger consideration than the possibility of a higher return. The \"\"return of capital, not return on capital\"\" rule. If the stock market falls by 10%, it must go up by 11% to break even. If it falls by 25%, it must go up by 33% to break even. If you are looking at a slightly longer time period, such as the example five years, then you might want to add some stocks to the mix for the possibility of a higher return. Still, however, since you have a specific goal in mind that is still reasonably close in time, I would likely keep a large fraction of the money in interest-bearing holdings (bank account, bonds, bond funds) rather than in the stock market. A good compromise may be medium-to-high-yield corporate bonds. It shouldn't be too difficult to find such bond funds that can return a few percentage points above risk-free interest, if you can live with the price volatility. Over time and as you get closer to actually needing the money, shift the holdings to lower-risk holdings to secure the capital amount. Yes, short-term government bonds tend to have dismal returns, particularly currently. (It's pretty much either that, or the country is just about bankrupt already, which means that the risk of default is quite high which is reflected in the interest premiums demanded by investors.) But the risk in most countries' short-term government bonds is also very much limited. And generally, when you are looking at using the money for a specific purpose within a defined (and relatively short) time frame, you want to reduce risk, even if that comes with the price tag of a slightly lower return. And, as always, never put all your eggs in one basket. A combination of government bonds from various countries may be appropriate, just as you should diversify between different stocks in a well-balanced portfolio. Make sure to check the limits on how much money is insured in a single account, for a single individual, in a single institution and for a household - you don't want to chase high interest bank accounts only to be burned by something like that if the institution goes bankrupt. Generally, the sooner you expect to need the money, the less risk you should take, even if that means a lower return on capital. And the risk progression (ignoring currency effects, which affects all of these equally) is roughly short-term government bonds, long-term government bonds or regular corporate bonds, high-yield corporate bonds, stock market large cap, stock market mid and low cap. Yes, there are exceptions, but that's a resonable rule of thumb.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "90a3c2df6bd596f6abcd66c5ada17777",
"text": "I'd put as much of it as possible into an ISA that pays a decent amount of interest so you get the benefit of the money accruing interest tax free. For the rest, I'd shop around for notice accounts, but would also keep an eye out for no-notice accounts. The latter might be beneficial if you expect interest rates to rise and are willing to shop around and move the money into accounts paying better interest every few months. Just make sure you're also factoring in the loss of interest when moving the money. You could look into fixed term savings bonds but I don't think they currently pay enough to make it worthwhile locking away your money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "19db6fb40b0e627a0ddfc56aeb1268a1",
"text": "\"I would be more than happy to find a good use for your money. ;-) Well, you have a bunch of money far in excess of your regular expenses. The standard things are usually: If you are very confused, it's probably worth spending some of your windfall to hire professional help. It beats you groping in the dark and possibly doing something stupid. But as you've seen, not all \"\"professionals\"\" are equal, and finding a good one is another can of worms. If you can find a good one, it's probably worth it. Even better would be for you to take the time and thoroughly educate yourself about investment (by reading books), and then make a knowledgeable decision. Being a casual investor (ie. not full time trader) you will likely arrive, like many do, at a portfolio that is mostly a mix of S&P ETFs and high grade (eg. govt and AAA corporate) bonds, with a small part (5% or so) in individual stock and other more complicated securities. A good financial advisor will likely recommend something similar (I've had good luck with the one at my credit union), and can guide you through the details and technicalities of it all. A word of caution: Since you remark about your car and house, be careful about upgrading your lifestyle. Business is good now and you can afford nicer things, but maybe next year it's not so good. What if you are by then too used to the high life to give it up, and end up under mountains of debt? Humans are naturally optimistic, but be wary of this tendency when making assumptions about what you will be able to afford in the future. That said, if you really have no idea, hey, take a nice vacation, get an art tutor for the kids, spend it (well, ideally not all of it) on something you won't regret. Investments are fickle, any asset can crash tomorrow and ruin your day. But often experiences are easier to judge, and less likely to lose value over time.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4c372ebe4d33144e8b380f5ce9052c02",
"text": "My approach won't work for everyone, but I keep a longer list of things I want in my head, preferably including higher value items. I then look at the cost of an item vs the amount of benefit it gets me (either enjoyment or ability to make more money or both). If I only had a few things I wanted, it would be easy to buy them even if the payback wasn't that great, but because I have a large list of things I'd like to be able to do, it's easier to play the comparison game in my head. Do I want this $50 thing now that will only give me a little bit of enjoyment and no income, or would I rather be able to get that $3000 digital cinema camera that I would enjoy having and could work on projects with and actually make money off of? (This is a RL example that I actually just bought last week after making sure I had solid leads on enough projects to pay myself back over time.) For me, it is much easier to compare with an alternative thing I'd enjoy, particularly since I enjoy hobbies that can pay for themselves, which is really the situation this strategy works best in. It might not work for everyone, but hobbies that pay for themselves can take many different forms. Mine tends to be very direct (get A/V tool, do projects that pay money), but it can also be indirect (get sports stuff, save on gym membership over time). If you can get things onto your list that can save you money in the long run, then this strategy can work pretty well, if not, you'll still have the overall saving problem, just with a longer wish list. That said, if you are good about saving already and simply want to make better use of your disposable income, then having a longer list may also work to let you seek out better deals for you. If you have funds that you know you can healthily spend on enjoyment, it is going to be difficult to choose nothing over something that gives enjoyment, even if it isn't a great return on the money. If you have alternatives that would give you better value, then it's easier to avoid the low value option.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4ce65f07e88658faf0065537c90bf6ae",
"text": "Here are some options: Park your money in a bank that works best for you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d810d2b0597dfe42dca0e0ea09f600cb",
"text": "\"Aside from the calculations of \"\"how much you save through reducing interest\"\", you have two different types of loan here. The house that is mortgaged is not a wasting asset. You can reasonably expect that in 2045 it will have retained its worth measured in \"\"houses\"\", against the other houses in the same neighbourhood. In money terms, it is likely to be worth more than its current value, if only because of inflation. To judge the real cost or benefit of the mortgage, you need to consider those factors. You didn't say whether the 3.625% is a fixed or variable rate, but you also need to consider how the rate might compare with inflation in the long term. If you have a fixed rate mortgage and inflation rises above 3.625% in future, you are making money from the loan in the long term, not losing what you pay in interest. On the other hand, your car is a wasting asset, and your car loans are just a way of \"\"paying by installments\"\" over the life of the car. If there are no penalties for early repayment, the obvious choice there is to pay off the highest interest rates first. You might also want to consider what happens if you need to \"\"get the $11,000 back\"\" to use for some other (unplanned, or emergency) purpose. If you pay it into your mortgage now, there is no easy way to get it back before 2045. On the other hand, if you pay down your car loans, most likely you now have a car that is worth more than the loans on it. In an emergency, you could sell the car and recover at least some of the $11,000. Of course you should keep enough cash available to cover \"\"normal emergencies\"\" without having to take this sort of action, but \"\"abnormal emergencies\"\" do sometimes happen!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fbc902b2e8751c0e08faf3c047029915",
"text": "\"As the others said, you're doing everything right. So, at this it's not a matter of what you should do, it's a matter of what do you want to do? What would make you the happiest? So, what would you like to do most with that extra money? The point is, since you're already doing everything right with the rest of your money, there's really nothing you can do that's wrong with this money. Except using it on something that increases your monthly expenses, like a down payment on a car. In fact, there's no reason you have to do anything \"\"sensible\"\" with this money at all. You could blow it at nightclubs if you wanted to, and that would be perfectly ok. In fact, since you've got everything else covered, why not \"\"invest\"\" it in making some memories? How about vacations to exotic and rugged places, while you're still young enough to enjoy them?\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
bd10e5e4e55afc4c1b92847d04a315f5
|
United Kingdom: Where to save money for a property deposit
|
[
{
"docid": "9009f2ca1561efda66e8935d50e4ac94",
"text": "The chancellor announced an ISA in this week's budget intended for people saving to buy their first home. For every £200 put in the government will add £50 to the account so I would strongly encourage you to put the money into that as it is also tax free.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b61508d8f8e827dbf949055ad91010b6",
"text": "\"Ultimately you are as stuck as all other investors with low returns which get taxed. However there are a few possible mitigations. You can put up to 15k p.a. into a \"\"normal\"\" ISA (either cash or stocks & shares, or a combination) if your target is to generate the depost over 5 years you should maximise the amount you put in an ISA. Then when you come to buy, you cash in that part needed to top up your other savings for a deposit - i.e. keep the rest in for long term savings. The help to buy ISA might be helpful, but yes there is a limit on the purchase price which in London will restrict you. Several banks are offering good interest on limited sums in current accounts - Santander is probably the best you can get 3% (taxed) on up to 20K - this is a good \"\"safe\"\" return. Just open a 123 Account, arrange to pay out a couple of DDs and pay in £500 a month (you can take the £500 straight out again). I think Lloyds and TSB also offer similar but on much smaller ammounts. Be warned this strategy taken to the limit will involve some complexity checking your various accounts each month. After that you will end up trading better returns for greater risk by using more volatile stock market investments rather than cash deposits.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "826957611902dd98805eec54b63208a0",
"text": "\"From April 2017 the plan is that there is now also going to be a \"\"Lifetime ISA\"\" (in addition to the Help to Buy ISA). Assuming those plans do not change, they government will give 25% after each year until you are 50, and the maximum you can put in per year will be £4000. Catches: You can only take the money out for certain \"\"life events\"\", currently: Buying a house below £450000 anywhere in the country (not just London). Passing 60 years of age. If you take it out before or for another reason, you lose the government bonus plus 5%, ie. it currently looks like you will be left with 95% of the total of the money you paid in. You cannot use the bonus payments from this one together with bonus payments from a Help to Buy ISA to buy a home. However you can transfer an existing Help to Buy ISA into this one come 2017. While you are not asking about pensions, it is worth mentioning for other readers that while 25% interest per year sounds great, if you use it for pension purposes, consider that this is after tax, so if you pay mostly 20% tax on your income the difference is not that big (and if your employer matches your contributions up to a point, then it may not be worth it). If you pay a significant amount of tax at 40% or higher, then it may not make sense for pension purposes. Tax bands and the \"\"rates\"\" on this ISA may change, of course. On the other hand, if you intend to use the money for a house/flat purchase in 2 or more years' time, then it would seem like a good option. For you specifically: This \"\"only\"\" covers £4000 per year, ie. not the full amount you talked about, but it is likely a good idea for you to spread things out anyway. That way, if one thing turns out to be not as good as other alternatives it has less impact - it is less likely that all your schemes will turn out to be bad luck. Within the M25 the £450000 limit may restrict you to a small house or flat in 5-10 years time. Again, prices may stall as they seem barely sustainable now. But it is hard to predict (measures like this may help push them upwards :) ). On the plus side, you could then still use the money for pension although I have a hard time seeing governments not adjusting this sort of account between now and your 60th birthday. Like pension funds, there is an element of luck/gambling involved and I think a good strategy is to spread things if you can.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b92ddb76f337b877c0bd43c2cf267c2",
"text": "Another option is the new 'innovative finance isa' that allow you to put a wrapper round peer to peer lending platform investments. See Zopa, although I don't think they have come out with an ISA yet.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d8b7786c9df393ebf88eb4238d98e569",
"text": "\"For US punters, the Centre for Economic and Policy Research has a Housing Cost Calculator you can play with. The BBC provides this one for the UK. For everyone else, there are a few rules of thumb (use with discretion and only as a ball-park guide): Your example of a Gross Rental Yield of 5% would have to be weighed up against local investment returns. Read Wikipedia's comprehensive \"\"Real-estate bubble\"\" article. Update: spotted that Fennec included this link at the NY Times which contains a Buy or Rent Calculator.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "83613a9c3547d52476b3f5d597f86a28",
"text": "@Dilip Sarwate mentioned tenants in common in a comment. This appears to be in fact the answer I required. I found a friendly article on it here: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-1594984/Tenants-common.html. This appears to allow me to have a percentage based amount of the property, e.g. £100k deposit, plus half of remainder (130k halved) means I own £165k on the initial £230k value of the property, i.e. 71.7% of the property. I will be asking the conveyancing solicitor if they are able to enact this.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "81df6a5235dad320c3fa1c7971100e9e",
"text": "\"No. Rural Scotland has exactly the same monetary system, and not the same bubble. Monaco (the other example given) doesn't even have its own monetary system but uses the Euro. Look instead to the common factor: a lot of demand for limited real estate. Turning towards the personal finance part of it, we know from experience that housing bubbles may \"\"burst\"\" and housing prices may drop suddenly by ~30%, sometimes more. This is a financial risk if you must sell. Yet on the other hand, the fundamental force that keeps prices in London higher than average isn't going away. The long-term risk often is manageable. A 30% drop isn't so bad if you own a house for 30 years.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22eb978738fd1c98a3ff89e48dc890fb",
"text": "One way of looking at this (just expanding on my comment on Dheer's answer): If the funds were in EUR in Germany already and not in the UK, would you be choosing to move them to the UK (or a GBP denominated bank account) and engage in currency speculation, betting that the pound will improve? If you would... great, that's effectively exactly what you're doing: leave the money in GBP and hope the gamble pays off. But if you wouldn't do that, well you probably shouldn't be leaving the funds in GBP just because they originated there; bring them back to Germany and do whatever you'd do with them there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6249769e1863bcae3d9c17157119480f",
"text": "\"Zero? Ten grand? Somewhere in the middle? It depends. Your stated salary, in U.S. dollars, would be high five-figures (~$88k). You certainly should not be starving, but with decent contributions toward savings and retirement, money can indeed be tight month-to-month at that salary level, especially since even in Cardiff you're probably paying more per square foot for your home than in most U.S. markets (EDIT: actually, 3-bedroom apartments in Cardiff, according to Numbeo, range from £750-850, which is US$1200-$1300, and for that many bedrooms you'd be hard-pressed to find that kind of deal in a good infield neighborhood of the DFW Metro, and good luck getting anywhere close to downtown New York, LA, Miami, Chicago etc for that price. What job do you do, and how are you expected to dress for it? Depending on where you shop and what you buy, a quality dress shirt and dress slacks will cost between US$50-$75 each (assuming real costs are similar for the same brands between US and UK, that's £30-£50 per shirt and pair of pants for quality brands). I maintain about a weeks' wardrobe at this level of dress (my job allows me to wear much cheaper polos and khakis most days and I have about 2 weeks' wardrobe of those) and I typically have to replace due to wear or staining, on average, 2 of these outfits a year (I'm hard on clothes and my waistline is expanding). Adding in 3 \"\"business casual\"\" outfits each year, plus casual outfits, shoes, socks, unmentionables and miscellany, call it maybe $600(£400)/year in wardrobe. That doesn't generally get metered out as a monthly allowance (the monthly amount would barely buy a single dress shirt or pair of slacks), but if you're socking away a savings account and buying new clothes to replace old as you can afford them it's a good average. I generally splurge in months when the utilities companies give me a break and when I get \"\"extra\"\" paychecks (26/year means two months have 3 checks, effectively giving me a \"\"free\"\" check that neither pays the mortgage nor the other major bills). Now, that's just to maintain my own wardrobe at a level of dress that won't get me fired. My wife currently stays home, but when she worked she outspent me, and her work clothes were basic black. To outright replace all the clothes I wear regularly with brand-new stuff off the rack would easily cost a grand, and that's for the average U.S. software dev who doesn't go out and meet other business types on a daily basis. If I needed to show up for work in a suit and tie daily, I'd need a two-week rotation of them, plus dress shirts, and even at the low end of about $350 (£225) per suit, $400 (£275) with dress shirt and tie, for something you won't be embarrassed to wear, we're talking $4000 (£2600) to replace and $800 (£520) per year to update 2 a year, not counting what I wear underneath or on the weekends. And if I wore suits I'd probably have to update the styles more often than that, so just go ahead and double it and I turn over my wardrobe once every 5 years. None of this includes laundering costs, which increase sharply when you're taking suits to the cleaners weekly versus just throwing a bunch of cotton-poly in the washing machine. What hobbies or other entertainment interests do you and your wife have? A movie ticket in the U.S. varies between $7-$15 depending on the size of the screen and 2D vs 3D screenings. My wife and I currently average less than one theater visit a month, but if you took in a flick each weekend with your wife, with a decent $50 dinner out, that's between $260-$420 (£165-270) monthly in entertainment expenses. Not counting babysitting for the little one (the going rate in the US is between $10 and $20 an hour for at-home child-sitting depending on who you hire and for how long, how often). Worst-case, without babysitting that's less than 5% of your gross income, but possibly more than 10% of your take-home depending on UK effective income tax rates (your marginal rate is 40% according to the HMRC, unless you find a way to deduct about £30k of your income). That's just the traditional American date night, which is just one possible interest. Playing organized sports is more or less expensive depending on the sport. Soccer (sorry, football) just needs a well-kept field, two goals and and a ball. Golf, while not really needing much more when you say it that way, can cost thousands of dollars or pounds a month to play with the best equipment at the best courses. Hockey requires head-to-toe padding/armor, skates, sticks, and ice time. American football typically isn't an amateur sport for adults and has virtually no audience in Europe, but in the right places in the U.S., beginning in just a couple years you'd be kitting your son out head-to-toe not dissimilar to hockey (minus sticks) and at a similar cost, and would keep that up at least halfway through high school. I've played them all at varying amateur levels, and with the possible exception of soccer they all get expensive when you really get interested in them. How much do you eat, and of what?. My family of three's monthly grocery budget is about $300-$400 (£190-£260) depending on what we buy and how we buy it. Americans have big refrigerators (often more than one; there's three in my house of varying sizes), we buy in bulk as needed every week to two weeks, we refrigerate or freeze a lot of what we buy, and we eat and drink a lot of high-fructose corn-syrup-based crap that's excise-taxed into non-existence in most other countries. I don't have real-world experience living and grocery-shopping in Europe, but I do know that most shopping is done more often, in smaller quantities, and for more real food. You might expect to spend £325 ($500) or more monthly, in fits and starts every few days, but as I said you'd probably know better than me what you're buying and what it's costing. To educate myself, I went to mysupermarket.co.uk, which has what I assume are typical UK food prices (mostly from Tesco), and it's a real eye-opener. In the U.S., alcohol is much more expensive for equal volume than almost any other drink except designer coffee and energy drinks, and we refrigerate the heck out of everything anyway, so a low-budget food approach in the U.S. generally means nixing beer and wine in favor of milk, fruit juices, sodas and Kool-Aid (or just plain ol' tap water). A quick search on MySupermarkets shows that wine prices average a little cheaper, accounting for the exchange rate, as in the States (that varies widely even in the U.S., as local and state taxes for beer, wine and spirits all differ). Beer is similarly slightly cheaper across the board, especially for brands local to the British Isles (and even the Coors Lite crap we're apparently shipping over to you is more expensive here than there), but in contrast, milk by the gallon (4L) seems to be virtually unheard of in the UK, and your half-gallon/2-liter jugs are just a few pence cheaper than our going rate for a gallon (unless you buy \"\"organic\"\" in the US, which carries about a 100% markup). Juices are also about double the price depending on what you're buying (a quart of \"\"Innocent\"\" OJ, roughly equivalent in presentation to the U.S. brand \"\"Simply Orange\"\", is £3 while Simply Orange is about the same price in USD for 2 quarts), and U.S.-brand \"\"fizzy drinks\"\" are similarly at a premium (£1.98 - over $3 - for a 2-liter bottle of Coca-Cola). With the general preference for room-temperature alcohol in Europe giving a big advantage to the longer unrefrigerated shelf lives of beer and wine, I'm going to guess you guys drink more alcohol and water with dinner than Americans. Beef is cheaper in the U.S., depending on where you are and what you're buying; prices for store-brand ground beef (you guys call it \"\"minced\"\") of the grade we'd use for hamburgers and sauces is about £6 per kilo in the UK, which works out to about $4.20/lb, when we're paying closer to $3/lb in most cities. I actually can't remember the last time I bought fresh chicken on the bone, but the average price I'm seeing in the UK is £10/kg ($7/lb) which sounds pretty steep. Anyway, it sounds like shopping for American tastes in the UK would cost, on average, between 25-30% more than here in the US, so applying that to my own family's food budget, you could easily justify spending £335 a month on food.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d93fb5ceb668a6644a34fddd340476ab",
"text": "It would be good to know which country you are in? You are basically on the right track with your last point. Usually when you buy your first property you need to come up with a deposit and then borrow the remainder to have enough to purchase the property. In most cases (and most places) the standard percentage of loan to deposit is 80% to 20%. This is expressed as the Loan to Value Ratio (LVR) which in this case would be 80%. (This being the amount of the loan to the value of the property). Some banks and lenders will lend you more than the 80% but this can usually come with extra costs (in Australia the banks charge an extra percentage when you borrow called Loan Mortgage Insurance (LMI) if you borrow over 80% and the LMI gets more expensive the higher LVR you borrow). Also this practice of lending more than 80% LVR has been tightened up since the GFC. So if you are borrowing 80% of the value of the property you will need to come up with the remainder 20% deposit plus the additional closing costs (taxes - in Australia we have to pay Stamp Duty, solicitor or conveyancing fees, loan application fees, building and pest inspection costs, etc.). If you then want to buy a second property you will need to come up with the same deposit and other closing costs again. Most people cannot afford to do this any time soon, especially since the a good majority of the money they used to save before is now going to pay the mortgage and upkeep of your first property (especially if you used to say live with your parents and now live in the property and not rent it out). So what a lot of people do who want to buy more properties is wait until the LVR of the property has dropped to say below 60%. This is achieved by the value of the property going up in value and the mortgage principle being reduced by your mortgage payments. Once you have enough, as you say, collateral or equity in the first property, then you can refinance your mortgage and use this equity in your existing property and the value of the new property you want to buy to basically borrow 100% of the value of the new property plus closing costs. As long as the LVR of the total borrowings versus the value of both properties remains at or below 80% this should be achievable. You can do this in two ways. Firstly you could refinance your first mortgage and borrow up to 80% LVR again and use this additional funds as your deposit and closing costs for the second property, for which you would then get a second mortgage. The second way is to refinance one mortgage over the two properties. The first method is preferred as your mortgages and properties are separated so if something does go wrong you don't have to sell everything up all at once. This process can be quite slow at the start, as you might have to wait a few years to build up equity in one property (especially if you live in it). But as you accumulate more and more properties it becomes easier and quicker to do as your equity will increase quicker with tenants paying a good portion of your costs if not all (if you are positively geared). Of course you do want to be careful if property prices fall (as this may drastically reduce your equity and increase your total LVR or the LVR on individual properties) and have a safety net. For example, I try to keep my LVR to 60% or below, currently they are below 50%.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "91e30ca1f672da78828bd723f5f8fba2",
"text": "\"You have 1998-2011 income-contingent student loans, where the interest rate is the lower of (1% + base rate) or RPI (retail price inflation). For the next few years the it's likely to be (1% + base rate) as interest rates stay low and inflation shoots up. These loans only need to be repaid in proportion to your salary, and if they aren't repaid for long enough (e.g. the holder takes a career break for children) they are written off. So all-in-all, they are pretty good debt to have: low interest rate, and you might not have to repay them ever. It's likely that your mortgage will have a significantly higher rate than the student loan, so you'd be better off reducing your mortgage. Also, the higher deposit might mean you can get a lower interest rate on the whole mortgage because the lender will see you as a lower risk, so the return from \"\"investing\"\" it in your mortgage would be even greater than the raw interest rate. Having the student loan outstanding might make some difference to the \"\"affordability\"\" check for your mortgage payments, but lenders will be very familiar with how they work. Reducing your mortgage payments with the higher deposit should easily counterbalance that. Your own suggestion is to invest the £30K in a \"\"reasonably safe portfolio\"\" making 5%. There'll inevitably be some risk in that - 5% is a relatively high return in today's climate - but if you're willing to take that risk, you can investigate the effect on your mortgage to see if it's worth it or not.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b9bb5dabd0dde24e696810015577c995",
"text": "Much information comes from this source. Your tags say you are in New York. New York security deposit law requires that you store the security deposit in a banking institution. Additionally, the deposit must be stored in a separate account, not your own personal account. If the lease is for six months or more, the money must be stored in an interest-bearing account, though this is apparently not necessary if the property has fewer than six units. Investing the money in e.g. a mutual fund would probably be illegal, and would be a bad idea anyway. If your investment turns out not to be profitable, you'd have to make up the difference. Security deposits are meant to be deposits, not investments. Besides, you have to pay interest on the deposit to your tenant; any interest over 1% must be given back to the tenant.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f826bafa5b768c0119ad66f18bd1b81d",
"text": "Major things to consider: If you're expecting to look at the property market: it might prove to be sensible to start doing it now, since the market is just recovering, and (IMHO warning -I'm not a professional investor, just a random guy on the internet) prices still hasn't caught up with value fundamentals. check out cash ISA's for a 24-36 month timeframe; most do a reasonable 3-4% AER, with the current inflation rate being around 4%, this will, at the very least, make sure your money doesn't loose it's purchasing power. Finally, a word of caution: SIPPs have a rather rubbish AER rates. This, by itself, wouldn't be much of a problem on a 30-40 years timeframe, but keep the (current, and historically strictly monotonically increasing) 4% inflation rate in mind: this implies the purchasing power of any money tied in these vehicles will loose it's purchasing power, in a compounding manner. Hope this helps, let me know if you have any questions.",
"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": "2de869e9b4c67e8ad0198cdafdbc1620",
"text": "Per Md. REAL PROPERTY Code Ann. § 8-203: (d) (1) (i) The landlord shall maintain all security deposits in federally insured financial institutions, as defined in § 1-101 of the Financial Institutions Article, which do business in the State. (ii) Security deposit accounts shall be maintained in branches of the financial institutions which are located within the State and the accounts shall be devoted exclusively to security deposits and bear interest. (iii) A security deposit shall be deposited in an account within 30 days after the landlord receives it. (iv) The aggregate amount of the accounts shall be sufficient in amount to equal all security deposits for which the landlord is liable. (2) (i) In lieu of the accounts described in paragraph (1) of this subsection, the landlord may hold the security deposits in insured certificates of deposit at branches of federally insured financial institutions, as defined in § 1-101 of the Financial Institutions Article, located in the State or in securities issued by the federal government or the State of Maryland. (ii) In the aggregate certificates of deposit or securities shall be sufficient in amount to equal all security deposits for which the landlord is liable. As such, one or more accounts at your preference; it's up to the bank how to treat the account, so it may be a personal account or it may be a 'commercial' account depending on how they treat it (but it must be separate from your personal funds). A CD is perhaps the easiest way to go, as it's not a separate account exactly but it's easily separable from your own funds (and has better interest). You should also note (further down on that page) that you must pay 3% interest, once per six months; so try to get an account that pays as close as possible to that. You likely won't get 3% right now even in a CD, so consider this as an expense (and you'll probably find many people won't take security deposits in many situations as a result).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e70ce25572e4501bd61389f004a1910",
"text": "Just buy a FTSE-100 tracker. It's cheap and easy, and will hedge you pretty well, as the FTSE-100 is dominated by big mining and oil companies who do most of their business in currencies other than sterling.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd8e5ca4888ff871a3b76ce481bb3bd5",
"text": "\"First of all, bear in mind that there's no such thing as a risk-free investment. If you keep your money in the bank, you'll struggle to get a return that keeps up with inflation. The same is true for other \"\"safe\"\" investments like government bonds. Gold and silver are essentially completely speculative investments; over the years their price tends to vary quite wildly, so unless you really understand how those markets work you should steer well clear. They're certainly not low risk. Repeatedly buying a property to sell in a couple of years time is almost certainly a bad idea; you'll end up paying substantial transaction fees each time that would wipe out a lot of the possible profit, and of course there's always the risk that prices would go down not up. Buying a property to keep - and preferably live in - might be a decent option once you have a good deposit saved up. It's very hard to say where prices will go in future, on the one hand London prices are very high by historical standards, but on the other hand supply is likely to remain severely constrained for years to come. I tend to think of a house as something that I need one of for the rest of my life, and so in one sense not owning a house to live in is a gamble that house prices and rents won't go up substantially. If you own a house, you're insulated from changes in rent etc and even if prices crash at least you still have somewhere to live. However that argument only works really well if you expect to keep living in the same area under most circumstances - house prices might crash in your area but not elsewhere.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20dc539a135756f98e0ce0645b6b30bc",
"text": "The bond will rank below depositors, so it's riskier than the savings account. The savings account is very safe if you have less than £75,000 in accounts with the bank, as then it would be covered by the deposit guarantee Financial Services Compensation Scheme. Also note that bonds tend to have a fixed maturity whereas savings accounts usually let you get your money out at any time, perhaps with some notice.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4fe71042dfbec2d2fe3574a3963d9112",
"text": "I would move some or all of the money. With £30K savings, you have a 20% deposit, whereas you can get a much better mortgage rate with a 40 or 50% deposit. That's true no matter how good/bad your credit rating, and it's possible that with a bad credit rating you may not even be able to get a mortgage with a small deposit. Also, you will almost certainly save significantly more by paying less mortgage interest compared to the interest rates on your savings in the Netherlands. Shop around for a cheap option to transfer money. I had a quick look at Transferwise (no affiliation, they just happen to have a convenient calculator on their website), and the all-in cost for a large one-way transfer seems to be about 0.5%. I think you'll more than make that back in terms of savings on your mortgage. If you intend to move back to the Netherlands at some point, then you are taking some exchange rate risk by moving your savings to the UK - you don't know if it'll be better or worse when you want to transfer money back. But I guess it won't be that soon if you want to buy a house, so I think the risk is probably worthwhile. (I calculated the cost of the transfer by converting €100k into GBP, and then converting the resulting amount back again. That left €99k, so a two-way transfer cost 1% and from that I deduced that a one-way transfer costs roughly 0.5%)",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ecab19d66ae6721774a4bbb9d59929eb
|
In NYC is there sales tax on services like computer / cell phone repair?
|
[
{
"docid": "d6a98d3d7c90ccb8fe872ecdb9013ed4",
"text": "According to the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, your service would appear to be exempt from taxes. However, if you are charging for tangible items, those would incur a sales tax.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "0660a055e498255f0629f66e7b8303f2",
"text": "\"Tax is often calculated per item. Especially in the days of the internet, some items are taxable and some aren't, depending on the item and your nexus. I would recommend calculating and storing tax with each item, to account for these subtle differences. EDIT: Not sure why this was downvoted, if you don't believe me, you can always check with Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=hp_468512_calculated?nodeId=468512#calculated I think they know what they're talking about. FINAL UPDATE: Now, if someone goes to your site, and buys something from your business (in California) and the shipping address for the product is Nevada, then taxes do not have to be collected. If they have a billing address in California, and a shipping address in Nevada, and the goods are shipping to Nevada, you do not have to declare tax. If you have a mixture of tangible (computer, mouse, keyboard) and intangible assets (warranty) in a cart, and the shipping address is in California, you charge tax on the tangible assets, but NOT on the intangible assets. Yes, you can charge tax on the whole order. Yes for most businesses that's \"\"Good enough\"\", but I'm not trying to provide the \"\"good enough\"\" solution, I'm simply telling you how very large businesses run and operate. As I've mentioned, I've done several tax integrations using software called Sabrix (Google if you've not heard of it), and have done those integrations for companies like the BBC and Corbis (owned and operated by Bill Gates). Take it or leave it, but the correct way to charge taxes, especially given the complex tax laws of the US and internationally, is to charge per item. If you just need the \"\"good enough\"\" approach, feel free to calculate it by total. Some additional reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_of_Digital_Goods Another possible federal limitation on Internet taxation is the United States Supreme Court case, Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992),[6] which held that under the dormant commerce clause, goods purchased through mail order cannot be subject to a state’s sales tax unless the vendor has a substantial nexus with the state levying the tax. In 1997, the federal government decided to limit taxation of Internet activity for a period of time. The Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA) prohibits taxes on Internet access, which is defined as a service that allows users access to content, information, email or other services offered over the Internet and may include access to proprietary content, information, and other services as part of a package offered to customers. The Act has exceptions for taxes levied before the statute was written and for sales taxes on online purchases of physical goods.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f35cdefe4d37dced6edcef4c60a2dbc2",
"text": "\"In the US service animals are treated like durable medical equipment from a tax POV, and some expenses can be deducted. Likewise, expenses associated with working animals are business or hobby expenses than can be deducted to a certain extent. But pets, no. Legally they are \"\"chattels\"\" -- property that can move. Generally speaking, you can't deduct the cost of maintaining your belongings.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e52366d8966e913b60bd0a8484a839bf",
"text": "Not sure if serious or not, but i'll bite. First of all the service you are purchasing is the access to credit card, which runs on a network supplied by financial institutions. Secondly credit card is an optional fee, taxes are mandatory (unless you are a crook).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1929140fbd7cd49e779438748d5ab54d",
"text": "As the article says, selling warranties & one on one tutorials is a benchmark for individual sales ability. I don't know about Prada, but yes - many upscale department stores do still offer commission. And just about *every* store has something to upsell you on. I don't mean to debate the merits of a commission-based sales system; I'm just pointing out that the competition (Sprint/Verizon) use one. And pay better as a result.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "848f96c11dba0694cc5c7388bd4ed21b",
"text": "I am a very light TurboTax user and have expensed a laptop in the past (since it was used exclusively for work) and used the itemized deduction there and has no issues. Just not sure if there was a limit or anything of note to realize ahead of time. Thanks!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5c22e61a7595820510bba71d13b4e43b",
"text": "\"I was just reading Consumer Reports' December 2009 issue. The issue's focus is electronics, and there was a small section on extended warranties in the \"\"Best electronics\"\" article. Here's what they said: Extended warranties still aren't worth buying Seven in 10 respondents to our survey on buying major electronics reported they were pitched an extended warrranty. However hard they're sold, extended warranties are generally bad investments. Most electronics products won't need a repair, especially if you choose brands that have fared better than others in the reliability ratings we include in this section. In the unlikely event they break, other Consumer Reports survey data has shown, the average repair bill is often comparable with the cost of a warranty. However, buying a plan that includes accidental damage might be worth considering for a laptop or netbook that you'll use a lot on the go. And buying a computer warranty that extends tech support, too, might make sense if you or a gift recipient could use a lot of hand-holding. [...] Paying with your credit card might automatically double the manufacturers' warranty and offer other benefits at no extra cost [...] Seven in 10 respondents to our survey on buying major electronics reported they were pitched an extended warrranty. However hard they're sold, extended warranties are generally bad investments. Most electronics products won't need a repair, especially if you choose brands that have fared better than others in the reliability ratings we include in this section. In the unlikely event they break, other Consumer Reports survey data has shown, the average repair bill is often comparable with the cost of a warranty. However, buying a plan that includes accidental damage might be worth considering for a laptop or netbook that you'll use a lot on the go. And buying a computer warranty that extends tech support, too, might make sense if you or a gift recipient could use a lot of hand-holding. [...] Paying with your credit card might automatically double the manufacturers' warranty and offer other benefits at no extra cost [...] BTW, I like Consumer Reports and I am a long-time subscriber. Check them out if you haven't before.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1f092ae9a34b187d8096bbfa6fc1168d",
"text": "Im still dealing with a $1,000 laptop i bought from them that stopped working after 6 months. They replaced the mobo and now it BSODs every five mimutes. I have four service orders, three phone calls, and a web chat related to it, and they want me to file a lemon law document for a replacement. Which has to be done at the store i bought it from, with a copy of the service record that the store manager is responsible for obtaining. Because thats gonna happen.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "abe49f26f27ffe70f80550ff0b9d841a",
"text": "\"Payment gateways such as Square do not normally withhold tax. It is up to you to pay the appropriate tax at tax time. That having been said, Square does report your payments to the IRS on a form 1099-K if your payments are large enough. According to Square, you'll get a 1099-K from them if your total payments for the year add up to $20,000 AND more than 200 transactions. Whether or not they report on a 1099-K, you are required to pay the appropriate taxes on your income. So now the question becomes, \"\"Do I have to pay income tax on the proceeds from my garage sale?\"\" And the answer to that question is usually not. When you sell something that you previously purchased, if you sell it for more than you paid for it, you have a capital gain and need to pay tax on that. However, generally you sell things in a garage sale at a loss, meaning that there is no tax due. If you make more than $20,000 at your garage sale and the IRS gets a 1099-K, the IRS might be curious as to how you did that with no capital gain. So if you sell any big ticket items (a bulldozer, for example), you should keep a record of what you paid for it, so you can show the loss to the IRS in the event of an audit.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "796b8729a7d5ef3302592bffe7c41ff0",
"text": "Amazon and other online retailers actually now support bipartisan legislation to level the playing field regarding online sales taxes. Value Added Taxes (not sales taxes in the typical sense) are the way to go, as they are much more difficult to evade and can't be sheltered via the Cayman Islands. They can easily be made progressive through the use of rebates to lower income individuals. There is a reason it is in place in over 130 countries.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d0f2dd20b251f53f5555a871c0e88556",
"text": "\"I suppose it is on the surface, when you look at the cost of that indivdual item to your individual doorstep. But one most consider the efficiency of the entire *system*. While one item may be a chore, the UPS driver is really an online shopping delivery man. Courier companies have developed very efficient networks of delivery. Vastly more efficient than the net sum of the chaotic weekend chore runs that we all do, heading from store to store accross the city. I know i've switched over to online shopping almost exclusively to avoid that. I'd rather wait a few days and have whatever i need delivered to home or work than waste one of my week days \"\"running around\"\". I know that doesn't sound like much of a point, but consider the effect if a significant percentage of the population began to utilize online shopping. Replacing the chaotic hordes of individuals running around all week, with an efficient delivery system. The infrastructure savings would be likely be significant, and quality of life would be improved for most with less errands to be running. It would be interesting if that could be quantified and compared to what the income from a state sales tax would bring.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d74c216e02d90b3f91895ccfafc87b9",
"text": "Yeah, but they have a price match policy; have them price match themselves or go home and order it online. Or hell, use your smart phone on their free wifi to place the order so the sales person doesn't get credit for the sale and can't harass you for a warranty.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5238c0ba5f4606aa524073518e455c1d",
"text": "Summarized article: The Department of Commerce reported that retail sales increased 1.1% in September, exceeding analysts' expectations. The biggest jump in consumer spending came from car sales, gasoline and electronics. Electronic sales jumped 4.5%, likely due to the debut of Apple's iPhone 5. Additionally, higher gas prices led to 2.5% increase in spending at gas stations. The latest report suggests the economy is expanding as consumer spending drives about 2/3 of the US economy. Other data showed manufacturing activity in New York state shrank for the third straight month as US manufacturers feel the effects of a slowing global economy. Shares rose and yields on government debt increased as the retail sales report bolstered investor sentiment. * For more summarized news, subscribe to the [/r/SkimThat](http://www.reddit.com/r/SkimThat) subreddit",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "73ab673797aa3b1fa350a26387173819",
"text": "Yeah, this was a big deal with hotels jamming cell signals to force people to buy their wi-fi. Many fines have been handed out, with bipartisan agreement. I doubt Amazon would be so audacious, and they'd eventually get reemed. Beyond that, politicians still seem to dispise Amazon for allegedly dodging taxes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a377f67fb9ea0522d326e45b041eb6d5",
"text": "How do you know you are playing their cost plus tax? Retailers in the US currently only collect state sales tax on purchasers who are based in the same state they are in. For example, our business is in NY so we charge NY state sales tax. We do not charge sales tax for anyone living in any other state (or country). If your shipping address is in South America, the people you are buying from in the US should not be charging you any tax. You may have to pay customs duties and fees, but these are not sales tax.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "27e5998e7b9dd858f4d92cf5826e3a7f",
"text": "It's been a PR free-for-all with these hurricanes. It's kind of disgusting. Google was giving free phone repairs to Pixels that nobody will ever use but they spent a whole day bragging about their good deed. Many others did similar victory laps.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
fbe4806c709db06b77fa6a413586e505
|
What is the correct pronunciation of CAGR?
|
[
{
"docid": "feda58ab4887628b798861aced8d0b84",
"text": "\"I always hear people pronounce it to rhyme with \"\"bagger\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2f89de8913df7fa00410588fcc7a9093",
"text": "Most readers probably know that an acronym is an invented word made up of the initial letters or syllables of other words, like NASA or NATO. Fewer probably know that an initialism is a type of acronym that cannot be pronounced as a word, but must be read letter-by-letter, like FBI or UCLA. A quote from Daily Writing Tips. CAGR is an initialism, and should not be pronounced.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "316f7f42e4a123453b673e15177a9d75",
"text": "> quesorizo (queso + chorizo) And if you were actually, you know, in Mexico it would be a choriqueso. So much for authenticity. Although, to be fair, that would mostly be used in the greater D.F. area. In, say, Guanajuato they wouldn't make up stupid names in the first place and it would simply be queso con chorizo.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "56736602f21db5d09956941769bd03aa",
"text": "\"I think the issue here is the rules say that \"\"relevant current events in finance\"\" are acceptable when (I think) that wording is too loose. \"\"Current events in finance\"\" is just very, very general, and anything related to central banking, monetary or fiscal policy, global austerity, analysis of index movements, sovereign defaults (and speculation thereof) qualifies a \"\"current events in finance\"\" - so technically, the rules aren't being broken. I think that having the language tightened a bit would help set the subreddit tone a little more accurately.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e43414a4796452742034cd684b247986",
"text": "Danh sách các Công ty Chứng Khoán có nguy cơ vỡ nợ 01 CTCP CK Thăng Long 02 CTCP CK Thương mại và Công nghiệp Việt Nam 03 CTCP CK Maritime Bank 04 CTCP CK Thủ Đô 05 CTCP CK Sao Việt 06 CTCP CK Quốc tế Việt Nam 07 CTCP CK Tràng An 08 CTCP CK Phương Đông 09 CTCP CK Đông Nam Á 10 CTCP CK Quốc Gia 11 CTCP CK Đại Dương 12 CTCP CK VIT 12 CTCP CK Tầm Nhìn 13 CTCP CK Hà Nội 14 CTCP CK Hamico 15 CTCP CK Vina 16 CTCP CK SME (đã phá sản trong năm 2011) 17 CTCP CK Hà Thành 18 CTCP CK NH Phát triển Nhà Đồng bằng Sông Cửu Long 19 CTCP CK Navibank 20 CTCP CK NH Sài Gòn Thương Tín 21 CTCP CK Việt Quốc 22 CTCP CK FLC 23 CTCP CK Trường Sơn 24 CTCP CK BETA 25 CTCP CK Tân Việt 26 CTCP CK Cao su 27 CTCP CK Sài Gòn Tourist Mọi Tài Sản cần phải được chuyển giao sang các Công ty Chứng Khoán tốt hơn nhằm hạn chế RỦI RO !",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e6f81acac948e365f140fdfb3daf3d0e",
"text": "Hi! This is just a friendly reminder letting you know that you should type it as `¯\\\\\\_(ツ)_/¯` to format it correctly. A backslash on reddit is used as an escape character, meaning that it can be used to make special characters, such as underscores and other backslashes ignore the formatting that they do to other characters on Reddit, and instead display them literally. --- *^I ^am ^a ^bot. ^If ^I ^have ^done ^something ^wrong, ^please ^message ^my ^owner, ^[John_Yuki](https://www.reddit.com/user/John_Yuki/).*",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a56238e87f61f08084fe4d8d5f824ad",
"text": "Go through the IRS Publication 521. Generally, relocation assistance is given either as : or",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "61e3b59c031e69b6163cdeb5253bd8ca",
"text": "Thank you Skyy8 for voting on PORTMANTEAU-BOT. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://goodbot-badbot.herokuapp.com/). *** ^^Even ^^if ^^I ^^don't ^^reply ^^to ^^your ^^comment, ^^I'm ^^still ^^listening ^^for ^^votes. ^^Check ^^the ^^webpage ^^to ^^see ^^if ^^your ^^vote ^^registered!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "368790e5eacbd6516fd0071c53808ddd",
"text": "Google will be issuing Class C shares (under the ticker symbol GOOCV) to current GOOG holders in the beginning of April. The Class C shares and Class A shares will then change symbols, with the Class C shares trading under GOOG. This was announced on January 30th. Details are in this benzinga article: Projected Trading Timeline March 27 - April 2 Record Date - Payment Date Class C shares commence trading on March 27 as GOOCV on a when issued basis Class A shares continue to trade as GOOG, with entitlement to Class C shares Class A shares will also trade on an ex-distribution basis, without entitlement to the Class C shares, as GOOAV April 3 EX Date The ticker for the Class A shares will change from GOOG to GOOGL The ticker for the Class C shares will change from GOOCV to GOOG and commence regular way trading The ticker for the Class A shares that traded on an ex-distribution basis - GOOAV - will be suspended",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "13aab8dcb42ce054e25ea550940581ae",
"text": "Yeah, that's no typo. I could've spelled that name when I was 13, and anybody who's ever laid their hands on a finance book should be able to spell it, let alone somebody who claims to actually work there and to have traded millions on their behalf.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "53715f3693b0a7430d04ed2a85a24a3f",
"text": "IRR is the acronym for internal rate of return. And it appears that you do understand how it works. It's not the phrase most investors use for their own returns. I'd typically talk about my own return last year, or over the last decade, etc, as well as what the S&P did during that time, and might even use the term CAGR, compound annual growth rate, although I wouldn't pronounce it 'kegger' or anything like that. Aside from discussing company investments in some MBA class, the only time I'd use IRR is in an excel spreadsheet to calculate the return over time of a series of my own investments. The nothing magic about this, it's a function of an initial dollar investment, time passing, and the final value. All else is addition complexity based on multiple deposits/withdrawals, etc. If I deposit $100 and get back $200 in a year, it's a 100% IRR. Disclosure - I am no fan of Investopedia or re-explaining its wording on these topics. I've caught multiple errors in their articles, and unlike the times I've emailed my friends at the IRS who quickly fix typos and mistakes I've caught, Investopedia authors are no better than bloggers (which I am) who take offense at any criticism (which I do not).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a2401db5e2cd379a4f06579cf4ee94a6",
"text": "\"**Not even wrong** The phrase \"\"not even wrong\"\" describes any argument that purports to be scientific but fails at some fundamental level, usually in that it contains a terminal logical fallacy or it cannot be falsified by experiment (i.e., tested with the possibility of being rejected), or cannot be used to make predictions about the natural world. The phrase is generally attributed to theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli, who was known for his colorful objections to incorrect or sloppy thinking. Rudolf Peierls documents an instance in which \"\"a friend showed Pauli the paper of a young physicist which he suspected was not of great value but on which he wanted Pauli's views. Pauli remarked sadly, 'It is not even wrong'.\"\" This is also often quoted as \"\"That is not only not right; it is not even wrong,\"\" or \"\"Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch!\"\" in Pauli's native German. *** ^[ [^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 ^| ^v0.24\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7edc501f23544a2f09453840525871f2",
"text": "Consultant included a passing comment about whether companies were singular or plural. ... Writing about them as a Businesses plural entity seems oddly formal and doesn't look right at all. ... I had this scenario myself when referring to our own company name.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6afdb629c29baa41d942a71a800817af",
"text": "\"I don't think any of us claims pizza is an American creation instead of an Italian one. Pizza *is* an Italian creation. We are only saying that the regular pizzas they have in the US are mostly non-Italian style, and shouldn't be count as real authentic Italian food. It'd be like saying pastas are an Chinese creation. Pastas was inspired by the Chinese, but the Chinese didn't create pastas, they have [mian] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_noodles ), which means noodles. Point is, if someone change something too much and that thing becomes a \"\"new/different\"\" thing, we will call that person the creator and use its terms.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f8a6da48d236e45fd1ced72bdf8bdfaa",
"text": "Yes, I see the same problem. Google's version seems to be correct, however.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9dc01201aa4269618c5e42e2e8990c96",
"text": "Both are correct depending on what you are really trying to evaluate. If you only want to understand how that particular investment you were taking money in and out of did by itself than you would ignore the cash. You might use this if you were thinking of replacing that particular investment with another but keeping the in/out strategy. If you want to understand how the whole investment strategy worked (both the in/out motion and the choice of investment) than you would definitely want to include the cash component as that is necessary for the strategy and would be your final return if you implemented that strategy. As a side note, neither IRR or CAGR are not great ways to judge investment strategies as they have some odd timing issues and they don't take into account risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7fa35b3cedda44ab3cc11b982d40296e",
"text": "Sedar is I guess the Canadian equivalent of EDGAR. You can find the company's filings there. Here's a picture from their filings. Can't post the link, if you go and find the filing through Sedar you'll know why (it's not as nice a site as EDGAR). The 4.8 million is from unrealized gain on biological assets. So that's what it is. The reason, I think, as to why Operating Income is a positive 2.67 even though Operating Expense and Gross Profit are both negative is because Google Finance backed into Operating Expense. Operating Income is the same between the two sources, it's just the unrealized gain that moves.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ea4feff5a609725a9354587c49bd493d
|
Getting over that financial unease? Budgeting advice
|
[
{
"docid": "35a18ebf39052288dba1df16d3a440f3",
"text": "\"Budgeting is a tool for planning, not for execution. It sounds like you don't have a problem BUDGETING (planning what to spend on what things) but rather with the execution of your plan. That is - living frugally. This is primarily an issue of self control and personal psychology - not an issue with the mechanics of budgeting and finance, which explains why the most popular personal finance \"\"gurus\"\" (Dave Ramsey, Suze Ormond) deal as much with your relationship to money and spending as they do with financial knowledge. There is no easy answer here, but you can learn to spend less. One helpful thought is to realize that whatever your current income is, someone in your community is currently making less than that and surviving. What would you do differently if your real, actual income was $100 or $200 less than it is currently. If your food budget is a concern, learn to cook cheaply. (Often, this is more healthy.) You mentioned schooling, so I assume you are on or near a college campus. Many colleges have all sorts of free-food opportunities. (I used to eat free vegetarian meals weekly at a Hare Krsna temple. Price of admission: listening to the monk read from the Bhagavad Gita.) Fast food is, of course, a complete no-no on low-budget living. It probably goes without saying, but just in case you haven't: cancel cable, get a cheap phone plan (Ting is excellent if available in your area), and otherwise see how you can squeeze a few dollars out of your bills. On the subject of frugality, I have found no book more enlightening than: Money Secrets of the Amish: Finding True Abundance in Simplicity, Sharing, and Saving\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "23cfce3f17de79968700586a33c61354",
"text": "You sound like you are budgeting too much for food. Try limiting yourself to $200 a month for food and take that out in cash. When it's up, it's up. It's a hard way to learn but if you can tackle that, then budgeting for other things gets easier. In terms of your fear of doing a financial bellyflop, which is valid, it sounds like you may need to both sit down and learn a little more about personal finance. Try mrmoneymustache.com or fivecentnickel, or any of the other frugal living blogs that are out there. There are whole communities that can help you and give you tips to do more with less, and learn budgeting and finance and how to handle your money and your future. And no worries, the fact you are concerned enough to look for direction now means you may be able to avoid your fear completely.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "819557c32a8d63b6258f95d14b085c0a",
"text": "Put your budget down on paper/spreadsheet/tool of choice (e.g Mint, YNAB, Excel). Track every cent for a few months. Seeing it written down makes The Financial Conversation easier. One simple trick is to pay yourself first. Take $100 and sock it away each month, or $25 per paycheck - send it to another account where you won't see it. Then live off the rest. For food - make a meal plan. Eggs are healthy and relatively cheap so you have breakfast covered. Oatmeal is about $2 for a silos' worth. Worst case you can live off of ramen noodles, peanut butter and tuna for a month while you catch up. Cut everything as some of the others have answered - you will be amazed how much you will not miss. Dave Ramsey's baby steps are great for getting started (I disagree with DR on a great many things so that's not advocating you sign up for anything). Ynab's methodology is actually what got me out of my mess - they have free classes in their website - where budgeting is about planning and not simply tracking. Good luck.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d2cfeada7a458040c3b683316ec66c21",
"text": "\"There is no magic formula to this, quite simply: earn, cut expenses, and pay. It sounds like you can use a little bit of help in the earning area. While it sounds like you are career focused (which is great) what else can you do to earn? Can you start a low cost of entry side business? Examples would include tutoring, consulting, or even baby sitting. Can you work a part time job that is outside of your career field (waiter, gas station, etc...)? One thing that will help greatly is a written budget each and every month. Have a plan on where to spend your money. Then as you pay off a loan throw that money at the next one. No matter if you use the smallest loan first or highest interest rate first method if you do that your debt payments will \"\"snowball\"\", and you will gain momentum. I'd encourage you to keep good records and do projections. Keeping good records will give you hope when you begin to feel discouraged (it happens to just about everyone). Doing projections will give you goals to meet and then exceed. The wife and I had a lot of success using the cash envelope system and found that we almost always had money left over at the end of the pay cycle. For us that money went to pay off more debt. Do you contribute to a 401K? I'd cut that to at least the match, and if you want to get crazy cut it to zero. The main thing to know is that you can do it. I'd encourage you to pay off all your loans not just the high interests ones.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "06e5cec01e37f8eb72bb05d352980cf3",
"text": ">if you don’t have a lot of money, the presence of a sizable sum in the house or even in the bank means that you’ll be constantly tempted to dip into it. The psychology behind statements like this are a source of amusement to me. They seem to presuppose that those who have less money are bad with it, kind of a chicken and egg issue that assumes one over the other. It makes me think that authors, researchers and opiners have likely never felt the degree of financial insecurity that drives behaviors such as the ones being discussed. If you don't have a lot of money, the possession of a sizable sum presents other problems, such as issues of needs and purchases that have been put off due to a lack of resources while you prioritized for survival. You put off buying the washing machine because your car needed repairs, how else were you going to be able to get to work? You can limp by using a laundromat or doing laundry at your parents' house. But you likely put off all sorts of other needs as well, and now you have to find the best way to allocate a sizable sum that likely isn't going to be enough to address all of the needs you have put off. While you're trying to decide how to best allocate this resource, don't forget the talking heads that lecture you on the importance of an emergency fund. Disregard for a moment that when cash is such a scarce resource, any unexpectedly dire circumstance which would be best resolved by your having more of it probably constitutes an emergency.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "3efd6b04f4c411da91108e1ba6a83ead",
"text": "\"Debt cripples you, it weighs you down and keeps you from living your life the way you want. Debt prevents you from accomplishing your goals, limits your ability to \"\"Do\"\" what you want, \"\"Have\"\" what you want, and \"\"Be\"\" who you want to be, it constricts your opportunities, and constrains your charity. As you said, Graduated in May from school. Student loans are coming due here in January. Bought a new car recently. The added monthly expenses have me concerned that I am budgeting my money correctly. Awesome! Congratulations. You need to develop a plan to repay the student loans. Buying a (new) car before you have planned you budget may have been premature. I currently am spending around 45-50% of my monthly (net)income to cover all my expenses and living. The left over is pretty discretionary, but things like eating dinner outside the house and expenses that are abnormal would come out of this. My question is what percentage is a safe amount to be committing to expenses on a monthly basis? Great! Plan 40-50% for essentials, and decide to spend under 20-30% for lifestyle. Be frugal here and you could allocate 30-40% for financial priorities. Budget - create a budget divided into three broad categories, control your spending and your life. Goals - a Goal is a dream with a plan. Organize your goals into specific items with timelines, and steps to progress to your goals. You should have three classes of goals, what you want to \"\"Have\"\", what you want to \"\"Do\"\", and who you want to \"\"Be\"\"; Ask yourself, what is important to you. Then establish a timeline to achieve each goal. You should place specific goals or steps into three time blocks, Near (under 3-6 months), medium (under 12 months), and Long (under 24 months). It is ok to have longer term plans, but establish steps to get to those goals, and place those steps under one of these three timeframes. Example, Good advice I have heard includes keeping housing costs under 25%, keeping vehicle costs under 10%, and paying off debt quickly. Some advise 10-20% for financial priorities, but I prefer 30-40%. If you put 10% toward retirement (for now), save 10-20%, and pay 10-20% toward debt, you should make good progress on your student loans.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f5459f1cebd7e7c8731886b20bd6197",
"text": "\"I see you have posted other questions regarding household budgets. This is a huge first step. Once you see what is coming in, then list everything that goes out regularly...and then try to break down what is leftover into spending, household maintenance, gifts, haircuts, whatever...it becomes very obvious if you have x to spend and you spend 3x. I budget a certain amount of discretionary money for both my husband and myself to spend each month. All of our basic expenses are covered under other categories, but I found out long ago that we each need some money to blow on Starbucks, DVD's, books, etc without having to defend or explain it. If we spend too much, it digs into the next month's amount, or if we are careful, we get to carry it over. I can impulse shop guilt free because it's budgeted in. Long story short, if you set up a budget and have an amount budgeted for most reasonable expenses, and see what is left over...it becomes harder to \"\"unwittingly\"\" overspend. When you are paying attention to your money, and start looking carefully at how you are spending it, you'll notice.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0b13393accc83213c5973089554b85d3",
"text": "\"A budget that you both agree on is a great goal. X% to charity, y% to savings, $z a month to a reserve for house repairs, and so on. Your SO is likely to agree with this, especially if you say it like this: I know you're concerned that I might want to give too much to charity. Why don't we go through the numbers and work out a cap on what I can give away each year? Like, x% of our gross income or y% of our disposable income? Work out x and y in advance so you say real percentages in this \"\"meeting request\"\", but be prepared to actually end up at a different x and y later. Perhaps even suggest an x and y that are a little lower than you would really wish for. If your SO thinks you earn half what you really do, then mental math if you say 5% will lead to half what you want to donate, but don't worry about that at the moment. That could even work in your favour if you've already said you want to give $5000 (or $50,000) a year and mental math with the percentage leads your SO to $2500 (or $25,000), (s)he might think \"\"yes, if we have this meeting I can rein in that crazy generosity.\"\" Make sure your budget is complete. You don't want your SO worrying that if the furnace wears out or the roof needs to be replaced, the money won't be there because you gave it away. Show how these contingencies, and your retirement, will all be taken care of. Show how much you are setting aside to spend on vacations, and so on. That will make it clear that there is room to give to those who are not as fortunate as you. If your SO's motivations are only worry that there won't be money when it's needed, you will not only get permission to donate, you'll get a happier SO. (For those who don't know how this can happen, I knew a woman just like this. The only income she believed they had was her husband's pension. He had several overseas companies and significant royalty income, but she never accounted for that when talking of what they could afford. Her mental image of their income was perhaps a quarter of what it really was, leading to more than one fight about whether they could take a trip, or give a gift, that she thought was too extravagant. For her own happiness I wish he had gone through the budget with her in detail.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4b65a7bc2e4502b2f706e84c5fc12f04",
"text": "\"As THEAO suggested, tracking spending is a great start. But how about this - Figure out the payment needed to get to zero debt in a reasonable time, 24 months, perhaps. If that's more than 15% of your income, maybe stretch a tiny bit to 30 months. If it's much less, send 15% to debt until it's paid, then flip the money to savings. From what's left, first budget the \"\"needs,\"\" rent, utilities, etc. Whatever you spend on food, try to cut back 10%. There is no budget for entertainment or clothes. The whole point is one must either live beneath their means, or increase their income. You've seen what can happen when the debt snowballs. In reality, with no debt to service and the savings growing, you'll find a way to prioritize spending. Some months you'll have to choose, dinner out, or a show. I agree with Keith's food bill, $300-$400/mo for 3 of us. Months with a holiday and large guest list throws that off, of course.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d4e224990a834d6a94e802252d5c6860",
"text": "\"There's no easy solution to this. Unfortunately I think you need a different approach, as you say, using software to track expenses to visualise the percentages and such hasn't helped and in my own experience this sort of money management does not work with all people. Maybe you need to look at the expenses and decide what you can cut out. Somehow we all need to make a distinction between what we need (milk, bread) and what we don't need (magazines, dvds) but still purchase every now and then. Sadly buying things for the second category quickly builds up a bill just as big as the one for the weekly shop only that it contains nothing of actual value and it just seems too easy for some to spend and equal amount of money on \"\"wants\"\" as on \"\"needs\"\" and if a substantial amount of your outgoings are in this category that's where you need to focus the discussion. If you can't find any purchases like that I suspect you need to buy less expensive food.\"",
"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": "746c288007882dc4c832371ee62667c6",
"text": "If you are happy, really honestly happy, there is no need to change because you read it somewhere. While I believe that budgeting in some fun is smart so you don't go crazy, I am really speaking for myself. I personally have to work at not spending more than I make, so I need to blow off some steam. I also think that you will find in the future something you want to do that costs money, and you would be glad to have it now. The same rules apply for you as they apply to everybody",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4212b0339f7fe317e16e428659c08334",
"text": "\"Use the budget to drive down spending so you can save (for retirement, for college, for expenses) and so you can pay off your mortgage early. Some, (Dave Ramsey, for example) advocate for an \"\"Envelope system\"\"... If your budget says 100 a month for restaurants, then at the beginning of the month, you put 100 into that envelope. Once you've spent that much on restaurants that month, you're done for the month. On the other hand, if you don't spend the 100, then you have two choices: either you can adjust the budget downward and put the money somewhere else (like your Mortgage) or you can build up cash in that account so you can afford a really expensive restaurant in a few months.\"",
"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": "eae66be543511758236f6463a1f93a21",
"text": "\"You know how when people called in on the Car Talk radio show (Click and Clack, I miss those guys), and while the caller asked a question about his car, really he needed marital advice? And the hosts would pounce on the part about the disagreement with family member and provide an unexpected answer (\"\"Yeah, the trick to a using a clutch is [...], but really, if you want to learn to drive a stick shift, get your dad out of the car!\"\") So I'm pouncing on the part about the spouse. It sounds like you and your spouse don't always agree on saving and spending, and you want to find a way to agree on saving and spending. If you can find a coach or planner or counselor that you both like and both trust, then go for it. You're looking more for the right personality than a precise job description. Start with exploring what you do agree on: we agree we need to save money, we agree we need to have a spending plan and budget, etc. The right coach will help you get to more agreement -- the job title is less important.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "358304736342d36c627f959472de9729",
"text": "Communicate. I would recommend taking a course together on effective communications, and I would also suggest taking a course on budgeting and family financial planning. You need to be able to effectively communicate your financial plans and goals, your financial actions, and learn to both be honest and open with your partner. You also need to be certain that you come to an agreement. The first step is to draft a budget that you both agree to follow. The following is a rough outline that you could use to begin. There are online budgeting tools, and a spreadsheet where you can track planned versus actuals may better inform your decisions. Depending upon your agreed priorities, you may adjust the following percentages, Essentials (<50% of net income) Financial (>20%) Lifestyle (<30%) - this is your discretionary income, where you spend on the things you want Certain expense categories are large and deserve special advice. Try to limit your housing costs to 25% of your income, unless you live in a high-cost/rent area (where you might budget as high as 35%). Limit your expenses for vehicles below 10% of income. And expensive vehicle might be budgeted (partly) from Lifestyle. Limiting your auto payment to 5% of your income may be a wise choice (when possible). Some families spend $200-300/month on cable TV, and $200-300/month on cellphones. These are Lifestyle decisions, and those on constrained budgets might examine the value from those expenses against the benefit. Dining out can be a budget buster, and those on constrained budgets might consider paying less for convenience, and preparing more meals at home. An average family might spend 8-10% of their income on food. Once you have a budget, you want to handle the following steps, Many of the steps are choices based upon your specific priorities.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "df5b065cb05a89d4e4f2b3b525e02327",
"text": "\"Brokerages offer you the convenience of buying and selling financial products. They are usually not exchanges themselves, but they can be. Typically there is an exchange and the broker sends orders to that exchange. The main benefit that brokers offer is a simpler commission structure. Not all brokers have their own liquidity, but brokers can have their own allotment of shares of a stock, for example, that they will sell you when you make an order, so that you get what you want faster. Regarding accounts at the exchanges to track actual ownership and transfer of assets, it is not safe to assume thats how that works. There are a lot of shortcomings in how the actual exchange works, since the settlement time is 1 - 3 business days, depending on the product (so upwards of 5 to 6 actual days). In a fast market, the asset can change hands many many times making the accounting completely incorrect for extended time periods. Better to not worry about that part, but if you'd like to read more about how that is regulated look up \"\"Failure To Deliver\"\" regulations on short selling to get a better understanding of market microstructure. It is a very antiquated system.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
de71ee6aab37cdda5a3951f2bff05472
|
Any Loop Holes for Owner Occupancy?
|
[
{
"docid": "213859f312c4e3f48e0be8dd4479e533",
"text": "\"There are 2 and 3 family houses that have an \"\"owner occupied\"\" clause for certain financing. Of course, one would rent out the extra apartments without question. The key thing is that owner-occupied means just that, occupancy for tax purposes. Just using a small area like an office won't satisfy the requirement, so no, this isn't legal.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "f6bbadb8199fa90aa011568f6a6db40c",
"text": "I have loved using AirBnB. I have found it easier to hire a maid to clean and it has been extremely financially advantageous for me. Be sure to check out out regulations in your area regarding AirBnB. I spoke with a personal advisor before I used AirBnB just to be sure that it would not affect my insurance, property taxes, as well income tax. It was very helpful to take this step before becoming a host!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b4c4472436470581adf08370392e7add",
"text": "\"The obvious advantage is turning your biggest liability into an income-generating asset. The downside are: (1), you have to find tenants (postings, time to show the place, credit/background check, and etc) (2), you have to deal with tenants (collection of rent, repairs of things that broke by itself, complaints from neighbors, termination, and etc) (3), you have to deal with the repairs In many ways, it's no different from running another (small) business, so it all boils down to how much time you are willing to invest and how handy you are in doing reno's and/or small repairs around the house. For profitability/ROI analysis, you want to assume collection of 11 months of rent per year (i.e. assume tenant doesn't renew after year, so you have the worst case scenario) and factor in all the associated expense (be honest). Renting out a second property is a bit tricky as you often have to deal with a large operating expense (i.e. mortgage), and renting a basement apartment is not bad financially and you will have to get used to have \"\"strangers\"\" downstairs.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9f47d532ee2ff1cd4da42aa86e7f3042",
"text": "Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) and the University of Pittsburgh (Pitt) have different end of term dates but by less than a month. Both have summer sessions, but most students do not stay over the summer. You can rent over the summer, but prices fall by a lot. Thirty to forty thousand students leave over the summer between the two. Only ten to twenty thousand remain throughout the year and not all of those are in Oakland (the neighborhood in Pittsburgh where the universities are located). So many of the landlords in Oakland have the same problem. Your competitors will cut their rates to try to get some rent for the summer months. This also means that you have to handle eight, nine, and three month leases rather than year long and certainly not multiyear leases. You're right that you don't have to buy the latest appliances or the best finishes, but you still have to replace broken windows and doors. Also, the appliances and plumbing need to mostly work. The furnace needs to produce heat and distribute it. If there is mold or mildew, you will have to take care of it. You can't rely on the students doing so. So you have to thoroughly clean the premises between tenants. Students may leave over winter break. If there are problems, the pipes may freeze and burst, etc. Since they're not there, they won't let you know when things break. Students drop out during the term and move out. You probably won't be able to replace them when that happens. If you have three people in two bedrooms, two of them may be in a romantic relationship. Romantic relationships among twenty-year olds end frequently. Your three people drops back to two. Your recourse in that case is to evict the remaining tenants and sue for breach of contract. But if you do that, you may not replace the tenants until a new term starts. Better might be to sue the one who left and accept the lower rent from the other two. But you likely won't get the entire rent amount for the remainder of the lease. Suing an impoverished student is not the road to riches. Pittsburgh is expected to have a 6.1% increase in house prices which almost all of it is going to be pure profit. I don't know specifically about Pittsburgh, but in the national market, housing prices are about where they were in 2004. Prices were flat to increasing from 2004 to 2007 and then fell sharply from 2007 to 2009, were flat to decreasing from 2009 to 2012, and have increased the last few years. Price to rent ratios are as high now as in 2003 and higher than they were the twenty years before that. Maybe prices do increase. Or maybe we hit a new 20% decrease. I would not rely on this for profit. It's great if you get it, but unreliable. I wouldn't rely on estimates for middle class homes to apply to what are essentially slum apartments. A 6% average may be a 15% increase in one place and a 3% decrease in another. The nice homes with the new appliances and the fancy finishes may get the 15% increase. The rundown houses in a block where students party past 2 AM may get no increase. Both the city of Pittsburgh and the county of Allegheny charge property taxes. Schools and libraries charge separate taxes. The city provides a worksheet that estimates $2860 in taxes on a $125,000 property. It doesn't sound like you would be eligible for homestead or senior tax relief. Realtors should be able to tell you the current assessment and taxes on the properties that they are selling you. You should be able to call a local insurance agent to find out what kinds of insurance are available to landlords. There is also renter's insurance which is paid by the tenant. Some landlords require that tenants show proof of insurance before renting. Not sure how common that is in student housing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a68bc6f5d96f39d59ba541147e41b861",
"text": "A look at the utility bills should give you an idea of the actual number of tenants. Some places- like I once read of Carmel, California- may require you prove you have enough water to support more rental cabins. You may find the nearby community is anti-growth. If a profitable expansion were possible, I'm wondering why the current owner didn't do it. Since a fire or flood could destroy all, you'll want to know what full replacement-value insurance and riders will cost. Can emergency vehicles travel the current roads, or is the new owner going to be liable for any costs to widen, cut back brush, and otherwise bring up to code? We did this on the access to our property, then the County graded it. If the location is so remote that a storm could cut you off, you'll want to mentally and physically prepare for this. I've lived in remote areas and it can be heavenly-until someone needs an emergency MediVac. Ensure you've got good antenna for CB or HAM-don't rely on cell alone.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "366e4f092dbfd5bf75a34ea777a4fe2b",
"text": "Here would be the big two you don't mention: Time - How much of your own time are you prepared to commit to this? Are you going to find tenants, handle calls if something breaks down, and other possible miscellaneous issues that may arise with the property? Are you prepared to spend money on possible renovations and other maintenance on the property that may occur from time to time? Financial costs - You don't mention anything about insurance or taxes, as in property taxes since most municipalities need funds that would come from the owner of the home, that would be a couple of other costs to note in having real estate holdings as if something big happens are you expecting a government bailout automatically? If you chose to use a property management company for dealing with most issues then be aware of how much cash flow could be impacted here. Are you prepared to have an account to properly do the books for your company that will hold the property or would you be doing this as an individual without any corporate structure? Do you have lease agreements printed up or would you need someone to provide these for you?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "38693a7bdb7f98d5bc1b396555832d8b",
"text": "\"Sure, it's irresponsible for an executor to take actions which endanger the estate. But what about passivity or inaction? Put it another way. Is it the obligation of the executor to avoid making revenue for the estate? Think about it - what a silly idea! Consider a 12-unit apartment building full of rent paying tenants. A tenant gives notice and leaves. So do 4 more. With only 7/12 tenants, the building stops being a revenue center and becomes a massive money pit. Is that acceptable? Heck no! Realistically this will be managed by a property management company, and of course they'll seek new tenants, not stopping merely because the owner died. This situation is not different; the same fiscal logic applies. The counter-argument is usually along the lines of \"\"stuff might happen if you rent it out\"\"... true. But the stuff that happens to abandoned houses is much worse, and much more likely: squatters, teen \"\"urban explorers\"\", pot growers, copper thieves, winter pipe freeze flooding and wrecking interiors, etc. Don't take my word on it -- ask your insurer for the cost of insuring an abandoned house vs. a rented one. Renting brings a chunk of cash that comes in from tenants - $12,000/year on a $1000/mo. rental. And that will barely pay the bills if you have a young mortgage on a freshly purchased house at recent market rates. But on an old mortgage, renting is like printing money. That money propagates first to the estate (presumably it is holding back a \"\"fix the roof\"\" emergency fund), and then to the beneficiaries. It means getting annual checks from the estate, instead of constantly being dunned for another repair. But I don't care about making revenue (outside of putting back a kitty to replace the roof). Even if it was net zero, it means the maintenance is being done. This being the point. It is keeping the house in good repair, occupied, insured, and professionally managed -- fit and ready for the bequest's purpose: occupancy of an aunt. What's the alternative? Move an aunt into a house that's been 10 years abandoned? Realistically the heirs are going to get tired/bored of maintaining the place at a total cash loss, maintenance will slip, and you'll be moving them into a neglected house with some serious issues. That betrays the bequest, and it's not fair to the aunts. Rental is a very responsible thing to do. The executor shouldn't fail to do it merely out of passivity. If you decide not to do it, there needs to be a viable alternative to funding the home's decent upkeep. (I don't think there is one). Excluding a revenue-producing asset from the economy is an expensive thing to do.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a62f37b34eba5991155bb33948b3dbf5",
"text": "It might some but I'd wager it pushes the short-term rental pricing down (like hotels) while pushing the long-term rental and housing market prices up. If landlords can make way more in short-term rentals they are going to do that and limit the supply of long-term. The tourism sector may have increased revenue but by what extent I don't know. I'd wager that exploding rent and housing prices will negate any benefits for most residents and may end up costing them much more. This is why I think you should only be able to do it on your primary residence. Unless you want to be regulated like a hotel because if you have short-term rentals that you don't reside in, that is effectively what you are. Not being regulated the same as a hotel at that point only gives you an unfair loophole advantage to other short-term rentals.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd3b478a6bdb1e7a8d291a965d3ca2fc",
"text": "Others have already made good points, so I'll just add a few more: You say that if you bought it, your mortgage, insurance, and taxes minus the rental income from the bottom floor would leave you with costs of 1/4 of your current rent. That means you're getting a fantastic deal on the purchase price. I suspect you may be underestimating some of those costs. So, get exact figures on the mortgage, insurance and taxes and do the math. If it is that good, go for it, just make sure to get that home inspection (in case there's major problems and they're trying to get out while the gettin's good) Also, some advice: Be prepared to cover that entire monthly cost for a few months. Units can stand empty for a while. Also, you may want to rent out slowly - a good tenent found after a couple months is much better than a bad tenent found quickly. Also, have some money set aside for maintenence. As a renter, you've never really had to think about that before, but as a homeowner you do. As a landlord, it's even more important - you can not fix something in your own home for a while if you needed to wait, but in a tenent unit, you have to fix it immediately. Finally, taxes: You do get to deduct interest, and so on, but it'll work a little differently than you think. You'll have to split it in half (if the units are the same size) and deduct half the interest as a normal homeowner deduction, the other half as a business expense. Same for PMI, insurance, and property taxes. If you do maintenance that effects both units, like fixing the roof, half will be deductible, the other half not. However, maintenance that only affects the tenant unit is fully deductible. You can claim depreciation, but only for half. So, your starting amount you can depreciate would be (purchase price - land value)/2. Same thing here - half is your home, the other half is a business. Note that some things you'd think of as maintenance costs actually can't be deducted, only depreciated over time. Take that leaky roof, for example. If you replaced it instead of repairing it, you could not deduct your replacement costs. It counts as an improvement, and gets added to your cost-basis, where you depreciate it along with (half!) the house. If your tenant's refrigerator went out, and you replaced it, you couldn't deduct that either. However you can depreciate all of it on another schedule (seperate from home depreciation). If you repaired it instead, you can deduct all of it immediately. Taxes suck.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b50f43e5a7eefb771bcd826a71b5627",
"text": "Heres what you need to know: This can be prevented by what a previous renter did to us. This is a smart, kind of a jerky way to do it but its VERY SMART, as long as your property is worth it, raise the rent higher. You must have a very nice, clean, everything working, house. You must be willing to have anything fixed. this is all to make up the high rent. You don't want the rent way out of proportion but just a bit higher. This is because, more than likely, people who are going to pay for a higher rent don't usually leave a mess, (higher class families vs lower class people living alone..) What might also help from the risk of damage is create a fee (also what my renter did) of any painting needed done like finger prints on the wall, nails in the wall, carpet stains, etc when the tenant is ready to move out. I would suggest a required professional carpet cleaning as well when lease is up. My renter was very nice, but very strict and did all these things. He has a few properties that are very nice middle class houses. Your home sounds like it could easily pass for this kind of business depending on where you live. If the tenant leaves before his lease is up you could charge a 1-2 month's rent to be able to find a new tenant. Be proactive on finding a tenant before the lease is up. This would be a bit of work to first set up and usually maintain, but its a good thing to think about.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "17a97468d02ef23f8242fabd8c3ad769",
"text": "\"I very much agree with what @Grade 'Eh' Bacon said about townhouses, but wanted to add a bit about HOA's, renting after moving on, and appreciation: HOA's HOA's can be restrictive, but they can also help protect property values, not all HOA's are created equal, some mean you have zero exterior maintenance, some don't. You'll be able to review the HOA financials to see where the money goes (and if they have healthy reserves). You'll see how much they spend on administration, I think ~10% is typical, and administration can be offset by the savings associated with doing everything in bulk. A well-run HOA should actually save you money over paying for all the things separately, but many people are happy to do some things themselves rather than pay for it, and would come out ahead if they didn't have an HOA. And of course, not all HOA's are well-run. Just do your best to get informed Transitioning to Rental If you are interested in trying your hand being a landlord after living there for a while, a townhouse typically exposes you to less rental risk than a single-family home, because the cost is typically lower and if the HOA maintains everything outside the house then you don't have to worry as much about tenants keeping a lawn in good shape, for example. Appreciation Appreciation varies wildly by market, some research by Trulia suggests in general condo's have outperformed single-family houses over the last 5 years by 10.5%. The same article notes that others disagree with Trulia's assessment and put condo's below single-family houses by 1.3% annually. My first townhouse has appreciated 41% over the last 3 years, while houses in the area are closer to 30% over the same period, but I believe that's a function of my local market more than a nationwide trend. I wouldn't plan around any appreciation forecasts. Source: Condos may be appreciating faster than single-family houses My adviceYou have to do your research on each potential property regardless of whether it's a condo/townhouse/single-family to find out what restrictions there are and what services are provided by the HOA (if any), your agent should be provided with most of the pertinent info, and you may not get to see HOA financials until you're under contract. Most importantly in my view, I wouldn't buy anywhere near the top of your budget. Being \"\"house-poor\"\" is no fun and will limit your options, don't count on appreciation or better income in the future to justify stretching yourself thin in the short-term.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "87da576f3c8012a74209d6db176a2c7a",
"text": "\"You are assuming 100% occupancy and 100% rent collection. This is unrealistic. You could get lucky and find that long term tenant with great credit that always pays their bills... but in reality that person usually buys a home they do not rent long term. So you will need to be prepared for periods of no renters and periods of non payment. The expenses here I would expect could wipe out more than you can make in \"\"profit\"\" based on your numbers. Have you checked to find out what the insurance on a rental property is? I am guessing it will go up probably 200-500 a year possibly more depending on coverage. You will need a different type of insurance for rental property. Have you checked with your mortgage provider to make sure that you can convert to a rental property? Some mortgages (mine is one) restrict the use of the home from being a rental property. You may be required to refinance your home which could cost you more, in addition if you are under water it will be hard to find a new financier willing to write that mortgage with anything like reasonable terms. You are correct you would be taking on a new expense in rental. It is non deductible, and the IRS knows this well. As Littleadv's answer stated you can deduct some expenses from your rental property. I am not sure that you will have a net wash or loss when you add those expenses. If you do then you have a problem since you have a business losing money. This does not even address the headaches that come with being a landlord. By my quick calculations if you want to break even your rental property should be about 2175/Month. This accounts for 80% occupancy and 80% rental payment. If you get better than that you should make a bit of a profit... dont worry im sure the house will find a way to reclaim it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "77b59558c9d957cfd8149d31f8d1c34c",
"text": "Disadvantage is that tenant could sue you for something, and in an unfavorable judgement they would have access to your house as property to possess. You could lose the house. Even if you make an LLC to hold the house, they'll either sue you or the LLC and either way you could lose the house. This might be why the landlord is moving to Florida where their house cannot be possessed in a judgement because of the state's strong homestead exemption ;)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "05cd46be385369599415155435befba7",
"text": "Thanks for the feedback obelus, The cost is $20,000 to 50,000 sqft. Ya I am just looking for a rough idea of what a similar newer building is costing I figured what we are paying is really high as the building is extremely old and designated as a heritage site so we can't just knock it down. Beautiful building just not very efficient. The newer building is the route I think we are gonna end up going not sure what we can do with the current building as not too many options for resale. We can't adjust the lease rates to compensate for the cost as the tenants are all seniors and it is an integrated care home. A change to apartments would prove difficult as there are no kitchens in 90% of the suites. We are currently paying approximately $0.40 psf a month to heat (All electric) and the estimate for the new building is $0.1425 psf (Geothermal) so it is a pretty huge impact in comparison if it is possible but I haven't heard of a real building actually costing that little before. Thanks for the suggestion for the IR I think I am gonna get some one in after the holidays to do a inspection to see if there is any short term fixes we can do with our system.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b9b5799fc7da961ab2a1c9d6082c9be0",
"text": "\"Several, actually: Maintenance costs. As landlord, you are liable for maintaining the basic systems of the dwelling - structure, electrical, plumbing, HVAC. On top of that, you typically also have to maintain anything that comes with the space, so if you're including appliances like a W/D or fridge, if they crap out you could spend a months' rent or more replacing them. You are also required to keep the property up to city codes as far as groundskeeping unless you specifically assign those responsibilities to your tenant (and in some states you are not allowed to do so, and in many cases renters expect groundskeeping to come out of their rent one way or the other). Failure to do these things can put you in danger of giving your tenant a free out on the lease contract, and even expose you to civil and criminal penalties if you're running a real slum. Escrow payments. The combination of property tax and homeowner's insurance usually doubles the monthly housing payment over principal and interest, and that's if you got a mortgage for 20% down. Also, because this is not your primary residence, it's ineligible for Homestead Act exemptions (where available; states like Texas are considering extending Homestead exemptions to landlords, with the expectation it will trickle down to renters), however mortgage interest and state taxes do count as \"\"rental expenses\"\" and can be deducted on Schedule C as ordinary business expenses offsetting revenues. Income tax. The money you make in rent on this property is taxable as self-employment income tax; you're effectively running a sole proprietorship real-estate management company, so not only does any profit (you are allowed to deduct maintenance and administrative costs from the rent revenues) get added to whatever you make in salary at your day job, you're also liable for the full employee and employer portions of Medicare/Medicaid/SS taxes. You are, however, also allowed to depreciate the property over its expected life and deduct depreciation; the life of a house is pretty long, and if you depreciate more than the house's actual loss of value, you take a huge hit if/when you sell because any amount of the sale price above the depreciated price of the house is a capital gain (though, it can work to your advantage by depreciating the maximum allowable to reduce ordinary income, then paying lower capital gains rates on the sale). Legal costs. The rental agreement typically has to be drafted by a lawyer in order to avoid things that can cause the entire contract to be thrown out (though there are boilerplate contracts available from state landlords' associations). This will cost you a few hundred dollars up front and to update it every few years. It is deductible as an ordinary expense. Advertising. Putting up a \"\"For Rent\"\" sign out front is typically just the tip of the iceberg. Online and print ads, an ad agency, these things cost money. It's deductible as an ordinary expense. Add this all up and you may end up losing money in the first year you rent the property, when legal, advertising, initial maintenance/purchases to get the place tenant-ready, etc are first spent; deduct it properly and it'll save you some taxes, but you better have the nest egg to cover these things on top of everything your lender will expect you to bring to closing (assuming you don't have $100k+ lying around to buy the house in cash).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3fd14cd78e53580cfc1beb0f4514c885",
"text": "I believe that the form you will need to fill out for the company is the IRS' W-8ECI form. My US-based Fortune 50 company pays my rent in Germany, and had my landlord fill one out so that they would not need to do any withholding for the payments. From this IRS site on withholding income for payments to Foreign Individuals: Withholding exemption. In most cases, you do not need to withhold tax on income if you receive a Form W-8ECI on which a foreign payee represents that: The foreign payee is the beneficial owner of the income, The income is effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States, and The income is includible in the payee's gross income. Good luck!",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a88165ddf0892700d31afc1f73e62cde
|
How can I tell if this internet sales manager is telling me the real “true cost” of a new car to the dealer
|
[
{
"docid": "51efadd821f1bda70945d48d468a2950",
"text": "I don't buy new cars anymore, but I've helped family members negotiate prices on new cars recently. There are various online services to see the average price paid, as well as the low outliers. I've looked at truecar.com for instance to see what others have paid within 50 miles of my zip-code. I think the only way for you to know you're being offered a good deal is to see if any of the other dealers that have not responded are willing to talk when you offer them $22,300 which the dealer above suggested was break-even point. If none of them respond, then you know you're really at the bottom of the negotiating window. If one of them does respond, then you can go back to that internet sales manager and ask why another dealership (do not disclose which one) is willing to sell it to you for less than $22,400 (do not disclose how much lower they offered to sell it for). In my experience, most dealers will sell at or just below the break-even price at the end of the quarter so that they can beat other dealerships out for the quota. That gives you a week and a half to find the bottom price before going in on New Years Eve to seal the deal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bdcb65a4ec2e966adfb3087f18f1e5a7",
"text": "\"Consumer Reports offers a service that can tell you detailed actual cost to a dealer for a specific model and accessories -- real cost after rebates, not just invoice price. It costs a bit to order these reports, but if you are serious about buying a new car they are a highly recommended tool -- cu is independent and will give you the best info available, and simply walking into the dealership with the report in your hand can save huge amounts of negotiating. \"\"If you can give it to me for $500 over the real price, as shown here, I'll sign now.\"\" Of course, standard advice is that it's usually better to buy a recent-model used car. I believe cu has other reports that can help you determine what a fair price is in that case, but usually I just bring it to a trusted garage and pay them to tell me exactly how much work it needs and whether they think it's worth the asking price.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "ca6825a395b2bee9c84e0f46ececc662",
"text": "\"At one point in my life I sold cars and from what I saw, three things stick out. Unless the other dealership was in the same network, eg ABC Ford of City A, and ABC Ford of City B, they never had possession of that truck. So, no REAL application for a loan could be sent in to a bank, just a letter of intent, if one was sent at all. With a letter of intent, a soft pull is done, most likely by the dealership, where they then attached that score to the LOI that the bank has an automated program send back an automatic decline, an officer review reply, or a tentative approval (eg tier 0,1,2...8). The tentative approval is just that, Tentative. Sometime after a lender has a loan officer look at the full application, something prompts them to change their offer. They have internal guidelines, but lets say an app is right at the line for 2-3 of the things they look at, they chose to lower the credit tier or decline the app. The dealership then goes back and looks at what other offers they had. Let's say they had a Chase offer at 3.25% and a CapOne for 5.25% they would say you're approved at 3.5%, they make their money on the .25%. But after Chase looks into the app and sees that, let's say you have been on the job for actually 11 months and not 1 year, and you said you made $50,000, but your 1040 shows $48,200, and you have moved 6 times in the last 5 years. They comeback and say no he is not a tier 2 but a tier 3 @ 5.5%. They switch to CapOne and say your rate has in fact gone up to 5.5%. Ultimately you never had a loan to start with - only a letter of intent. The other thing could be that the dealership finance manager looked at your credit score and guessed they would offer 3.5%, when they sent in the LOI it came back higher than he thought. Or he was BSing you, so if you price shopped while they looked for a truck you wouldn't get far. They didn't find that Truck, or it was not what they thought it would be. If a dealership sees a truck in inventory at another dealer they call and ask if it's available, if they have it, and it's not being used as a demo for a sales manager, they agree to send them something else for the trade, a car, or truck or whatever. A transfer driver of some sort hops in that trade, drives the 30 minutes - 6 hours away and comes back so you can sign the Real Application, TODAY! while you're excited about your new truck and willing to do whatever you need to do to get it. Because they said it would take 2-5 days to \"\"Ship\"\" it tells me it wasn't available. Time Kills Deals, and dealerships know this: they want to sign you TODAY! Some dealerships want \"\"honest\"\" money or a deposit to go get the truck, but reality is that that is a trick to test you to make sure you are going to follow through after they spend the gas and add mileage to a car. But if it takes 2 days+, The truck isn't out there, or the dealer doesn't have a vehicle the other dealership wants back, or no other dealership likes dealing with them. The only way it would take that long is if you were looking for something very rare, an odd color in an unusual configuration. Like a top end model in a low selling color, or configuration you had to have that wouldn't sell well - like you wanted all the options on a car except a cigarette lighter, you get the idea. 99.99% of the time a good enough truck is available. Deposits are BS. They don't setup any kind of real contract, notice most of the time they want a check. Because holding on to a check is about as binding as making you wear a chicken suit to get a rebate. All it is, is a test to see if you will go through with signing the deal. As an example of why you don't let time pass on a car deal is shown in this. One time we had a couple want us to find a Cadillac Escalade Hybrid in red with every available option. Total cost was about $85-90k. Only two new Red Escalade hybrids were for sale in the country at the time, one was in New York, and the other was in San Fransisco, and our dealership is in Texas, and neither was wanting to trade with us, so we ended up having to buy the SUV from one of the other dealerships inventory. That is a very rare thing to do by the way. We took a 25% down payment, around $20,000, in a check. We flew a driver to wherever the SUV was and then drove it back to Texas about 4 days later. The couple came back and hated the color, they would not take the SUV. The General Manager was pissed, he spent around $1000 just to bring the thing to Texas, not to mention he had to buy the thing. The couple walked and there was nothing the sales manager, GM, or salesman could do. We had not been able to deliver the car, and ultimately the dealership ate the loss, but it shows that deposits are useless. You can't sell something you don't own, and dealerships know it. Long story short, you can't claim a damage you never experienced. Not having something happen that you wanted to have happen is not a damage because you can't show a real economic loss. One other thing, When you sign the paperwork that you thought was an application, it was an authorization for them to pull your credit and the fine print at the bottom is boiler plate defense against getting sued for everything imaginable. Ours took up about half of one page and all of the back of the second page. I know dealing with car dealerships is hard, working at them is just as hard, and I'm sorry that you had to deal with it, however the simplest and smoothest car deals are the ones where you pay full price.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "52e40fd08cb30cf52d054148af711b47",
"text": "\"I read a really good tract that my credit union gave me years ago written by a former car salesman about negotiation tactics with car dealers. Wish I could find it again, but I remember a few of the main points. 1) Never negotiate based on the monthly payment amount. Car salesmen love to get you into thinking about the monthly loan payment and often start out by asking what you can afford for a payment. They know that they can essentially charge you whatever they want for the car and make the payments hit your budget by tweaking the loan terms (length, down payment, etc.) 2) (New cars only) Don't negotiate on the price directly. It is extremely hard to compare prices between dealerships because it is very hard to find exactly the same combination of options. Instead negotiate the markup amount over dealer invoice. 3) Negotiate one thing at a time A favorite shell game of car dealers is to get you to negotiate the car price, trade-in price, and financing all at one time. Unless you are a rain-man mathematical genius, don't do it. Doing this makes it easy for them to make concessions on one thing and take them right back somewhere else. (Minus $500 on the new car, plus $200 through an extra half point on financing, etc). 4) Handling the Trade-In 5) 99.9999% of the time the \"\"I forgot to mention\"\" extra items are a ripoff They make huge bonuses for selling this extremely overpriced junk you don't need. 6) Scrutinize everything on the sticker price I've seen car dealers have the balls to add a line item for \"\"Marketing Costs\"\" at around $500, then claim with a straight face that unlike OTHER dealers they are just being upfront about their expenses instead of hiding them in the price of the car. Pure bunk. If you negotiate based on an offset from the invoice instead of sticker price it helps you avoid all this nonsense since the manufacturer most assuredly did not include \"\"Marketing costs\"\" on the dealer invoice. 7) Call Around before closing the deal Car dealers can be a little cranky about this, but they often have an \"\"Internet sales person\"\" assigned to handle this type of deal. Once you know what you want, but before you buy, get the model number and all the codes for the options then call 2-3 dealers and try to get a quote over the phone or e-mail on that exact car. Again, get the quote in terms of markup from dealer invoice price, not sticker price. Going through the Internet sales guy doesn't at all mean you have to buy on the Internet, I still suggest going down to the dealership with the best price and test driving the car in person. The Internet guy is just a sales guy like all the rest of them and will be happy to meet with you and talk through the deal in-person. Update: After recently going through this process again and talking to a bunch of dealers, I have a few things to add: 7a) The price posted on the Internet is often the dealer's bottom line number. Because of sites like AutoTrader and other car marketplaces that let you shop the car across dealerships, they have a lot of incentive to put their rock-bottom prices online where they know people aggressively comparison shop. 7b) Get the price of the car using the stock number from multiple sources (Autotrader, dealer web site, eBay Motors, etc.) and find the lowest price advertised. Then either print or take a screenshot of that price. Dealers sometimes change their prices (up or down) between the time you see it online and when you get to the dealership. I just bought a car where the price went up $1,000 overnight. The sales guy brought up the website and tried to convince me that I was confused. I just pulled up the screenshot on my iPhone and he stopped arguing. I'm not certain, but I got the feeling that there is some kind of bait-switch law that says if you can prove they posted a price they have to honor it. In at least two dealerships they got very contrite and backed away slowly from their bargaining position when I offered proof that they had posted the car at a lower price. 8) The sales guy has ultimate authority on the deal and doesn't need approval Inevitably they will leave the room to \"\"run the deal by my boss/financing guy/mom\"\" This is just a game and negotiating trick to serve two purposes: - To keep you in the dealership longer not shopping at competitors. - So they can good-cop/bad-cop you in the negotiations on price. That is, insult your offer without making you upset at the guy in front of you. - To make it harder for you to walk out of the negotiation and compromise more readily. Let me clarify that last point. They are using a psychological sales trick to make you feel like an ass for wasting the guy's time if you walk out on the deal after sitting in his office all afternoon, especially since he gave you free coffee and sodas. Also, if you have personally invested a lot of time in the deal so far, it makes you feel like you wasted your own time if you don't cross the goal line. As soon as one side of a negotiation forfeits the option to walk away from the deal, the power shifts significantly to the other side. Bottom line: Don't feel guilty about walking out if you can't get the deal you want. Remember, the sales guy is the one that dragged this thing out by playing hide-and-seek with you all day. He wasted your time, not the reverse.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe53fc578ef231eb4f000c990378512f",
"text": "You have a good start (estimated max amount you will pay, estimated max down payment, and term) Now go to your bank/credit union and apply for the loan. Get a commitment. They will give you a letter, you may have to ask for it. The letter will say the maximum amount you can pay for the car. This max includes their money and your down payment. The dealer doesn't have to know how much is loan. You also know from the loan commitment exactly how much your monthly payment will be in the worst case. If you have a car you want to trade in, get an written estimate that is good for a week or so. This lets you know how much you can get from selling the car. Now visit the dealer and tell them you don't need a loan, and won't be trading in a car. Don't show them the letter. After all the details of the purchase are concluded, including any rebates and specials, then bring up financing and trade-in. If they can't beat the deal from your bank and the written estimate for the car you are selling, then the deal is done. Now show them the letter and discuss how much down they need today. Then go to the bank for the rest of the money. If they do have a better loan deal or trade in then go with the dealer offer, and keep the letter in your pocket. If you go to the dealer first they will confuse you because they will see the price, interest rate, length of loan, and trade in as one big ball of mud. They will pick the settings that make you happy enough, yet still make them the most money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "3f619a6f40638cb8a9ed76badeb58cb7",
"text": "\"Paperwork prevails. What you have is a dealer who get a kickback for sending financing to that institution. And the dealer pretty much said \"\"We only get paid our kickback at two levels of loan life, 6 and 12 months.\"\" You just didn't quite read between the lines. This is very similar to the Variable Annuity salespeople who tell their clients, \"\"The best feature about this product is that the huge commissions I get from the sale fund my kid's college tuition and my own retirement. You, on the other hand, don't really do so well.\"\" Car salesmen and VA sellers.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c9ca73093da2b020403e5db113fab51c",
"text": "No. At least not in my case. Without divulging too much information. I don't tell any of my distributors how to sell my company's products our engage their customer base, but due to the nature of my business, I am frequently called on for product selection, marketing, quality, etc. Distributors often utilize their account reps and managers to help them push products on their customer base. The only way this could be seen as truthful, in my opion, is direct retail distribution. Because how are you going to track the product after it has been purchased by a consumer.",
"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": "f95bc581a3d4e6fe834469a1a551bbe3",
"text": "\"It is a legitimate practice. The dealers do get the loan money \"\"up front\"\" because they're not holding the loan themselves; they promptly sell it to someone else or (more commonly) just act as salesmen for a lending institution and take their profit as commission or origination fees. The combined deal is often not a good choice for the consumer, though. Remember that the dealer's goal is to close a sale with maximum profit. If they're offering to drop the price $2k, they either didn't expect to actually get that price in the first place, or expect at least $2k of profit from the loan, or some combination of these. Standard advice is to negotiate price, loan, and trade-in separately. First get the dealer's best price on the car, compare it to other dealer and other cars, and walk away if you don't like their offer. Repeat for the loan, checking the dealer's offer against banks/credit unions available to you. If you have an older car to unload, get quotes for it and consider whether you might do better selling it yourself. ========= Standard unsolicited plug for Consumef Reports' \"\"car facts\"\" service, if you're buying a new car (which isn't usually the best option; late-model used is generally a better value). For a small fee, they can tell you what the dealer's real cost of a car is, after all the hidden incentives and rebates. That lets you negotiate directly on how much profit they need on this sale... and focuses their attention on the fact that the time they spend haggling with you is time they could be using to sell the next one. Simply walking into the dealer with this printout in your hand cuts out a lot of nonsense. The one time I bought new, I basically walked in and said \"\"It's the end of the model year. I'll give you $500 profit to take one of those off your hands before the new ones come in, if you've got one configured the way I want it.\"\" Closed the deal on the spot; the only concession I had to make was on color. It doesn't always work; some salesmen are idiots. In that case you walk away and try another dealer. (I am not affiliated in any way with CU or the automotive or lending industries, except as customer. And, yes, this touch keyboard is typo-prone.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b1b626a6a93f933925f5e3d6ad2d08dd",
"text": "\"I bought a car a few years ago. The salesman had the order, I knew the car I wanted and we had a price agreed on. When I refused the payment plan/loan, his manager came over and did a hard sell. \"\"99% of buyers take the financing\"\" was the best he could do. I told him I was going to be part of the 1%. With rates so low, his 2 or 3% offer was higher than my own cost of money. He went so far as to say that I could just pay it off the first month. Last, instead of accepting a personal check and letting me pick up the car after it cleared, he insisted on a bank check to start the registration process. (This was an example of one dealer, illustrating the point.) In other cases, for a TV, a big box store (e.g. Best Buy) isn't going to deal for cash, but a small privately owned \"\"mom and pop\"\" shop might. The fees they are charged are pretty fixed, they don't pay a higher fee cause I get 2% cash back, vs your mastercard that might offer less.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a7fe5da9ac721e18879a72399c629a4",
"text": "Yes, Edmunds gets money from the dealerships in this program. According to this USA Today article from 2013, dealers pay Edmunds a monthly fee to participate in the program. This contrasts with TrueCar.com, a similar service, where dealers pay a fee for each sale. And yes, it is certainly possible to negotiate a lower price than the Edmunds Price Promise quote, if you enjoy haggling. The purpose of the program is not to get you the best price, just the easiest buying experience. From the USA Today article: Edmunds.com's price promise business model is designed to take the uncertainty out of pricing, speed up the buying process and also comes with the expectation that the customer will be given top-notch customer service. Dealers who have participated find that they are able to sell their cars for $300 to $500 more than consumers who go through the more traditional price quote request process. Customers, [Edmunds.com president and chief operating officer Seth] Berkowitz said, are willing to pay a little more than the best possible deal if they can save time, get great customer service and know they are getting a fair price.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "742133d583b237c209e3e151a9afde1f",
"text": "\"If there's one reasonably close to you, you could go to a no-haggle dealership. Instead of making you haggle the price downward, they just give a theoretically fixed price that's roughly what the average customer could negotiate down to at a conventional dealer. Then just do your best broken record impression if they still try to sell you dubious addons: \"\"No. No. No. No. No...\"\" The last time I bought a new car (06), a no haggle dealer offered the second best deal I got out of 4 dealerships visited. The one I ended up buying with made an exceptional offer on my trade (comparable to 3rd party sale bluebook value). - My guess is they had a potential customer looking for something like my old car and were hoping to resell it directly instead of flipping it via auction.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "30f16531b7454d3d187e72c0f44fc93f",
"text": "\"—they will pull your credit report and perform a \"\"hard inquiry\"\" on your file. This means the inquiry will be noted in your credit report and count against you, slightly. This is perfectly normal. Just don't apply too many times too soon or it can begin to add up. They will want proof of your income by asking for recent pay stubs. With this information, your income and your credit profile, they will determine the maximum amount of credit they will lend you and at what interest rate. The better your credit profile, the more money they can lend and the lower the rate. —that you want financed (the price of the car minus your down payment) that is the amount you can apply for and in that case the only factors they will determine are 1) whether or not you will be approved and 2) at what interest rate you will be approved. While interest rates generally follow the direction of the prime rate as dictated by the federal reserve, there are market fluctuations and variances from one lending institution to the next. Further, different institutions will have different criteria in terms of the amount of credit they deem you worthy of. —you know the price of the car. Now determine how much you want to put down and take the difference to a bank or credit union. Or, work directly with the dealer. Dealers often give special deals if you finance through them. A common scenario is: 1) A person goes to the car dealer 2) test drives 3) negotiates the purchase price 4) the salesman works the numbers to determine your monthly payment through their own bank. Pay attention during that last process. This is also where they can gain leverage in the deal and make money through the interest rate by offering longer loan terms to maximize their returns on your loan. It's not necessarily a bad thing, it's just how they have to make their money in the deal. It's good to know so you can form your own analysis of the deal and make sure they don't completely bankrupt you. —is that you can comfortable afford your monthly payment. The car dealers don't really know how much you can afford. They will try to determine to the best they can but only you really know. Don't take more than you can afford. be conservative about it. For example: Think you can only afford $300 a month? Budget it even lower and make yourself only afford $225 a month.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a3d8fefc639c7cb5e3c2ba260f5dd1fd",
"text": "\"I'm going to ignore your numbers to avoid spending the time to understand them. I'm just going to go over the basic moving parts of trading an upside down car against another financed car because I think you're conflating price and value. I'm also going to ignore taxes, and fees, and depreciation. The car has an acquisition cost (price) then it has a value. You pay the price to obtain this thing, then in the future it is worth what someone else will pay you. When you finance a car you agree to your $10,000 price, then you call up Mr. Bank and agree to pay 10% per year for 5 years on that $10,000. Mr. Banker wires over $10,000 and you drive home in your car. Say in a year you want a different car. This new car has a price of $20,000, and wouldn't you know it they'll even buy your current car from you. They'll give you $7,000 to trade in your current car. Your current car has a value of $7,000. You've made 12 payments of $188.71. Of those payments about $460 was interest, you now owe about $8,195 to Mr. Banker. The new dealership needs to send payment to Mr. Banker to get the title for your current car. They'll send the $7,000 they agreed to pay for your car. Then they'll loan you the additional $1,195 ($8,195 owed on the car minus $7,000 trade in value). Your loan on the new car will be for $21,195, $20,000 for the new car and $1,195 for the amount you still owed on the old car after the dealership paid you $7,000 for your old car. It doesn't matter what your down-payment was on the old car, it doesn't matter what your payment was before, it doesn't matter what you bought your old car for. All that matters is how much you owe on it today and how much the buyer (the dealership) is willing to pay you for it. How much of this is \"\"loss\"\" is an extremely vague number to derive primarily because your utility of the car has a value. But it could be argued that the $1,195 added on to your new car loan to pay for the old car is lost.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a1f39931d478f146422f20709cd9041",
"text": "\"Ditto other answers, but I'd add there's a lot of psychology going on in a sale. If you're paying cash, you presumably have a pretty fixed upper limit on what you can spend. But if you're getting a loan, a large increase in the price of the car may sound like just a small addition to the monthly payment. Also, these days dealers often try to roll \"\"extended warranties\"\" into the loan payment. Most people can't calculate loan amortizations in their heads -- I'm pretty good at math, and I need a calculator to work it out, assuming I remember or wrote down the formula -- a dealer can often stick a piece of paper in front of you saying \"\"Loan payment: $X per month\"\" with fine print that says that includes $50 for the extended warranty, and most people would just say, \"\"oh, okay\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3f2fe213073a0ef09e9a491cd875a15",
"text": "Believe it or not, what they're asking you is not as unusual as you might think. Our company sells a tremendous amount of expensive merchandise over the Internet, and whenever there's something odd or suspicious about the transaction, we may ask the customer to provide a picture of the card simply to prove they have physical possession of it. This is more reassurance to us (to the extent that's possible) that the customer isn't using a stolen card number to order stuff. It doesn't help too much, but if the charge is disputed, at least we have something to show we made reasonable efforts to verify the ownership of the card. I think it's pretty thin, but that's what my employer does.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
c2ab327130b9423ccbfba6c234376a7b
|
Are there any funds tracking INDEXDJX:REIT?
|
[
{
"docid": "c6cfd328152923cd18a400e5ea5ef1a5",
"text": "Although you can't invest in an index, you can invest in a fund that basically invests in what the index is made up of. Example: In dealing with an auto index, you could find a fund that buys car companies's stock. The Google Finance list of funds dealing with INDEXDJX:REIT Although not pertaining to your quetion exactly, you may want to consider buying into Vanguard REIT ETF I hope this answers your question.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "74e5c4eb9edac1768960798a29a788c8",
"text": "\"Beatrice does a good job of summarizing things. Tracking the index yourself is expensive (transaction costs) and tedious (number of transactions, keeping up with the changes, etc.) One of the points of using an index fund is to reduce your workload. Diversification is another point, though that depends on the indexes that you decide to use. That said, even with a relatively narrow index you diversify in that segment of the market. A point I'd like to add is that the management which occurs for an index fund is not exactly \"\"active.\"\" The decisions on which stocks to select are already made by the maintainers of the index. Thus, the only management that has to occur involves the trades required to mimic the index.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7281e2011dcf9a28ad110b6fda9ae354",
"text": "\"The majority (about 80%) of mutual funds are underperforming their underlying indexes. This is why ETFs have seen massive capital inflows compared to equity funds, which have seen significant withdrawals in the last years. I would definitively recommend going with an ETF. In addition to pure index based ETFs that (almost) track broad market indexes like the S&P 500 there are quite a few more \"\"quant\"\" oriented ETFs that even outperformed the S&P. I am long the S&P trough iShares ETFs and have dividend paying ETFs and some quant ETFS on top (Invesco Powershares) in my portfolio.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "13804378135ed6bfb6d6e7517aac9d40",
"text": "index ETF tracks indented index (if fund manager spend all money on Premium Pokemon Trading Cards someone must cover resulting losses) Most Index ETF are passively managed. ie a computer algorithm would do automatic trades. The role of fund manager is limited. There are controls adopted by the institution that generally do allow such wide deviations, it would quickly be flagged and reported. Most financial institutions have keyman fraud insurance. fees are not higher that specified in prospectus Most countries have regulation where fees need to be reported and cannot exceed the guideline specified. at least theoretically possible to end with ETF shares that for weeks cannot be sold Yes some ETF's can be illiquid at difficult to sell. Hence its important to invest in ETF that are very liquid.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "18ba65edf360c23887d0043f4696facb",
"text": "Now, if I'm not mistaken, tracking a value-weighted index is extremely easy - just buy the shares in the exact amount they are in the index and wait. Yes in theory. In practise this is difficult. Most funds that track S&P do it on sample basis. This is to maintain the fund size. Although I don't have / know the exact number ... if one wants to replicate the 500 stocks in the same %, one would need close to billion in fund size. As funds are not this large, there are various strategies adopted, including sampling of companies [i.e. don't buy all]; select a set of companies that mimic the S&P behaviour, etc. All these strategies result in tracking errors. There are algorithms to reduce this. The only time you would need to rebalance your holdings is when there is a change in the index, i.e. a company is dropped and a new one is added, right? So essentially rebalance is done to; If so, why do passive ETFs require frequent rebalancing and generally lose to their benchmark index? lets take an Index with just 3 companies, with below price. The total Market cap is 1000 The Minimum required to mimic this index is 200 or Multiples of 200. If so you are fine. More Often, funds can't be this large. For example approx 100 funds track the S&P Index. Together they hold around 8-10% of Market Cap. Few large funds like Vangaurd, etc may hold around 2%. But most of the 100+ S&P funds hold something in 0.1 to 0.5 range. So lets say a fund only has 100. To maintain same proportion it has to buy shares in fraction. But it can only buy shares in whole numbers. This would then force the fund manager to allocate out of proportion, some may remain cash, etc. As you can see below illustrative, there is a tracking error. The fund is not truly able to mimic the index. Now lets say after 1st April, the share price moved, now this would mean more tracking error if no action is taken [block 2] ... and less tracking error if one share of company B is sold and one share of company C is purchased. Again the above is a very simplified view. Tracking error computation is involved mathematics. Now that we have the basic concepts, more often funds tracking S&P; Thus they need to rebalance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bfb745490ac34704883d49a7836287d0",
"text": "News-driven investors tend to be very short-term focussed investors. They often trade by using index futures (on the S&P 500 index for instance).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "550a87849ede22f46d68fc8a9722b6d3",
"text": "\"You asked 3 questions here. It's best to keep them separate as these are pretty distinct, different answers, and each might already have a good detailed answer and so might be subject to \"\"closed as duplicate of...\"\" That said, I'll address the JAGLX question (1). It's not an apples to apples comparison. This is a Life Sciences fund, i.e. a very specialized fund, investing in one narrow sector of the market. If you study market returns over time, it's easy to find sectors that have had a decade or even two that have beat the S&P by a wide margin. The 5 year comparison makes this pretty clear. For sake of comparison, Apple had twice the return of JAGLX during the past 5 years. The advisor charging 2% who was heavy in Apple might look brilliant, but the returns are not positively correlated to the expense involved. A 10 or 20 year lookback will always uncover funds or individual stocks that beat the indexes, but the law of averages suggests that the next 10 or 20 years will still appear random.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "001308bb6898cc328653575ba51889b7",
"text": "Not to my knowledge. Often the specific location is diversified out of the fund because each major building company or real estate company attempts to diversify risk by spreading it over multiple geographical locations. Also, buyers of these smaller portfolios will again diversify by creating a larger fund to sell to the general public. That being said, you can sometimes drill down to the specific assets held by a real estate fund. That takes a lot of work: You can also look for the issuer of the bond that the construction or real estate company issued to find out if it is region specific. Hope that helps.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "545e9e42cce983a37760a9ff4bb41ede",
"text": "I tried direct indexing the S&P500 myself and it was a lot of work. Lots of buys and sells to rebalance, tons of time in spreadsheets running calculations/monitoring etc, dealing with stocks being added or removed from the index, adding money (inflows). Etc. All of the work is the main reason I stopped. I came to realize the 0.05% I pay Vanguard is a great deal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f364a2de6e832ec99014996a345e4136",
"text": "Over the past five years, QFVOX has returned 13.67%, compared to the index fund SPY that has returned 50.39%. SEVAX has lost 23.96%. AKREX has returned 81.82%. In two of your three examples, you would have done much better in an index fund with a very low expense ratio as suggested. While one can never, as you see, make a generalization, in almost every case, most investors will do better, and often much better, with an index fund with a low expense ratio. My source was Google Finance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b0513ea719821872a14f80eda6c8c71",
"text": "ACWI refers to a fund that tracks the MSCI All Country World Index, which is A market capitalization weighted index designed to provide a broad measure of equity-market performance throughout the world. The MSCI ACWI is maintained by Morgan Stanley Capital International, and is comprised of stocks from both developed and emerging markets. The ex-US in the name implies exactly what it sounds; this fund probably invests in stock markets (or stock market indexes) of the countries in the index, except the US. Brd Mkt refers to a Broad Market index, which, in the US, means that the fund attempts to track the performance of a wide swath of the US stock market (wider than just the S&P 500, for example). The Dow Jones U.S. Total Stock Market Index, the Wilshire 5000 index, the Russell 2000 index, the MSCI US Broad Market Index, and the CRSP US Total Market Index are all examples of such an index. This could also refer to a fund similar to the one above in that it tracks a broad swath of the several stock markets across the world. I spoke with BNY Mellon about the rest, and they told me this: EB - Employee Benefit (a bank collective fund for ERISA qualified assets) DL - Daily Liquid (provides for daily trading of fund shares) SL - Securities Lending (fund engages in the BNY Mellon securities lending program) Non-SL - Non-Securities Lending (fund does not engage in the BNY Mellon securities lending program) I'll add more detail. EB (Employee Benefit) refers to plans that fall under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which are a set a laws that govern employee pensions and retirement plans. This is simply BNY Mellon's designation for funds that are offered through 401(k)'s and other retirement vehicles. As I said before, DL refers to Daily Liquidity, which means that you can buy into and sell out of the fund on a daily basis. There may be fees for this in your plan, however. SL (Securities Lending) often refers to institutional funds that loan out their long positions to investment banks or brokers so that the clients of those banks/brokerages can sell the shares short. This SeekingAlpha article has a good explanation of how this procedure works in practice for ETF's, and the procedure is identical for mutual funds: An exchange-traded fund lends out shares of its holdings to another party and charges a rental fee. Running a securities-lending program is another way for an ETF provider to wring more return out of a fund's holdings. Revenue from these programs is used to offset a fund's expenses, which allows the provider to charge a lower expense ratio and/or tighten the performance gap between an ETF and its benchmark.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3451c2779bca4a3422a1edf0de832b52",
"text": "At this time, Google Finance doesn't support historical return or dividend data, only share prices. The attributes for mutual funds such as return52 are only available as real-time data, not historical. Yahoo also does not appear to offer market return data including dividends. For example, the S&P 500 index does not account for dividends--the S&P ^SPXTR index does, but is unavailable through Yahoo Finance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a2597ff9b7701bb15d381e14a0bc724",
"text": "\"What does ETFs have to do with this or Amazon? Actually, investing in ETFs means you are killing actively managed Mutual Funds (managed by people, fund managers) to get an average return (and loss) of the market that a computer manage instead of a person. And the ETF will surely have Amazon stocks because they are part of the index. I only invest in actively managed mutual funds. Yes, most actively managed mutual funds can't do better than the index, but if you work a bit harder, you can find the many that do much better than the \"\"average\"\" that an index give you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e0cc51cddecc1fe58524e39c9897ba2",
"text": "It would involve manual effort, but there is just a handful of exclusions, buy the fund you want, plug into a tool like Morningstar Instant X Ray, find out your $10k position includes $567.89 of defense contractor Lockheed Martin, and sell short $567.89 of Lockheed Martin. Check you're in sync periodically (the fund or index balance may change); when you sell the fund close your shorts too.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6aa7994d1eb6dfbbd1f75c1cafa06219",
"text": "A general mutual fund's exact holdings are not known on a day-to-day basis, and so technical tools must work with inexact data. Furthermore, the mutual fund shares' NAV depends on lots of different shares that it holds, and the results of the kinds of analyses that one can do for a single stock must be commingled to produce something analogous for the fund's NAV. In other words, there is plenty of shooting in the dark going on. That being said, there are plenty of people who claim to do such analyses and will gladly sell you their results (actually, Buy, Hold, Sell recommendations) for whole fund families (e.g. Vanguard) in the form of a monthly or weekly Newsletter delivered by US Mail (in the old days) or electronically (nowadays). Some people who subscribe to such newsletters swear by them, while others swear at them and don't renew their subscriptions; YMMV.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0546c54dd914223b64e3377ed748a20b",
"text": "Here's a very simple answer, ask your broker/bank. Mine uses ofx. When asked if they would reimburse me for any unauthorized activity, the answer was no. Simple enough, the banks that use it don't feel its secure enough.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
0e6ca30090395b75fff78d251d854cee
|
What is the difference between Protected-equity loan vs Equity loan?
|
[
{
"docid": "4289b7bb5ea91d1017834c973289a724",
"text": "In simple terms : Equity Loan is money borrowed from the bank to buy assets which can be houses , shares etc Protected equity loan is commonly used in shares where you have a portfolio of shares and you set the minimum value the portfolio can fall to . Anything less than there may result in a sell off of the share to protect you from further capital losses. This is a very brief explaination , which does not fully cover what Equity Loan && Protected Equity Loan really mean",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "0ada391b851e4f03449e58bdfff9259c",
"text": "\"Many thanks for thedetailed response, appreciate it. But I am still not clear on the distinction between a public company and the equity holders. Isn't a public company = shareholders + equity holders? Or do you mean \"\"company\"\" = shareholders+equity holders + debt holders?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4c1accbd88e23857f1a69ca9641745f5",
"text": "Though I have never had construction loan, for a regular loan this clause only covers the period between when you submit the forms, and when you close on the loan. Normally the construction loan is converted into a regular mortgage after the home is completed. The lender wants to make sure that you don't do anything that will make it impossible for the loans to close. They are concerned about new or enlarged loans. They also care about spending the down payment money on something else. When I was selling my condo, the purchaser bought a new car the week before closing. That made closing very interesting.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2674e3dbb422406c13629b52b2e65c27",
"text": "This is a very common misconception. I've been studying equities and credits for a while now, and the simplest way to explain the difference is this: - Credit is about stable cash flows. Your investment in a bond has almost (read: almost) nothing to do with growth rate. It has everything to do with how stable the cash flows are and interest coverage. - Equity is about growth. No wonder companies with highly irregular cash flows (e.g., every single young tech company in the history of tech companies) can have the most in-demand equity while few bond investors would touch them with a ten foot pole.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "88eb0c2b6d234fab9d14c3c476390f47",
"text": "I am not a structured products expert, just relaying what's in the article, but I'd imagine it includes a larger equity tranche in the structured product, thereby giving more cushion against losses to the actual debt investors in the tranches above it in the payment water fall.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e75c40eb45ca97f6bf56c0e96ce36708",
"text": "You should look into a home equity line of credit: A home equity line of credit (often called HELOC and pronounced HEE-lock) is a loan in which the lender agrees to lend a maximum amount within an agreed period (called a term), where the collateral is the borrower's equity in his/her house. Because a home often is a consumer's most valuable asset, many homeowners use home equity credit lines only for major items, such as education, home improvements, or medical bills, and choose not to use them for day-to-day expenses.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cb94429e3043d5c4e86d091bbfba89e7",
"text": "I don't see how it makes a difference? Setup a futures contract for 33 times more than you have the capital to support and write it as confirmed income, slot it into your balance sheet and then borrow against it. It's fundamentally no different to the example from the OP, it's just a different way of reaching it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "95540cd3cda0fc31266f42621fd93732",
"text": "\"Residential mortgages normally explicitly state that the property cannot be let without explicit permission, whereas BTL mortgages typically require that the property be let. There are other differences. Residential mortgages are regulated, which means that consumers have a degree of protection from mis-selling; most BTLs are not, as landlords are expected to know what they're doing. Affordability of residential mortgages are based on your income, since that is how you are going to pay for them. BTLs are (mostly) assessed based on the property's rental income, since it's that that will fund the mortgage. Finally, residential mortgages are typically done on a repayment basis, so that at the end of the term, you've paid off the entire loan, whereas BTLs are typically interest-only, on the assumption that you'll either sell the property, or remortgage, at the end of the term. (I've used words like \"\"typically\"\" a lot to give an overall picture of the differences. Obviously it's a bit more complicated than that, and there are exceptions to a lot of the above descriptions.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ff8f7a486adf61b296339b15fb9d2700",
"text": "Thanks for that, it did help. I think my issue is I don't work in finance itself, I'm a lawyer, and 'capital' generally has a very specific meaning in English company law, where it refers exclusively to shareholder capital. I realise capital in finance terms includes both debt and equity investment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a3721fd666e6ea8920304e2b973bef1c",
"text": "\"The part that I find confusing is the loan/stock hybridization. Why would the investor be entitled to a 30% share if he's also expecting to be getting paid back in full? This is the part that's making me scratch my head. I can understand giving equity and buying out later. I can understand giving equity with no expectation of loan repayment. I can understand loan repayment without equity. I can even understand collateralizing the loan with equity. I can not understand how \"\"zeroing out\"\" the loan still leaves him with a claim on 30% of the equity. Would this be more of a good will gesture as a way to thank the investor for taking a chance? Please forgive any naivety in my questions.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba0cd51c908d585d41f246ec408aa78a",
"text": "Another thing to consider is that paying extra principal (either via one of these services, or by including something extra with your normal mortgage payment and designating that it go to principal rather than be held to reduce next month's payment, or just sending an additional payment to the bank and designating it as reducing the principal) shortens the term of your loan. Is this good? Maybe. Consider that banks lend with a variety of terms. Usually the 15-year fixed rate mortgage has a lower interest rate than the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, and the 5-year home-equity-loan has an even lower rate. When you prepay your loan, your interest rate stays the same, but the bank gets its money back sooner. This makes more profit for the bank as it can then invest the money in other things. That profit could have been yours if you had made that investment instead of prepaying your mortgage.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee0f29ce70781de82cc27060603a7487",
"text": "You'll be taxed when you sell the house, but not before that (or if you do some other transaction that realizes the gain, talk to your real estate attorney or accountant for more details). A Home Equity line-of-credit is simply a secured loan: it's a loan, conditioned on if you fail to pay it back, they have a lien on your house (and may be able to force you to sell it to pay the loan back).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5379e3edcfed336432b98afdd0b7da9e",
"text": "Equity means having ownership, and I think that's a REALLY bad idea in the scenario that you described. If you stay together, there's really no upside to either of you in this scheme. If you break-up then you'll have a terrible mess, especially if the break-up goes badly. If she's really building equity, you're going to be faced with several hard questions: If this went bad at the end, it might be worse than a divorce in some sense since at least in the divorce you have established law to sort out the issues. You'll be on your own here without a formal contract. (Marriage being a special case of a contract for our purposes here.) If she wants to share costs (which seems perfectly fair) then agree to rent and a split on utilities. If you really insist on going down the path that you described, I think that you'll need some sort of contract, which probably involves a lawyer. Anything short of that could not be considered having equity at all and will be completely unenforceable in the event of a bad break-up. (There is some notion of a verbal contract, but that's very hard to prove and subject to misunderstanding and misremembering.) Aside from all of these potential problems in event of a break-up, you would probably also be violating the terms of your mortgage, if you have one. From the bank's perspective, you are selling the property that is the collateral for that loan, which you're almost surely not allowed to do.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a25b57209b7b65d9120b4099816dbf27",
"text": "Generally, the answer is as follows: If there is a legal obligation to pay cash flow (including the possibility of court determined restructuring), then it is debt. If the asset owner is not guaranteed any cash flow, but instead owns the *residual* cash flow from the operations of the business (I.e. the cash flow left-over), then it is equity.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "59f650ab89664f2869c7fc1035ed48a4",
"text": "In finance you are taught that debt financing is cheaper than equity financing. Also to improve your credit rating, showing that you can carry debt responsibly and pay it off without a hitch sends dog whistle that the corporation is operating well.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a938e155f251581f578bedd34f425065",
"text": "\"The main disadvantage is that interest rates are higher for the interest-only loan. It's higher risk to the bank, since the principal outstanding is higher for longer. According to the New York Times, \"\"Interest rates are usually an eighth- to a half-percentage point higher than on fully amortized jumbo loans.\"\" They're also tougher to qualify for, and fewer lenders offer them, again due to the risk to the bank. Since you can always put extra towards the principal, strictly speaking, these are the only downsides. The upside, of course, is that you can make a lower payment each month. The question is what are you doing with this? If this is the only way you can afford the payments, there's a good chance the house is too expensive for you. You're not building equity in the home, and you have the risk of being underwater if the house price goes down. If you're using the money for other things, or you have variable income, it might be a different story. For the former, reinvesting in a business you own might be a reason, if you're cognizant of the risks. For the latter, salespeople on commission, or financial industry types who get most of their income in bonuses, can benefit from the flexibility.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
d8b0fc7ca51312f3db3810e9a1bb282f
|
Is it common for a new car of about $16k to be worth only $4-6k after three years?
|
[
{
"docid": "c5778c02b5f7bc25fa3180e5e555eb28",
"text": "It depends completely on the car. Some cars retain their value much better, and others drop in value like a rock (no pun intended). The mileage and condition on a car also has a huge impact on value. According to this site, cars on average lose 46% of their value in three years, so seeing one that drops 62% in roughly 3 years does not seem impossible. That value could also have been trade-in value, which is significantly lower than what you could get with a private party sale (or what you'd pay to get that same car from a dealer) One example: a new Ford Taurus (lowest model) has a Kelly Blue Book value of $28,000. A 2014 Taurus (lowest model) with average mileage and in fair condition has a private party value of about $12,000, for a 57% drop in value. Note: I picked Taurus because it's a car that should not have exceptional resale value (unlike BMW, trucks, SUVs), not to make any kind of judgement of the quality or resellability of the car)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "78c7b2bf71f314407d951a11d5e096fb",
"text": "\"It's possible the $16,000 was for more than the car. Perhaps extras were added on at purchase time; or perhaps they were folded into the retail price of the car. Here's an example. 2014: I'm ready to buy. My 3-year-old trade-in originally cost $15,000, and I financed it for 6 years and still owe $6500. It has lots of miles and excess wear, so fair blue-book is $4500. I'm \"\"upside down\"\" by $2000, meaning I'd have to pay $2000 cash just to walk away from the car. I'll never have that, because I'm not a saver. So how can we get you in a new car today? Dealer says \"\"If you pay the full $15,000 retail price plus $1000 of worthless dealer add-ons like wax undercoat (instead of the common discounted $14,000 price), I'll eat your $2000 loss on the trade.\"\" All gets folded into my new car financing. It's magic! (actually it's called rollover.) 2017: I'm getting itchy to trade up, and doggone it, I'm upside down on this car. Why does this keep happening to me? In this case, it's rollover and other add-ons, combined with too-long car loans (6 year), combined with excessive mileage and wear on the vehicle.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c4454d8ffce998d225e20eb9e5771fb5",
"text": "It isn't common to lose that much value in 3 years, but it is possible. If you don't take care of small dents, scratches, etc., you can quickly reduce the value far beyond what you might expect looking at graphs. Another big factor is the trim level of the car that you purchase. If you spend $30,000 for the highest trim level of a car, instead of $22,000 for the lowest trim level, the higher trim car could lose 50% of it's value while the lower trim car loses only 35%. There's no way to know why the OP of your linked question had such a large loss, but again, that's not the usual experience. It is definitely a good idea to consider used though.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d656c57d1205ae4ee389bed0fd9b70d4",
"text": "New tires will increase the resale value of the car; while not by the full cost of the tires, it will not be entirely a sunk cost. You'd need to factor that in and find out how much the new tires increase the resale value of the car to determine how much they would truly cost you. However, I suspect they would cost you less than a $25,000 car a year early would. That new car would cost some amount over time - it sounds like you buy a new car every 8 years or so? So it would cost you $25/8 = $3.3k/year. That would, then, be the overall cost of the new car a year early - $3.3k (as it would mean one less year out of your old car, so assuming it was also $25k/8 year or similar, that year becomes lost and thus a cost).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "245336b48b3c31776ed8abff41e15592",
"text": "Edmunds.com has a really cool guide that calculates some of these intangibles for a wide swath of cars under their True Cost to Own Ratings section. I highly recommend it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "28d242f7c2ac47f3f855c8fc7f4ac7c1",
"text": "Nothing's generating a whole lot of interest right now. But more liquid and stable is better (cash or cash-like). But a related question: Why a new car? You can knock thousands of dollars off of the price of a comparable vehicle by buying one that's one or two years old. Your new vehicle loses thousands of dollars in value the moment it goes off the lot.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a126eabc0702abd8448d4555f3a2125b",
"text": "I tend to agree with Rocky's answer. However it sounds like you want to look at this from the numbers side of things. So let's consider some numbers: I'm assuming you have the money to buy the new car available as cash in hand, and that if you don't buy the car, you'll invest it reasonably. So if you buy the new car today, you're $17K out of pocket. Let's look at some scenarios and compare. Assuming: If you buy the new car today, then after 1 year you'll have: If you keep the old car, after 1 year you get: After 2 years, you have: And after 3 years, you're at: Or in other words, nothing depletes the value of your assets faster than buying the new car. After 1 year, you've essentially lost $5K to depreciation. However, over the short term the immediate cost of the tires combined with the continued depreciation of the old car do reduce your purchasing power somewhat (you won't be able to muster $25K towards a new car without chipping in a bit of extra cash), and inflation will tend to drive the cost of the new car up as time goes on. So the relative gap between the value of your assets and the cost of the new car tends to increase, though it stays well below the $5k that you lose to depreciation if you buy the new car immediately. Which is something that you could potentially spin to support whichever side you prefer, I suppose. Though note that I've made some fairly pessimistic assumptions. In particular, the current U.S. inflation rate is under 1%, and a new car may depreciate by as much as 25% in the first year while older cars may depreciate by less than the 8% assumed. And I selected the cheapest new car price cited, and didn't credit the tires with adding any value to your old car. Each of those aspects tends to make continuing to drive the older car a better option than buying the new one.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "538ef3adfa102a7b779d2a954447ef04",
"text": "I respectfully disagree with @JohnFX's comment regarding new vs used. (John knows what is talking about though; he gave an awesome answer on buying a car: What are some tips for getting the upper hand in car price negotiations?) The answer to your question is based on whether or you not you can stand to have a small, loud, cheap but reliable car for the next 10 or 15 years. If you plan to keep your new car until it dies 20 years from now, then a new car can be a fine choice. I just bought a car and the difference between my 2013 Hyundai and a comparable 2012 Hyundai wasn't much. Furthermore, it was hard to even find a 2012 (which justifies the higher price from dealerships and the private market). Doing math in my head told me the reduced usage I will get out of the car wasn't offset by the slightly lower price. Depending on the specific age, insurance on newer cars can be cheaper than insurance on older cars. (But you have to have carry more insurance, so consider that as well.) There might not be a different between a 2010 and a 2012, but there will likely be for a 2005 and the 2013. New cars can be cheaper to operate. Lower fuel costs, better safety and possibly pollution costs. They are tuned up and you know everything about their history. Repairs and factory warranties might not be available on a used car, so if you car turns out to be a problem, your out of pocket is limited. These programs don't mean anything. Get an independent certified mechanic to check out any used car you buy. If the dealer won't let you get the car checked out, then they aren't worth your business. Certified cars don't justify their cost according to consumer reports, they are more for marketing than reliability. Don't waste money on a third party warranty. Either the car is good and doesn't need it, or it needs a warranty and you shouldn't buy it. If you new car comes with a factory warranty, that is fine. Radio host Clark Howard is indifferent if you want to purchase a factory warranty separately, but never a third party. Just out of college, you probably will be better off spending the least amount of money you can for a good used car. If for no other reason, this likely isn't going to be your car in the near future. (Only you can answer that) If you have a feeling you won't keep your tiny car well into your 30s, then definitely don't buy a new car. Also, my experience only applies to my make and model. Certain models of cars keep their value and the difference between new and used isn't much for the most recent model years. But there are many more makes and models that don't pan out that way.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab573c1f875dcbc6bc45473c81083849",
"text": "\"A while back I sold cars for a living. Over the course of 4 years I worked for 3 different dealerships. I sold new cars at 2 and used at the last one. When selling new cars I found that the majority of people buying the higher end cars honestly shouldn't have been - 80%+. They almost always came in owing more on their trades then they were worth, put down very little cash and were close to being financially strapped. From a financial perspective these deals were hard to close, not because the buyer was picky but rather because their finances were a mess. Fully half, and probably more, we had to switch from the car they initially wanted down to a much cheaper version or try to convert to a lease because it was the only way the bank would loan the money. We called them \"\"$30,000 millionaires\"\" because they didn't make a whole lot but tried to look like they did. As a salesman you knew you were in serious trouble when they didn't even try to negotiate. Around 2% of the deals I did were actual cash deals - meaning honest cash, not those who came in with a pre-approved loan from a bank. These were invariably for used cars about 3 to 4 years old and they never had a trade in. The people doing this always looked comfortable but never dressed up, you wouldn't even look at them twice. The negotiations were hard because they knew exactly how much that car should go for and wouldn't even pay that. It was obvious they knew the value of money. That said, I've been in the top 3% of wage earners for about 20 years and at no point have I considered myself in a position to \"\"afford\"\" a new \"\"luxury\"\" car. IMHO, there are far more important things you can do with that kind of money.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e136cafcae837d65d87c1e9fd27b5988",
"text": "You can negotiate a no penalty for early payment loan with dealerships sometimes. Dealerships will often give you a better price on the car when you finance through them vs paying cash, so you negotiate in a 48 month finance, after you've settled on the price THEN you negotiate the no penalty for early payment point. They'll be less likely to try to raise the price after you've already come to an agreement. My dad has SAID he does this when buying cars, but that could just be hearsay and bravado. Has said he will negotiate on the basis of a long term lease, nail down a price then throw that clause in, then pay the car off in the first payment. Disclaimer: it's...um not a great way to do business though if you plan to purchase a new car every 2-3 years from the same dealer. Do it once and you'll have a note in their CRM not to either a) offer price reductions for financing or b) offer no penalty early payment financing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d3eef26be24ff71bbe382f829bf25fe",
"text": "If you buy a new car, the odds that it will require repairs are fairly low, and if it does, they should be covered by the warranty. If you buy a used car, there is a fair chance that it will need some sort of repairs, and there probably is no warranty. But think about how much repairs are likely to cost. A new car these days costs like $25,000 or more. You can find reasonably decent used cars for a few thousand dollars. Say you bought a used car for $2,000. Is it likely that it will need $23,000 in repairs? No way. Even if you had to make thousands of dollars worth of repairs to the used car, it would almost certainly be cheaper than buying a new car. I've bought three used vehicles in the last few years, one for me, one for my son, and one for my daughter. I paid, let's see, I think between $4,000 and $6,000 each. We've had my son's car for about 9 months and to date had $40 in repairs. My daughter's car turned out to have a bunch of problems; I ended up putting maybe another $2,000 into it. But now she's got a car she's very happy with that cost me maybe $6,000 between purchase and repairs, still way less than a new car. My pickup had big time problems, including needing a new transmission and a new engine. I've put, hmm, maybe $7,000 into it. It's definitely debatable if it was worth replacing the engine. But even at all that, if I had bought that truck new it would have cost over $30,000. Presumably if I bought new I would have had a nicer vehicle and I could have gotten exactly the options I wanted, so I'm not entirely happy with how this one turned out, but I still saved money by buying used. Here's what I do when I buy a used car: I go into it expecting that there will be repairs. Depending on the age and condition of the car, I plan on about $1000 within the first few months, probably another $1000 stretched out over the next year or so. I plan for this both financially and emotionally. By financially I mean that I have money set aside for repairs or have available credit or one way or another have planned for it in my budget. By emotionally I mean, I have told myself that I expect there to be problems, so I don't get all upset when there are and start screaming and crying about how I was ripped off. When you buy a used car, take it for granted that there will be problems, but you're still saving money over buying new. Sure, it's painful when the repair bills hit. But if you buy a new car, you'll have a monthly loan payment EVERY MONTH. Oh, and if you have a little mechanical aptitude and can do at least some of the maintenance yourself, the savings are bigger. Bear in mind that while you are saving money, you are paying for it in uncertainty and aggravation. With a new car, you can be reasonably confidant that it will indeed start and get you to work each day. With a used car, there's a much bigger chance that it won't start or will leave you stranded. $2,000 is definitely the low end, and you say that that would leave you no reserve for repairs. I don't know where you live or what used cars prices are like in your area. Where I live, in Michigan, you can get a pretty decent used car for about $5,000. If I were you I'd at least look into whether I could get a loan for $4,000 or $5,000 to maybe get a better used car. Of course that all depends on how much money you will be making and what your other expenses are. When you're a little richer and better established, then if a shiny new car is important to you, you can do that. Me, I'm 56 years old, I've bought new cars and I've bought used cars and I've concluded that having a fancy new car just isn't something that I care about, so these days I buy used.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "09f617a19b176a24cbf9aba7eb01e74a",
"text": "Another bit of advice specific to your scenario. Consider buying an ALMOST new car. Buying last year's model can knock a huge amount off the price and the car is going to still feel very new to you, especially if you buy from a dealer who has had it detailed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f2d1c0c043e6c0d127ce9c0d8d2b9b31",
"text": "Any way you look at it, this is a terrible idea. Cars lose value. They are a disposable item that gets used up. The more expensive the car, the more value they lose. If you spend $100,000 on a new car, in four years it will be worth less than $50,000.* That is a lot of money to lose in four years. In addition to the loss of value, you will need to buy insurance, which, for a $100,000 car, is incredible. If your heart is set on this kind of car, you should definitely save up the cash and wait to buy the car. Do not get a loan. Here is why: Your plan has you saving $1,300 a month ($16,000 a year) for 6.5 years before you will be able to buy this car. That is a lot of money for a long range goal. If you faithfully save this money that long, and at the end of the 6.5 years you still want this car, it is your money to spend as you want. You will have had a long time to reconsider your course of action, but you will have sacrificed for a long time, and you will have the money to lose. However, you may find out a year into this process that you are spending too much money saving for this car, and reconsider. If, instead, you take out a loan for this car, then by the time you decide the car was too much of a stretch financially, it will be too late. You will be upside down on the loan, and it will cost you thousands to sell the car. So go ahead and start saving. If you haven't given up before you reach your goal, you may find that in 6.5 years when it is time to write that check, you will look back at the sacrifices you have made and decide that you don't want to simply blow that money on a car. Consider a different goal. If you invest this $1300 a month and achieve 8% growth, you will be a millionaire in 23 years. * You don't need to take my word for it. Look at the car you are interested in, go to kbb.com, select the 2012 version of the car, and look up the private sale value. You'll most likely see a price that is about half of what a new one costs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee6c38fd143f2637083b440ec48fbf01",
"text": "I like Nathan's answer some, but am horribly curious as to why you have not made payments on a $3500 student loan? If you are wealthy enough to afford a new car, this should be paid off next week. IMHO. Above all else your financial goals should dictate if you buy a new car. What are they for you? If the goal is to build wealthy quickly then Nathan's advice may be to unfrugal for you. If your goal is to impress people with the car you drive and accumulate very little real wealth then purchasing or leasing a car should be a top priority. So to answer your question correctly one must understand your goals. For 2016, the average car payment is $479 per month. If you invested that in a decent growth stock mutual fund in 40 years you'll have around 2.6 million. However, you do need something to drive now. If you can cut your car expense to $200 per month, and save the other $279 you will still end up with about 1.5 million in that same 40 years. Personally I attempt to shoot for $200 ownership cost per car per month. Its a bit difficult as I drive a lot. Also I would not purchase a new car until my net worth exceeded 2 million. At that point my investments could mitigate the steep depreciation costs of owning a new car.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f2d7cb8ce82aa73b1882a63e63724e8",
"text": "\"Yea but they might feel swindled and that you pulled a fast one on them, and not be as willing to give you good deals in the future. Like, as a totally non mathematical example, they have a car for $50k. They lower the price to 40k with a financing that will bring total payment to 60k. Their break even on that car is let's say 45k. The financier cuts them a commission on expected profits, of maybe 7k? They made an expected 2k on the car. But if you pay it all off asap, they may lose that commission, be 5k in the hole on the sale, and pretty upset. Even more upset if they finance in house. So when you go back to buy another car they'll say \"\"fuck this guy, we need to recoup past lost profits, don't go below 4K above break even.\"\" I'm not really 100% on how financing workings when it comes to cars but from my background in sales this is the bar I would set for a customer that made me take a loss by doing business with them if they tried to come back in the future. This doesn't take into account how car dealerships don't own their inventory, finance all of their cars and actually ARE willing to take a loss on a car just to get it off the lot some times.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "83f722d2f398117aafd522e4bfb3384e",
"text": "I think you are making this more complicated that it has to be. In the end you will end up with a car that you paid X, and is worth Y. Your numbers are a bit hard to follow. Hopefully I got this right. I am no accountant, this is how I would figure the deal: The payments made are irrelevant. The downpayment is irrelevant as it is still a reduction in net worth. Your current car has a asset value of <29,500>. That should make anyone pause a bit. In order to get into this new car you will have to finance the shortfall on the current car (29,500), the price of the vehicle (45,300), the immediate depreciation (say 7,000). In the end you will have a car worth 38K and owe 82K. So you will have a asset value of <44,000>. Obviously a much worse situation. To do this car deal it would cost the person 14,500 of net worth the day the deal was done. As time marched on, it would be more as the reduction in debt is unlikely to keep up with the depreciation. Additionally the new car purchase screen shows a payment of $609/month if you bought the car with zero down. Except you don't have zero down, you have -29,500 down. Making the car payment higher, I estamate 1005/month with 3.5%@84 months. So rather than having a hit to your cash flow of $567 for 69 more months, you would have a payment of about $1000 for 84 months if you could obtain the interest rate of 3.5%. Those are the two things I would focus on is the reduction in net worth and the cash flow liability. I understand you are trying to get a feel for things, but there are two things that make this very unrealistic. The first is financing. It is unlikely that financing could be obtained with this deal and if it could this would be considered a sub-prime loan. However, perhaps a relative could finance the deal. Secondly, there is no way even a moderately financially responsible spouse would approve this deal. That is provided there were not sigificant assets, like a few million. If that is the case why not just write a check?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e81284e67aa3f687270883260414ac1",
"text": "I work for an auto finance company and have performed some job related analysis looking into this as well. From what I can tell I don't think the numbers are there for a 2008 recession. The loans are smaller, the asset is already known to depreciate, and the auction market is pretty effective at cutting deficiencies even more. Something to watch out for if you are analyzing this stuff though is the influx of used cars into the market. Remember, more defaults means more repossessions which means more used cars on the market. I'm curious to see what happens with this influx of used, relatively reliable cars onto the market and how this impacts the constant pumping out of new vehicles that manufacturers are forced to meet. We've already seen scaling back by some big players. There's definitely something happening in the auto industry but I don't know what to make of it yet and I would hardly say we are looking at Great Recession 2.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6797579e382f872edec271063c5a4793",
"text": "I understand, and I'm not necessarily disagreeing; I'm just asking how we know this. It's one thing if it's a logical deduction you've made, but it's another if there's direct objective evidence. Do these statistics pertain to all car sales or just factory car sales? The car I own today is the car I've owned the longest, but it's not because I can't afford to buy another one, it's because I have absolutely no reason to. My car was made in 2000; it has 115k miles on it. I could write a long list of things that are still performing just as adequately as they did when it was new, and how aside from being somewhat less powerful it doesn't actually do anything worse than comparable new cars; I'll spare you. :) Cars in 1970 were never expected to be driven past 100k miles without major service work, including an engine and transmission overhaul. Many cars well into the late 70s didn't even come with that many digits on the odometer. The economic conditions you mention, including the astonishing transfer of wealth between classes, are not good signs and it obviously needs to be reversed or this country is going to be a really shitty place to live soon. And hell yes I believe it's affecting car sales. But I'm really not convinced it's the main reason car sales peaked 40 years ago. Housing sales only peaked a few years ago, and both markets have screwed themselves over-issuing credit, albeit in different ways. Point is, you don't need to be able to afford a car when you can get a loan practically at the push of a button; Americans don't think in terms of what something costs, they think in terms of what it costs *per month*. Income shrinkage has been allowed to happen because people have been allowed to spend money they don't have. I know people living paycheck-to-paycheck who spend $150 - $250 per month on just data. They also have $10k's of revolving credit card debt and, even worse, $10k's in student loans. $250 per month won't save up for a new Cadillac anytime soon, but it *will* put you into a Cadillac if you don't mind having spent $63k on a $38k car by the time your loan matures. (Edit: those numbers are pretty exaggerated, $250/mo. wouldn't get you a Cadillac until it was several years old. You'd still end up paying several thousand more than if you'd paid cash, though... the point is that our economy is floating on credit, and this has allowed rampant overspending and living above means in the average household). You see what I'm saying? All other factors being equal car sales should have peaked a few years ago, or at least in the late 90s during the (first?) dot com bubble. There was *far* more spending power out there - not income, but spending power.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
0da29b1d7cd99d72fb4e64b718e5ba0d
|
Hearing much about Dave Ramsey. Which of his works is best in describing his “philosophy” about money?
|
[
{
"docid": "0b31fca82fd425b962d53f66cd11e408",
"text": "Start with his website, specifically his seven steps. Most everything else is around motivating people to actually do the plan. As he often says personal finance is 80% personal and 20% finance, by which he means that things that make sense financially (paying off high interest debt first) don't necessarily motivate action (so instead pay off the smallest debt first to get motivation). Really the rest is details around those seven concepts. On his site there is a link to a free one-hour podcast for the iPod, and you can pay for the full three hours of his radio show on podcast. He started on radio, and it is probably his best format. The reason Dave Ramsey has limited appeal beyond the US is that he is explicitly evangelical. He views his system as an extension of his Christian beliefs. That sells very well in parts of the US, but doesn't port very well. There is actually nothing religious in his program, other than the occasional reference to biblical verses in an attempt to tie his program into his religion, but people who are really interested and want to teach his program, not just practice it, are going to find they need to be an Evangelical (or at least a Christian) to fit in. Addendum: I should mention that Dave Ramsey is changing the FPU program (and I expect it will trickle into other things) to be more explicitly (although apparently not overtly) religious and have a stronger emphasis on budgeting. See here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c0995dadec1afe7f20b4340600f4c2ea",
"text": "If I had to start with one thing about Dave's Philosophy it would be: Zero Debt. Dave Ramsey doesn't believe in going into debt for anything, except a house for residence (and he's conservative about how much debt there as well). This is his biggest differentiating feature from Clark Howard or some of the others. His main points are (Some duplication of Yishai) His radio show is available on many US radio stations with internet streams. I use WSJS, where he is available from Noon to 3PM Eastern.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "060e9be1112a83068865a01b8675aacd",
"text": "His books: The Total Money Makeover - This is a very step by step approach to what he teaches about how to handle money. Financial Peace - This is a more philosophical approach to the same topics. More idea and less application based. You can catch his radio show online for free - or an hour podcast each day in the itunes store - this is free. You can watch his TV show on Hulu.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "75f50aec4cfb7da40710919f2344a7aa",
"text": "\"Actually, Trent Hamm of The Simple Dollar, wrote a \"\"book club\"\" series that basically reads like cliff notes for Dave's The Total Money Makeover starting with this blog post. So that might be a really good place to start. Also of note is Trent's Article \"\"Five Ways I Disagree With Dave Ramsey\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dff0dfe584a69bb971b83e091ccb3d9b",
"text": "My beef with day (and to ape Yishai's answer a little) is that his good advice is no different than anybody's good advice. The seven steps are on the home page, Clark Howard, Suze Orman and probably quite a few others all chat about spend less, save more, shop wisely and live within your means. Anything specific is just motivation, and it sort of irks me that Dave Ramsey charges $100+ buck to go to a seminar about how to save money. A $30 book to read anecdotes and examples of how to follow the seven steps. (Probably, I won't buy his books) I have no problem with somebody making money, but I doubt that Dave is just barely breaking even. I was stand corrected if he is, but I just don't suspect he is. Clark Howard recommends that people go to the library and check out his book; he is a lot closer to practicing what he is preaching.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "954c946f77187334b35e3bb06a5a1055",
"text": "Thanks for the writeup, it was a really informative read. I've been aware for a while now that Reagan and Reaganomics were in a large way the 'start' of most of the current problems in the economic and political landscape, but you filled in a few gaps that were really useful for me. So I guess ultimately a lot of conservatives see it as a kind of necessary evil in order to bring about the success story that the current economy needs right now. Unfortunately, their strategy is totally wrong. That kind of makes sense with my observation that rather than supporting the cronyism and corruption, they turn a blind eye to it because they think it's necessary. My view is not so much that labour and finance capital returns need to be balanced (although that is probably a great thing to aim for), but that creation of wealth/capital needs to be intrinsically linked with the creation of real value. The modern banking crisis was a great example of the ability to generate wealth while in fact destroying real value.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1f1bbf37338f3b1f7737f52550342be2",
"text": "I have read his book(s) as well and agree with his message of identifying poor financial patterns and correcting them. However, I don't recall the chapter about corporate bankruptcy strategies and defensive financial moves which make you impervious to lawsuits. Maybe I glossed over that part.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e0484d584be9730e7eb3041718ab1abf",
"text": "Will strongly vouch for this. Ray Dalio gives you the macro view in that video, while Ackman gives more of the micro view. Would highly recommend watching them both in the same sitting, particularly for somebody who is just entering their study of finance",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6fa5b44cac1481e058de73502dc92232",
"text": "Which is exactly what it was supposed to *not* do, but that seems to be the trend with Lewis's writing. Buffett's biography (*The Snowball*) is great. *The Black Swan* by Taleb is another good one and he's just put out a new one as well, which I haven't read. Stiglitz's *Freefall*.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "922cfb7dfced64ee1eb794c4ae2d7e28",
"text": "The Bible of fundamental analysis was written by Graham and Dodd, and is titled Security Analysis. If you don't know the name Benjamin Graham, Warren Buffet was his student and attribute his own success to Graham. If Security Analysis is a bit too intense for you, Graham also wrote The Intelligent Investor which is probably a better starting point.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab0c1e82e1e9f0cc6156e8c9f7686003",
"text": "Well, yes. Lewis (and anybody) is presuming that you accept take advantage of good fortune. In his own example, though, he wasn't in any way prepared to go into finance. Having gotten there, and established himself even, he pitched it in favor of writing a book. Neither of those examples supports everyone calling luck the result of work plus brains.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "be7f23faebf8bec2746714d3076d2477",
"text": "Would you please get into whether or not you thought that getting away from the gold standard was a good idea? And why? I am not great with money/economy and I really felt like I understand a lot more now that I have read that post. Thank you either way",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "198bb468a2b916a466c48eaab959c272",
"text": "\"There are books like, \"\"The Millionaire Mind\"\" that could be of interest when it comes to basics like living below your means, investing what you save, etc. that while it is common sense, it is uncommonly done in the world. Something to consider is how actively do you want your money management to be? Is it something to spend hours on each week or a few hours a year tops? You have lots of choices and decisions to make. I would suggest keeping part of your savings as an emergency fund just in case something happens. As for another part, this is where you could invest in a few different options and see what happens. There would be a couple of different methods I could see for breaking into finance that I'd imagine: IT of a finance company - In this case you'd likely be working on customizations for what the bank, insurance or other kind of financial firm requires. This could be somewhat boring as you are basically a part of the backbone that keeps the company going but not really able to take much of the glory when the company makes a lot of money. Brains of a hedge fund - In this case, you may have to know some trading algorithms and handle updating the code so that the trading activities can be done by a computer with lightning speed. Harder to crack into since these would be the secretive people to find and join in a way.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "51ace463ec495857250cc8631b9ee890",
"text": "I got that notion from Max Kaiser, his ideas about that are mostly about interest rate apartheid - banks and rich people get money at zero interest, we pay 9, 10, 30%. I think it involves everything from how we are seen in the eyes of the law to assuming risk, etc. We are expected to play by the rules and they are not.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8cc1fdfb2404933cad168885ca8aecae",
"text": "\"**Debt: The First 5000 Years** Debt: The First 5,000 Years is a book by anthropologist David Graeber published in 2011. It explores the historical relationship of debt with social institutions such as barter, marriage, friendship, slavery, law, religion, war and government; in short, much of the fabric of human life in society. It draws on the history and anthropology of a number of civilizations, large and small, from the first known records of debt from Sumer in 3500 BC until the present. A major argument of the book is that the imprecise, informal, community-building indebtedness of \"\"human economies\"\" is only replaced by mathematically precise, firmly enforced debts through the introduction of violence, usually state-sponsored violence in some form of military or police. *** ^[ [^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/economy/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.24\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c3222f7e7299fa077a176bf2df9e034",
"text": "\"Excellent questions! Asking such questions indicates something special about yourself. The desire to learn and adjust your beliefs will increase your chance of success in your life. I would use a wide variety of authors to increase your education. Myself I prefer Dave Ramsey to Clark Howard, but I think Clark is very good. The first thing you should focus on is learning how to do and live by a budget. Often times, adults will assume that you are on a budget because you are broke. It happens with my friends and my youngest child is older than you. Nothing could be further from the truth. A budget is simply a plan on how you will spend your income so you don't run out of money before you run out of month. Along with budgeting I would also focus on goal setting. This is the type of \"\"investing\"\" you should be doing at your age. For example if your primary goal was to become an engineer, my recommendation is to hold off buying stocks/mutual funds and using your current income to get through school with little or no student loans. Another example might be to open your own HVAC business. Your best bet might be to learn the trade, working for someone else, and take night classes for business management. Most 18 year olds have very little earning power. Your focus at this point should be increasing your income and learning how to manage the income you have. Please keep in mind that most debt is bad. It robs you of your income which is your greatest wealth building tool. Car loans and credit card debt is just plain stupid. Often times a business case can be made for reasonable student loans. However, why not challenge yourself to take none. How much further ahead could you be if you graduate, with a degree, when your peers are strapped with a 40K loan? Keep up the good work and keep asking questions.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "01a307c4236d58d3e0da1df77541e4a9",
"text": "I didn't take too many finance or economics courses so i can't comment. In my post I recommended the YouTube video or audiobook 'why an economy grows and why it doesn't' I guess it's more economy related than finance related, but is still relevant as it touches on loans and net worth and stuff.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe3227e7377e8a31b6fdc7d6f59a3ffe",
"text": "Have you read is letter? He's saying thanks to the government for basically saving the economy. Warren Buffet was from day 1 a strong supporter of the bailout program. I'm sorry for my ignorance but what ''output'' are you talking about? As I understand you don't just want to establish a basic income but want to change the whole monetary system? And you can't even explain it?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2bcdda60f3b4d3e30dc4ab0a0479d764",
"text": "\"Dave Ramsey would tell you to pay the smallest debt off first, regardless of interest rate, to build momentum for your debt snowball. Doing so also gives you some \"\"wins\"\" sooner than later in the goal of becoming debt free.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e959ed112a1401422b710b5f7779fd64",
"text": "\"Warren Buffet isn't using any special sauce. He looks for value and ignores hype, greed, and fear. He buys what he knows and looks for companies that generate cash and/or are available for a discount of their true value. He explains what he looks for in a company and his reasons for buying it. He has said on numerous occasions, \"\"I look for intrinsic value.\"\" (So there's your formula.) Human nature is often irrational and investing seems to bring out the fear and greed. I've always been a bit surprised when people ascribe some sort of sixth sense to Warren Buffet's success. He just works hard and doesn't deviate from a sound strategy. \"\"Be fearful when others are greedy and greedy when others are fearful.\"\" And of course, rule one: \"\"Don't lose money.\"\" It's not a joke. How many people buy high and sell low because of fear and greed? When the market tanks, buy more. Finally, anyone can invest with Buffet without all the work. Just buy a few shares of BRK.A or BRK.B.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
0912ef511b3d1af8c10f0509d9eb8f2e
|
How can this be enough to fund a scholarship in perpetuity?
|
[
{
"docid": "c4ec080f48901e5d1591782ca087bcba",
"text": "The Trinity study looked at 'safe' withdrawal rates from retirement portfolios. They found it was safe to withdraw 4% of a portfolio consisting of stocks and bonds. I cannot immediately find exactly what specific investment allocations they used, but note that they found a portfolio consisting largely of stocks would allow for the withdrawal of 3% - 4% and still keep up with inflation. In this case, if you are able to fund $30,000, the study claims it would be safe to withdraw $900 - $1200 a year (that is, pay out as scholarships) while allowing the scholarship to grow sufficiently to cover inflation, and that this should work in perpetuity. My guess is that they invest such scholarship funds in a fairly aggressive portfolio. Most likely, they choose something along these lines: 70 - 80% stocks and 20 - 30% bonds. This is probably more risky than you'd want to take, but should give higher returns than a more conservative portfolio of perhaps 50 - 60% stocks, 40 - 50% bonds, over the long term. Just a regular, interest-bearing savings account isn't going to be enough. They almost never even keep up with inflation. Yes, if the stock market or the bond market takes a hit, the investment will suffer. But over the long term, it should more than recover the lost capital. Such scholarships care far more about the very long term and can weather a few years of bad returns. This is roughly similar to retirement planning. If you expect to be retired for, say, 10 years, you won't worry too much about pulling out your retirement funds. But it's quite possible to retire early (say, at 40) and plan for an infinite retirement. You just need a lot more money to do so. $3 million, invested appropriately, should allow you to pull out approximately $90,000 a year (adjusted upward for inflation) forever. I leave the specifics of how to come up with $3 million as an exercise for the reader. :) As an aside, there's a Memorial and Traffic Safety Fund which (kindly and gently) solicited a $10,000 donation after my wife was killed in a motor vehicle accident. That would have provided annual donations in her name, in perpetuity. This shows you don't need $30,000 to set up a scholarship or a fund. I chose to go another way, but it was an option I seriously considered. Edit: The Trinity study actually only looked at a 30 year withdrawal period. So long as the investment wasn't exhausted within 30 years, it was considered a success. The Trinity study has also been criticised when it comes to retirement. Nevertheless, there's some withdrawal rate at which point your investment is expected to last forever. It just may be slightly smaller than 3-4% per year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "71416857365a4d4aa2f956807b17fbf4",
"text": "Some historical and mathematical insights as a complement to existing answers. History. I found it astonishing that already in Ancient Roman they investigated the issue of perpetuity of 30'000 (almost). Columella writes in De re rustica (3, 3, 7–11.) in 1-st century AD about a perpetuity of 32480 sesterces principal under 6% p.a. resulting in 1950 sesterces annual payment. And if the husbandman would enter this amount as a debt against his vineyards just as a moneylender does with a debtor, so that the owner may realize the aforementioned six per cent. interest on that total as a perpetual annuity, he should take in 1950 sesterces every year. By this reckoning the return on seven iugerum, even according to the opinion of Graecinus, exceeds the interest on 32'480 sesterces. Math. If we fix a scholarship at 1'000 a year, then it's clear that it could be paid out infinitely if we could achieve 3.33% p.a. on it. On the other side, with 0% we'll spend out the endowment in 30 years. Thus, having the interest rate between 0% and 3.33% p.a. we could vary the life of endowment between 30 years and infinity. Just a few numbers in between: under 1%, it would be ~36 years, under 2% ~46 years, under 3% ~78 years (however, 1000$ in 78 years could be less than 10$ today). Conclusion: to keep it perpetual either the fund's yield must be at the level of scholarship, or re-adjust the amount of scholarship depending on fund achievement, or redefine the notion of perpetuity (like 50 years is approximately infinite for our purpose).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9847e66640bcf30db81505f3092a1c1f",
"text": "\"What's the value of the scholarship, and is it administered by itself or by the university? If by itself, the financial return discussed above drives. If by the university, they create the tuition, so it gets more interesting. If this is something that is administered and backstopped by the university, then keep in mind that while it may be named the \"\"John Doe Memorial Scholarship\"\" with $30000 in it's account under the endowment, the university overall is likely to cut some number of students' tuition in financial aid packages anyway. Let's say they substitute a generic tuition adjustment in past years with this happens-to-be-named \"\"John Doe Memorial Scholarship\"\" moving forward: the university can do this as long as they are not constrained in pricing power by laws and financial aid customs. There's the finance answer, and there's the fact that a university can create a \"\"coupon\"\" indefinitely (Similar in concept to the price discrimination where Proctor and Gamble can launch a new flavor of Tide at a high price to maintain the market position, and flood marketing channels with coupons) Also the university might find it to be an inexpensive benefit to the faculty to create a ceremony around a valued, deceased professor; collecting funds from other professors or staff to partially pay for it at finance price or even a slight loss.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "79bd1f7fa03d24bd2c00af21a84a8ba9",
"text": "isn't the answer in the question? it says the company starts officially NEXT year, yet it is asking for the net present value...i.e what that project is worth today. it could be that funds for that particular project may not be necessary for another year, but there may be other projects to evaluate against today.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "79b730bea961def6987f5d292bed6251",
"text": "Let P denote the amount of the investment, R the rate of return and I the rate of inflation. For simplicity, assume that the payment p is made annually right after the return has been earned. Thus, at the end if the year, the investment P has increased to P*(1+R) and p is returned as the annuity payment. If I = 0, the entire return can be paid out as the payment, and thus p = P*R. That is, at the end of the year, when the dust settles after the return P*R has been collected and paid out as the annuity payment, P is again available at the beginning of the next year to earn return at rate R. We have P*(1+R) - p = P If I > 0, then at the end of the year, after the dust settles, we cannot afford to have only P available as the investment for next year. Next year's payment must be p*(1+I) and so we need a larger investment since the rate of return is fixed. How much larger? Well, if the investment at the beginning of next year is P*(1+I), it will earn exactly enough additional money to pay out the increased payment for next year, and have enough left over to help towards future increases in payments. (Note that we are assuming that R > I. If R < I, a perpetuity cannot be created.) Thus, suppose that we choose p such that P*(1+R) - p = P*(1+I) Multiplying this equation by (1+I), we have [P(1+I)]*(1+R) - [p*(1+I)] = P*(1+I)^2 In words, at the start of next year, the investment is P*(1+I) and the return less the increased payout of p*(1+I) leaves an investment of P*(1+I)^2 for the following year. Each year, the payment and the amount to be invested for the following year increase by a factor of (1+I). Solving P*(1+R) - p = P*(1+I) for p, we get p = P*(R-I) as the initial perpetuity payment and the payment increases by a factor (1+I) each year. The initial investment is P and it also increases by a factor of (1+I) each year. In later years, the investment is P*(1+I)^n at the start of the year, the payment is p*(1+I)^n and the amount invested for the next year is P*(1+I)^{n+1}. This is the same result as obtained by the OP but written in terms that I can understand, that is, without the financial jargon about discount rates, gradients, PV, FV and the like.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "70871e94302038a1d3b12f2603dde00f",
"text": "\"It appears you can elect to classify some or all of your scholarship money as taxable. If you do this, you would be deemed to have used the scholarship funds for non-deductible purposes (e.g., room and board), and you could be eligible to claim the American opportunity credit based on the money you used to pay for the tuition out of your own pocket. I found this option in the section of Publication 970 about \"\"Coordination with Pell grants and other scholarships\"\", specifically example 3: The facts are the same as in Example 2—Scholarship excluded from income [i.e., Bill receives a $5600 scholarship and paid $5600 for tuition]. If, unlike Example 2, Bill includes $4,000 of the scholarship in income, he will be deemed to have used that amount to pay for room and board. The remaining $1,600 of the $5,600 scholarship will reduce his qualified education expenses and his adjusted qualified education expenses will be $4,000. Bill's AGI will increase to $34,000, his taxable income will increase to $24,250, and his tax before credits will increase to $3,199. Based on his adjusted qualified education expenses of $4,000, Bill would be able to claim an American opportunity tax credit of $2,500 and his tax after credits would be $699. You can only reclassify income in this way to the extent that your scholarship allows you to use that money for nonqualified expenses (such as room and board). You should carefully check the terms of the scholarship to determine whether it allows this. The brief paragraph you cite from the Palmetto fellowship document is not totally clear on this point (at least to my eye). You might want to ask the fellowship administrators if there are restrictions on how they money may be used. In addition, I would be cautious about attempting to do this unless you actually did pay for the nonqualified expenses yourself, so you can treat the money as fungible. If, for instance, your parents paid for your room and board, it's not clear whether you could legitimately claim that you used the scholarship money to pay for that, since you didn't pay for it at all (although in this case your parents could possibly be able to claim the AOC themselves). I mention this because you say in your question that you \"\"only used the scholarship for tuition and fees\"\". I'm not sure how exactly you meant that, but it seems from the example cited above that, in order to claim the scholarship as taxable income, you have to actually have nonqualified expenses which you can say you paid for with the scholarship. (Also, of course, you had to actually receive the money yourself. If the scholarship money was given directly to your school as payment of tuition, then you never had any ability to use it for anything else.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0b418207b6cf9316c2b7b5d6ebf0b31c",
"text": "\"There is no simple answer to your question. It depends on many things, perhaps most notably what college your daughter ends up going to and what kind of aid you hope to receive. Your daughter will probably fill out the FAFSA as part of her financial aid application. Here is one discussion of what parental assets \"\"count\"\" towards the Expected Family Contribution on the FAFSA. You can find many similar pages by googling. Retirement accounts and primary residence are notable categories that do not count. So, if you were looking to reduce your \"\"apparent\"\" assets for aid purposes, dumping money into your mortgage or retirement account is a possibility. However, you should be cautious when doing this type of gaming, because it's not always clear exactly how it will affect financial aid. For one thing, \"\"financial aid\"\" includes both grants and loans. Everyone wants grants, but sometimes increasing your \"\"eligibility\"\" may just make you (or your daughter) eligible for larger loans, which may not be so great. Also, each college has its own system for allocating financial aid. Individual schools may ask for more detailed information (such as the CSS Profile). So strategies for minimizing your apparent assets that work for one school may not work for others. Some elite schools with large endowments have generous aid policies that allow even families with sizable incomes to pay little or nothing (e.g., Stanford waives tuition for most families with incomes under $125,000). You should probably research the financial aid policies of schools your daughter is interested in. It can be helpful to talk to financial aid advisors at colleges, as well as high school counselors, not to mention general financial advisors if you really want to start getting technical about what assets to move around. Needless to say, it all begins with talking with your daughter about her thoughts on where to go.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3841186b573af2ba2dc5c2085df4e93e",
"text": "\"First, don't save anything in a tax sheltered vehicle. You will be paying so little tax that there will be essentially no benefit to making the contributions, and you'll pay tax when they come out. Tax free compounding for 40 years is terrific, but start that after you're earning more than a stipend. Second, most people recommend having a month's expenses readily available for emergencies. For you, that would be $1500. If you put $100 a month aside, it will take over a year to have your emergency fund. It's easy to argue that you should pick a higher pace, so as to have your emergency money in place sooner. However, the \"\"emergencies\"\" usually cited are things like home repair, car repair, needing to replace your car, and so on. Since you are renting your home and don't have a car, these emergencies aren't going to happen to you. Ask yourself, if your home was destroyed, and you had to replace all your clothes and possessions (including furniture), how much would you need? (Keep in mind any insurance you have.) The only emergency expense I can't guess about is health costs, because I live in Canada. I would be tempted to tell you to get a credit card with a $2000 limit and consider that your emergency fund, just because grad student living is so tight to the bone (been there, and 25 years ago I had $1200 a month, so it must be harder for you now.) If you do manage to save up $1500, and you've really been pinching to do that (walking instead of taking the bus, staying on campus hungry instead of popping out to buy food) let up on yourself when you hit the target. Delaying your graduation by a few months because you're not mentally sharp due to hunger or tiredness will be a far bigger economic hit than not having saved $200 a month for 2 or 3 years. The former is 3-6 months of your new salary, the latter 5-7K. You know what you're likely to earn when you graduate, right?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b434b7b7a2e750295a18e50334555552",
"text": "If you have children in a university institution, then your annual salary is reported via financial aid forms. The small raise could be the difference between full tuition covered and only half tuition covered.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4386006583bf590ccf6ce15b61c555f5",
"text": "The average of a dozen good answers is close to what would be right, the wisdom of crowds. But any one answer will be skewed by one's own opinions. The question is missing too much detail. I look at $400K as $16K/yr of ongoing withdrawals. How much do you make now? When the kids are all in school full time, can your wife work? $400K seems on the low side to me, especially with 3 kids. How much have you saved for college? The $150K for your wife is also a bit low. Without a long tangent on the monetary value of the stay at home spouse, what will you spent on childcare if she passes? Term life also has a expiration date. When my daughter was born, my wife and I got 20 year term. She is now 16, her college account fully funded, and we are semi-retired. The need for insurance is over. If one of us dies, the survivor doesn't need this big of a house, and will have more than they need to be comfortable in a downsized one. My belief is that the term value should bridge the gap to the kids getting through college and the spouse getting resettled. Too much less, I'd have left my wife at risk. Too much more, she'd be better off if I were dead. (I say that half joking, the insurance company will often limit the size policy to something reasonable.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "91387448bed5117c2724195994ae32b7",
"text": "As more people earn it, the value will dilute to some degree. However, I think for *some* parts of finance, the charter will retain usefulness. I mean, college degrees are *extremely* diluted, but they're still seen as a necessary requirement. I see that happening for PM type of roles. Clearly anywhere it isn't useful now won't see appreciation in that later.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b3d0d88450f4b4c6e9b9ff492aefca89",
"text": "So what if someone gets approved for a larger credit card balance and gambles it away? There's nothing tangible left except for maybe some norepinephrine left in your system... Honestly if the student loan system dried up for anything in like Liberal Arts, universities would scramble to fill positions in their schools and maybe tuitions would come down to an affordable level. Right now it's a joke. People are willing to pay for school and living on res when they get qualified for 100k in student loans. If the student loans weren't there perhaps they'd live with their parents and work to support their education. Tuitions should fall to affordable levels if that were the case.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc318b71525376c0e18cccb46902d65b",
"text": "Thanks for that great explanation. I figured you were referring to FAFSA but wanted to be sure. I'm just having my first so i'm trying to plan for the future but I probably won't be paying for college either, it seems like trade schools may be the better deal nowadays.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9f38bd0a46bf85a3c29ba74acc1ff4e3",
"text": "\"Sometimes an assumptions is so fundamentally flawed that it essentially destroys the relevance and validity of any modelling outputs. \"\"Obviously, we're assuming the company can pay it back\"\" Is one of those assumptions. The person gets a notes stating that they will get $525 'IN ONE YEAR' You need to divide $525/(1+Cost of Capital)^n n being the number of periods to find out what the note will be worth today. Google 'Present Value of an Annuity' to deal with debt that is more complex than you have $500 now and give me $525 in a year...\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "39759f3a694b4c798f6717f6d8314396",
"text": "\"This is a tricky question, because the financial aid system can create odd incentives. Good schools tend to price themselves above and beyond any reasonable middle-class ability to save and then offer financial aid, much of it in the form of internal \"\"grants\"\" or \"\"loans\"\". If you think about it, the internal grant is more of a discount than a grant since no money need have ever existed to \"\"fund\"\" the grant. The actual price to the parents is based on financial aid paperwork and related rules, perhaps forming a college price-setting cartel. It is these rules that need to be considered when creating a savings plan. Suppose it is $50k/year to send your kids to the best school admitting them. Thats $200k for the 4 years. Suppose you had $50k now to save instead of $10K, and are wondering whether to put it in your son's college savings (whether or not you can do so in a tax advantaged way) or to pay down the mortgage. If you put it in your kids savings, and the $50k becomes $75k over time, that $75k will be used up in a year and a half as the financial aid system will suck it dry first before offering you much help. On the other hand, if you put the $50k on paying down the mortgage [provided the mortgage is \"\"healthy\"\" not upside down], your house payment will still be the same when your kids go to college. The financial aid calculations will consider that the kid has no savings, and allocate a \"\"grant\"\" and some loans the first year and a parental portion that you might be able to tap with a home equity loan or work overtime. Generally, you should also be encouraging your kids to excel and perhaps obtain academic scholarships or at least obtain some great opportunities. A large college savings fund might be as counterproductive as a zero fund. They shouldn't be expecting to breeze through some party school with a nice pad and car, homework assistance, and beer money. Unless they are good at a sport, like maybe football -- in which case you won't need to be the provider. It is not obvious how much the optimal ESA amount is. It might not be $0. Saving like crazy in there probably isn't the best thing to do, either.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "02fc74037147deb4142ef946e110d69c",
"text": "I worked at a for-profit school, one associated with Full Sail University. I can say this from experience: -Most of the people receiving stipends (loan money from federal or private sources) are black and from low-income neighborhoods. -In SOME instances the people enrolled in the school were obviously mentally ill and very likely homeless. -Most of the people receiving stipends either drop out themselves or are dropped for poor academic progress and attendance. This is after a hefty debt is built up. -The school goes to extraordinary lengths to enroll military vets. I can't say anything about admission tactics other than they check to see if you have a high school degree. Personally I would never go to these type of schools.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "57d81d7a88f068400691d7daa7e77615",
"text": "I think it's interesting to look at bitcoin not as a get-rich quick scheme, but rather a tool to study socio-economics through looking how areas in developing countries view this type of model (and the entire world at large of course). The entire crypto-coin scene has a variety of different algorithms which replicate different monetary policies to promote the most value and high functioning societies. *For example: dogecoin was meant as a quick laugh but has now developed into an inflation based coin to encourage high velocity through tipping. This micropayment model and friendly community hope to gain adoption through spreading it far and wide*. Bitcoin looks at the properties that made gold a useful state-less trade asset and tried to adapt that to the web. It solved traditional problems which made this impossible before without a central party and thus now experiments and studies can be done. Who knows what happens. Gavin, the chief engineer of the bitcoin core development group says, > I still say that it's an experiment, and the whole thing could implode. Coming from the guy who is literally making the edits to the code, I think it's safe to take off the wary of it being used to scam people and instead look at it from a more academic light to see what could be gleaned from bitcoin to improve current institutions.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
11443a8499fc2c326bee26ef31a6b27a
|
Put idle savings to use while keeping them liquid
|
[
{
"docid": "8c77c689e316cfeb3789dc124740bd18",
"text": "First of all, look for a savings account with a decent interest rate. Online banks are good at offering those, and you can transfer your money back and forth from the checking account with a couple of business days' delay. ING Direct offers 1.1% APY right now - lame, but much better than nearly-nothing. If you'd like a little nicer rate of return you should also consider putting some of the money (the part you need least) in a short- or intermediate-term bond ETF or mutual fund. You can sell them quite readily, they pay more interest than a savings account, and because of the shorter maturities involved the interest rate risk is limited. (That's the one that makes your bonds less valuable now because the rates went up after you bought them.) I have some NYSE:BIV that's yielding 3.8% or so.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e9e33a468c248932449a65b23d02f4b5",
"text": "I suppose it depends on how liquid you need, and if you're willing to put forth any risk whatsoever. The stock market can be dangerous, but there are strategies out there that will allow you to insure yourself against significant loss, while likely earning you a decent return. You can buy and sell options along with stocks so that if the stock drops, your loss is limited, and if it goes up or even stays where it's at, you make money (a lot more than 1% annually). Of course there's risk of loss, but if you plan ahead, you can cap that risk wherever you want, maybe 5%, maybe 10%, whatever suits your needs. And as far as liquidity goes, it should be no more than a week or so to close your positions and get your money if you really need it. But even so, I would only recommend this after putting aside at least a few thousand in a cash account for emergencies.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e11555027058c615d0e7427ecf6e208",
"text": "Since you're coming out of college, you're probably a new investor and don't know too much about stocks, etc. I was in the same situation as well. I wanted to keep my cash 'liquid' and wanted to make low risk investments. What I ended up doing was investing the majority of my money in higher interest GICs (Guaranteed Investment Certificate) and keeping the rest in my chequing/savings account. I understand that GICs aren't exactly the most liquid asset out there. However, instead of investing it all into 1 GIC, I put them in to smaller increments with varying lock-in times and roll-over options. I.e. for 15000 keep $3000 on hand in your account 2x$1000 invested for 2 years 4x$1000 invested for 1 year 3x$1000 invested for 180 days 3x$1000 invested for 90 days When you find that you run out of cash from your $3000, you'll have a GIC expiring soon. The 'problem' with GICs is that redeeming them before the maturity period usually incurs a penalty in the form of no interest. Keeping them in smaller increments allows you to redeem only the amount you need without losing too much interest. At maturity, if you don't need the money, you can just have the GIC renew. The other problem with GICs, is that interest rates, though better than savings accounts, aren't that much more. You're basically just fighting off inflation. The benefit is that on maturity, you are guaranteed your principal and the interest. This plan is easy to implement if your bank/credit union allows you to create and manage GICs online.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "da7ca13310fe4d4a7607b6123f0a1b8a",
"text": "I would suggest a high interest checking account if you qualify, or if you don't, an Investor's Deposit Account (IDA).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "58065cd7e8b02e2176e0b476ec35e97e",
"text": "\"Provide you are willing to do a bit of work each month, you should apply for a \"\"rewards checking\"\" account. Basically these accounts require you to set up direct deposit (can be any amount and your employer can easily deposit $25 into one account and the rest into another if you like). They also require you to use your debit card attached to the account (probably about 10 times per month). Check out the list on the fatwallet finance forum. Right now the best accounts are earning over 4%.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "45a94835e7b1f2f31c82908701d2220c",
"text": "I'd have a look at Capital One's Online account too, they've got 1.35% interest rate with 10% bonus if you have over $15k deposited. It is still low like all interest rates, but at least it is on top (or at least close)!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "65b489c3f610de3e3622600f09fb1ab7",
"text": "I'm new to this, but how about putting a big part of your money into an MMA? I don't know about your country, but in Germany, some online banks easily offer as much as 2.1% pa, and you can access the money daily. If you want decent profit without risk this is a great deal, much better than most saving accounts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b3ccba376cef3f12a8bad4fc3558abc8",
"text": "This may sound a little crazy but I would take $5K of that money and buy whiskey with it (Jack Daniel's would be my preference). My guess is that in 5 years that whiskey will be worth more than the $10K you put in the bank. I just can't see how the dollar survives the next 5 years without a major downward adjustment. If I'm wrong then you have a nice party and give whiskey for Christmas gifts. If I'm right at least you will have some savings instead of $15K of useless dollars. Here is my justification for converting your US dollars into tangible assets. Do you really think the money printing will ever stop?",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "9927cf53e6d00e8c5c9d5bf800e2f6be",
"text": "No. That's the point of a passive strategy: you maintain a more or less constant mix of assets and don't try to figure out what's going to move where.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "249d93017da63b773ae7bb6de44e8ff9",
"text": "Most funds keep a certain amount in cash at all times to satisfy outflows. Net inflows will simply be added to the cash balance while net outflows subtract. When the cash gets too low for the manager's comfort level (depends on the typical pattern of net inflows and outflows, as well as anticipated flows based on recent performance), the manager will sell some of his least favorite holdings, and when the cash gets too high he will buy some new holdings or add to his favorite existing holdings. A passive fund works similarly, except the buys/sells are structured to minimize tracking error.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "db9b7098da16d8ce4d3a07a3e55bfe35",
"text": "There is no slack of money. People who are saving their money don't have it stored under their mattress. Instead they have it saved in a bank that is in turn being loaned out at the lowest rates in history. All of this manipulation of the economy has finally caught up to us and the last thing we need is more manipulation. We just have to let the bad investments and the misallocations weed out first. I agree with you that it's a tough thing to endure in the short term but it will help us in the long term.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ec1bd6cc358334f5a0aef37cd798fd8b",
"text": "i think emergency fund should be in a more liquid account (like regular saving or money market) so you can withdraw money any time, while your regular saving can be tied up in a long term CD, bond or an investment account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c7dbf0512932aa995f8d4924466f134",
"text": "\"Here's what I suggest... A few years ago, I got a chunk of change. Not from an inheritance, but stock options in a company that was taken private. We'd already been investing by that point. But what I did: 1. I took my time. 2. I set aside a chunk of it (maybe a quarter) for taxes. you shouldn't have this problem. 3. I set aside a chunk for home renovations. 4. I set aside a chunk for kids college fund 5. I set aside a chunk for paying off the house 6. I set aside a chunk to spend later 7. I invested a chunk. A small chunk directly in single stocks, a small chunk in muni bonds, but most just in Mutual Funds. I'm still spending that \"\"spend later\"\" chunk. It's about 10 years later, and this summer it's home maintenance and a new car... all, I figure it, coming out of some of that money I'd set aside for \"\"future spending.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "481467d7deea46bb5ea3a473c02ce5ef",
"text": "\"Pay off the credit cards. From now on, pay off the credit cards monthly. Under no circumstances should you borrow money. You have net worth but no external income. Borrowing is useless to you. $200,000 in two bank accounts, because if one bank collapses, you want to have a spare while you wait for the government to pay off the guarantee. Keep $50,000 in checking and another $50k in savings. The remainder put into CDs. Don't expect interest income beyond inflation. Real interest rates (after inflation) are often slightly negative. People ask why you might keep money in the bank rather than stocks/bonds. The problem is that stocks/bonds don't always maintain their value, much less go up. The bank money won't gain, but it won't suddenly lose half its value either. It can easily take five years after a stock market crash for the market to recover. You don't want to be withdrawing from losses. Some people have suggested more bonds and fewer stocks. But putting some of the money in the bank is better than bonds. Bonds sometimes lose money, like stocks. Instead, park some of the money in the bank and pick a more aggressive stock/bond mixture. That way you're never desperate for money, and you can survive market dips. And the stock/bond part of the investment will return more at 70/30 than 60/40. $700,000 in stock mutual funds. $300,000 in bond mutual funds. Look for broad indexes rather than high returns. You need this to grow by the inflation rate just to keep even. That's $20,000 to $30,000 a year. Keep the balance between 70/30 and 75/25. You can move half the excess beyond inflation to your bank accounts. That's the money you have to spend each year. Don't withdraw money if you aren't keeping up with inflation. Don't try to time the market. Much better informed people with better resources will be trying to do that and failing. Play the odds instead. Keep to a consistent strategy and let the market come back to you. If you chase it, you are likely to lose money. If you don't spend money this year, you can save it for next year. Anything beyond $200,000 in the bank accounts is available for spending. In an emergency you may have to draw down the $200,000. Be careful. It's not as big a cushion as it seems, because you don't have an external income to replace it. I live in southern California but would like to move overseas after establishing stable investments. I am not the type of person that would invest in McDonald's, but would consider other less evil franchises (maybe?). These are contradictory goals, as stated. A franchise (meaning a local business of a national brand) is not a \"\"stable investment\"\". A franchise is something that you actively manage. At minimum, you have to hire someone to run the franchise. And as a general rule, they aren't as turnkey as they promise. How do you pick a good manager? How will you tell if they know how the business works? Particularly if you don't know. How will you tell that they are honest and won't just embezzle your money? Or more honestly, give you too much of the business revenues such that the business is not sustainable? Or spend so much on the business that you can't recover it as revenue? Some have suggested that you meant brand or stock rather than franchise. If so, you can ignore the last few paragraphs. I would be careful about making moral judgments about companies. McDonald's pays its workers too little. Google invades privacy. Exxon is bad for the environment. Chase collects fees from people desperate for money. Tesla relies on government subsidies. Every successful company has some way in which it can be considered \"\"evil\"\". And unsuccessful companies are evil in that they go out of business, leaving workers, customers, and investors (i.e. you!) in the lurch. Regardless, you should invest in broad index funds rather than individual stocks. If college is out of the question, then so should be stock investing. It's at least as much work and needs to be maintained. In terms of living overseas, dip your toe in first. Rent a small place for a few months. Find out how much it costs to live there. Remember to leave money for bigger expenses. You should be able to live on $20,000 or $25,000 a year now. Then you can plan on spending $35,000 a year to do it for real (including odd expenses that don't happen every month). Make sure that you have health insurance arranged. Eventually you may buy a place. If you can find one that you can afford for something like $100,000. Note that $100,000 would be low in California but sufficient even in many places in the US. Think rural, like the South or Midwest. And of course that would be more money in many countries in South America, Africa, or southern Asia. Even southern and eastern Europe might be possible. You might even pay a bit more and rent part of the property. In the US, this would be a duplex or a bed and breakfast. They may use different terms elsewhere. Given your health, do you need a maid/cook? That would lean towards something like a bed and breakfast, where the same person can clean for both you and the guests. Same with cooking, although that might be a second person (or more). Hire a bookkeeper/accountant first, as you'll want help evaluating potential purchases. Keep the business small enough that you can actively monitor it. Part of the problem here is that a million dollars sounds like a lot of money but isn't. You aren't rich. This is about bare minimum for surviving with a middle class lifestyle in the United States and other first world countries. You can't live like a tourist. It's true that many places overseas are cheaper. But many aren't (including much of Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, etc.). And the ones that aren't may surprise you. And you also may find that some of the things that you personally want or need to buy are expensive elsewhere. Dabble first and commit slowly; be sure first. Include rarer things like travel in your expenses. Long term, there will be currency rate worries overseas. If you move permanently, you should certainly move your bank accounts there relatively soon (perhaps keep part of one in the US for emergencies that may bring you back). And move your investments as well. Your return may actually improve, although some of that is likely to be eaten up by inflation. A 10% return in a country with 12% inflation is a negative real return. Try to balance your investments by where your money gets spent. If you are eating imported food, put some of the investment in the place from which you are importing. That way, if exchange rates push your food costs up, they will likely increase your investments at the same time. If you are buying stuff online from US vendors and having it shipped to you, keep some of your investments in the US for the same reason. Make currency fluctuations work with you rather than against you. I don't know what your circumstances are in terms of health. If you can work, you probably should. Given twenty years, your million could grow to enough to live off securely. As is, you would be in trouble with another stock market crash. You'd have to live off the bank account money while you waited for your stocks and bonds to recover.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "04f3a1490966002444e5a4cb61978175",
"text": "Imagine that a fund had a large exit load that declined over several years. If you wanted to sell some or all of your investment in that fund you would face a large fee, unless you held it a long time. You would be hesitant to sell because waiting longer would save you money. That is the exact opposite of a liquid investment. Therefore the ideal level for a liquid fund is to have zero exit load.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "31f4c4a3ee243726b250881b50398efc",
"text": "You would simply plan for misc. expenses in your budget, and allocate a small amount to this every time you do your budget, eventually building up a pool of money that you can then use whenever you have to make a purchase such as that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "151ec6d3e24b890cc9732e88649dfd6e",
"text": "\"What you're describing makes sense. I'd probably call the non-liquid portion something besides my \"\"emergency fund\"\", but that's semantics mostly. If you have 3 months of \"\"very liquid\"\" cash in this emergency fund and you're comfortable that this amount is good for your situation, then I don't see why you can't have additional savings in more or less liquid vehicles. Whatever you set up, you'll want to think about how to tap it when you need it. You might have a CD ladder with one maturing every three months. That would give you access to these funds after your liquid funds dry up. (Or for a small/short term emergency, you'll be able to replenish the liquid fund with the next-maturing CD.) Or set up a T Bill ladder with the same structure. This might provide you with a tax advantage.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4ee232426f873c73418bdcadf24765ed",
"text": "The rule that I know is six months of income, stored in readily accessible savings (e.g. a savings or money market account). Others have argued that it should be six months of expenses, which is of course easier to achieve. I would recommend against that, partially because it is easier to achieve. The other issue is that people are more prone to underestimate their expenses than their income. Finally, if you base it on your current expenses, then budget for savings and have money left over, you often increase your expenses. Sometimes obviously (e.g. a new car) and sometimes not (e.g. more restaurants or clubs). Income increases are rarer and easier to see. Either way, you can make that six months shorter or longer. Six months is both feasible and capable of handling difficult emergencies. Six years wouldn't be feasible. One month wouldn't get you through a major emergency. Examples of emergencies: Your savings can be in any of multiple forms. For example, someone was talking about buying real estate and renting it. That's a form of savings, but it can be difficult to do withdrawals. Stocks and bonds are better, but what if your emergency happens when the market is down? Part of how emergency funds operate is that they are readily accessible. Another issue is that a main goal of savings is to cover retirement. So people put them in tax privileged retirement accounts. The downside of that is that the money is not then available for emergencies without paying penalties. You get benefits from retirement accounts but that's in exchange for limitations. It's much easier to spend money than to save it. There are many options and the world makes it easy to do. Emergency funds make people really think about that portion of savings. And thinking about saving before spending helps avoid situations where you shortchange savings. Let's pretend that retirement accounts don't exist (perhaps they don't in your country). Your savings is some mix of stocks and bonds. You have a mortgaged house. You've budgeted enough into stocks and bonds to cover retirement. Now you have a major emergency. As I understand your proposal, you would then take that money out of the stocks and bonds for retirement. But then you no longer have enough for retirement. Going forward, you will have to scrimp to get back on track. An emergency fund says that you should do that scrimping early. Because if you're used to spending any level of money, cutting that is painful. But if you've only ever spent a certain level, not increasing it is much easier. The longer you delay optional expenses, the less important they seem. Scrimping beforehand also helps avoid the situation where the emergency happens at the end of your career. It's one thing to scrimp for fifteen years at fifty. What's your plan if you would have an emergency at sixty-five? Or later? Then you're reducing your living standard at retirement. Now, maybe you save more than necessary. It's not unknown. But it's not typical either. It is far more common to encounter someone who isn't saving enough than too much.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ded0e3e2ae24f3120d1de379d488bdd6",
"text": "\"You are not wrong - just about anything can be charged and paid off in 30 days with a sale of non-liquid investments. So there are not any emergencies I can think of that require completely liquid funds (cash). For me, the risks are more behavioral than financial: I'm not saying it's a ridiculous, stupid idea, and these are all \"\"what-if\"\"s that can be countered with discipline and wise decisions, but having an emergency fund in cash certainly makes all of this simpler and reduces risk. If you have investments that you would have no hesitation liquidating to cover an emergency, then you can make it work. For most people, the choice is either paying cash, or charging it without having investment funds to pay it off, and they're back in the cycle of paying minimum payments for months and drowning in debt.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0a7c211c9fd02791c72e7f20f59f9a5a",
"text": "I agree. I have physical cash hidden in my house, a trick I learned from an elderly neighbor whose husband demanded they do it and it paid off for them twice. I have that and then will rely on credit if needed. My only question is if the statistic they mention is ALL savings or just what is in liquid assets.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1328d512f1bbce05712bbb70484c3909",
"text": "The standard advice is to have 3-6 months worth of expenses saved up in a highly liquid savings or money market account. After you have that saved you could look to start investing. I would recommend reading the bogleheads investment wiki (https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Getting_started). Even if you aren't planning on following the bogle head's way of passive investing it will give you a lot of good info on options available to you to start investing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "61c009824d600a359938973082715984",
"text": "\"There are a few major risks to doing something like that. First, you should never invest money you can't afford to lose. An emergency fund is money you can't afford to lose - by definition, you may need to have quick access to that money. If you determine that you need, for example, $3000 in emergency savings, that means that you need to have at least $3000 at all times - if you lose $500, then you now only have $2500 in emergency savings. Imagine what could've happened if you had invested your emergency savings during the 2008 crash, for example; you could easily have been in a position where you lost both your job and a good portion of your emergency savings at the same time, which is a terrible position to be in. If the car breaks down, you can't really say \"\"now's a bad time, wait until the stock market bounces back.\"\" Second, with brokerage accounts, there may be a delay before you can actually access the money or transfer it to an account that you can actually withdraw cash from or write checks against (but some of this depends on the exact arrangement you have with your bank). This can be a problem if you're in a situation where you need immediate access to the money - if your furnace breaks in the middle of winter, you probably don't want to wait a few days for the sale and transfer to go through before you can have it fixed. Third, you can be forced to sell the investments at an unfavorable price because you're not sure when you're going to need it. You'd also likely incur trading fees and/or early withdrawal penalties when you tried to withdraw the money. Think about it this way: if you buy a bond that matures in 5 years, you're effectively betting that you won't have an emergency for the next 5 years. If you do, you'll have to either sell the bond or, if you're allowed to get the money back early, you'll likely forfeit a good amount of the interest you earned in the process (which kind of kills the point of buying the bond in the first place). Edit: As @Barmar pointed out in the comments, you may also have to pay taxes on the profits if you sell at a favorable price. In the U.S. at least, capital gains on stuff held for less than a year is taxed at your ordinary income tax rate and stuff held longer than a year is taxed at the long-term capital gains tax rate. So, if you hold the investment for less than a year, you're opening yourself up to the risks of short-term stock fluctuations as well as potential tax penalties, so if you put your emergency fund in stocks you're essentially betting that you won't have an emergency that year (which by definition you can't know). The purpose of an emergency fund is just that - to be an emergency fund. Its purpose isn't really to make money.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6a3ec9b0c7870ef5eef3a926d09037f6",
"text": "\"There are no risk-free high-liquidity instruments that pay a significant amount of interest. There are some money-market accounts around that pay 1%-2%, but they often have minimum balance or transaction limits. Even if you could get 3%, on a $4K balance that would be $120 per year, or $10 per month. You can do much better than that by just going to $tarbucks two less times per month (or whatever you can cut from your expenses) and putting that into the savings account. Or work a few extra hours and increase your income. I appreciate the desire to \"\"maximize\"\" the return on your money, but in reality increasing income and reducing expenses have a much greater impact until you build up significant savings and are able to absorb more risk. Emergency funds should be highly liquid and risk-free, so traditional investments aren't appropriate vehicles for them.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
0931c8b8d1d496d939e7e6726771a344
|
Buying a house. I have the cash for the whole thing. Should I still get a mortgage to get the homeowner tax break?
|
[
{
"docid": "da95074b0c587333fa350554d8d1ff79",
"text": "Not for the tax break, no; as others have said that still costs you money. However, with rates being low right now and brought a bit lower by the tax break, this is an opportunity for the safest form of leveraged investing you will ever find. If you invest that money, the returns on investment will probably be better than the mortgage rate, and that leaves you with a net profit. There is some risk if the market collapses, but it's less risk than any other form of borrowing to invest. That also leave you with more flexibility if you need cash in a hurry; you can draw down the investments rather than taking another loan. If the risk bothers you, you can do what I did and split the difference. I put 50% down and financed the rest. I sometimes regret not having pushed it harder, since it has worked out well for me ... but that was the level of risk I was comfortable with.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4e2ae1307e47b1d6f0b007f2af9a1eef",
"text": "\"Getting a mortgage for the interest write-off is like buying packs of baseball cards for the gum. That said, I'd refer you to The correct order of investing as much of that question really overlaps with this. This question boils down to priorities, the best use of the funds. There are those who suggest that a mortgage brings risk. Of course it does, just not for the borrower, the risk is borne by the lender. Risk comes from lack of liquidity. Say your girlfriend buys the house with cash, and leaves little reserve. She loses her job, and it's great that she has no mortgage. But she does have every other cost life brings, including a tax bill that can turn into a house getting foreclosed on. The details that you didn't disclose are those needed to look at the rest of the \"\"priorities\"\" list. A fully funded 401(k) with appropriate balance, and no other debt? And a 1 year emergency fund? I wouldn't argue against buying the house with cash. No real savings and passing on the 401(k) matched deposit? I'd think carefully about the longterm impact of the cash purchase.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d18879a9c60ac596151ac4debef88018",
"text": "Except for unusual tax situations your effective interest rate after taking into account the tax deduction will still be positive. It is simply reduced by your marginal rate. Therefore you will end up paying more if the house is financed than if it is bought straight out. Note this does not take into account other factors such as maintaining liquidity or the potential for earning a greater rate of return by investing the money that would otherwise be used to pay for the house",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f4337f65c2c443100a3f1bce1ce7805c",
"text": "Your wealth will go up if your effective rate after taxes is less than the inflation rate. That is, if your interest rate is R and marginal tax rate is T, then you need R*(1-T) to be less than inflation to make a loan worth it. Lately inflation has been bouncing around between 1% and 1.8%. Let's assume a 25% tax rate. Is your interest rate lower than between 1.3% and 2.4%? If not, don't take out a loan. Another thing to consider: when you take out a loan you have to do a ton of extra stuff to make the lender happy (inspections, appraisals, origination charges, etc.). These really add up and are part of the closing costs as well as the time/trouble of buying a house. I recently bought my house using 100% cash. It was 2 weeks between when I agreed to a price to when the deal was sealed and my realtor said I probably saved about $10,000 in closing costs. I think she was exaggerating, but it was a lot of time and money I saved. My final closing costs were only a few hundred, not thousands, of dollars. TL;DR: Loans are for suckers. Avoid if possible.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "3eff2d19c29b1c7d18c9fb810330fac4",
"text": "\"Welcome to Money.SE, and thank you for your service. In general, buying a house is wise if (a) the overall cost of ownership is less than the ongoing cost to rent in the area, and (b) you plan to stay in that area for some time, usually 7+ years. The VA loan is a unique opportunity and I'd recommend you make the most of it. In my area, I've seen bank owned properties that had an \"\"owner occupied\"\" restriction. 3 family homes that were beautiful, and when the numbers were scrubbed, the owner would see enough rent on two units to pay the mortgage, taxes, and still have money for maintenance. Each situation is unique, but some \"\"too good to be true\"\" deals are still out there.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4358862e30f60df862722f91cef19815",
"text": "The Homebuyers Tax Credit was unrelated to whether or not a mortgage was part of the purchase. You will have no issue with this credit if you refinance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8c881aed8e19835da2ab6e495d3b490d",
"text": "It is normally a bad idea to cash in retirement accounts to buy a house, in your case it is a horrible idea because you are way behind on saving for retirement. Other fallacies in your reasoning: My advice, increase the amount you are saving for retirement considerably, and also put some money aside to save for a down payment on a house. Buy the house when you have enough non-retirement money to afford the down payment. If you can't wait that long, buy a house you can afford. It may help to think of it this way: Visualize yourself as a 65 year old retired person with very little income, and living on your retirement account. Would you as a 39 year old ask that person to give you $175,966 (the amount you are talking about withdrawing compounded annually at 6% interest for 25 years with no additional contributions) so that you could put a down payment on a house? Because that is what you would be doing. When you hit retirement age would you kick yourself for making such a decision? Because unless you die young, that person is sitting out there in your future needing that money to live off of. Don't take this the wrong way, but the tone of your question seems like you are looking for support to make what you already know is a bad financial decision.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "64d3ed9bdd8bc785d306c43ab39bcb18",
"text": "\"No one has addressed the fact that your loan interest and property taxes are \"\"deductible\"\" on your taxes? So, for the first 2/3 years of your loan, you will should be able to deduct each year's mortgage payment off your gross income. This in turn reduces the income bracket for your tax calculation.... I have saved 1000's a year this way, while seeing my home value climb, and have never lost a down payment. I would consider trying to use 1/2 your savings to buy a property that is desirable to live in and being able to take the yearly deduction off your taxes. As far as home insurance, most people I know have renter's insurance, and homeowner's insurance is not that steep. Chances are a year from now if you change your mind and wish to sell, unless you're in a severely deflated area, you will reclaim at minimum your down payment.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f86aff035b0ccc3e9a474f3878d5a5d1",
"text": "\"If you are investing in a mortgage strictly to avoid taxes, the answer is \"\"pay cash now.\"\" A mortgage buys you flexibility, but at the cost of long term security, and in most cases, an overall decrease in wealth too. At a very basic level, I have to ask anyone why they would pay a bank a dollar in order to avoid paying the government 28 - 36 cents depending on your tax rate. After all, one can only deduct interest- not principal. Interest is like rent, it accrues strictly to the lender, not equity. In theory the recipient should be irrelevant. If you have a need to stiff the government, go ahead. Just realize you making a banker three times as happy. Additionally the peace of mind that comes from having a house that no banker can take away from you is, at least for me, compelling. If I have a $300,000 house with no mortgage, no payments, etc. I feel quite safe. Even if my money is tied up in equity, if a serious situation came along (say a huge doctors bill) I always have the option of a reverse mortgage later on. So, to directly counter other claims, yes, I'd rather have $300k in equity then $50k in equity and $225k in liquid assets. (Did you notice that the total net worth is $25k less? And that's even before one considers the cash flow implication of a continuing mortgage. I have no mortgage, and I'm 41. I have a lot of net worth, but the thing that I really like is that I have a roof over my head that no on e can take away from me, and sufficient savings to weather most crises). That said, a mortgage is not about total cost. It is about cash flow. To the extent that a mortgage makes your cash flow situation better, it provides a benefit- just not one that is quantifiable in dollars and cents. Rather, it is a risk/reward situation. By taking a mortgage even when you have the cash, you pay a premium (the interest rate) in order to have your funds available when you need it. A very simple strategy to calculate and/or minimize this risk would be to invest the funds in another investment. If your rate of return exceeds the interest rate minus any tax preference (e.g. 4% minus say a 25% deduction = 3%), your money is better off there, obviously. And, indeed, when interest rates are only 4%, it may may be possible to find that. That said, in most instances, a CD or an inflation protected bond or so won't give you that rate of return. There, you'd need to look at stocks- slightly more risky. When interest rates are back to normal- say 5 or 6%, it gets even harder. If you could, however, find a better return than the effective interest rate, it makes the most sense to do that investment, hold it as a hedge to pay off the mortgage (see, you get your security back if you decide not to work!), and pocket the difference. If you can't do that, your only real reason to hold the cash should be the cash flow situation.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "593cbd452c7286b4358b8973a7511d16",
"text": "\"First off, the \"\"mortgage interest is tax deductible\"\" argument is a red herring. What \"\"tax deductible\"\" sounds like it means is \"\"if I pay $100 on X, I can pay $100 less on my taxes\"\". If that were true, you're still not saving any money overall, so it doesn't help you any in the immediate term, and it's actually a bad idea long-term because that mortgage interest compounds, but you don't pay compound interest on taxes. But that's not what it actually means. What it actually means is that you can deduct some percentage of that $100, (usually not all of it,) from your gross income, (not from the final amount of tax you pay,) which reduces your top-line \"\"income subject to taxation.\"\" Unless you're just barely over the line of a tax bracket, spending money on something \"\"tax deductible\"\" is rarely a net gain. Having gotten that out of the way, pay down the mortgage first. It's a very simple matter of numbers: Anything you pay on a long-term debt is money you would have paid anyway, but it eliminates interest on that payment (and all compoundings thereof) from the equation for the entire duration of the loan. So--ignoring for the moment the possibility of extreme situations like default and bank failure--you can consider it to be essentially a guaranteed, risk-free investment that will pay you dividends equal to the rate of interest on the loan, for the entire duration of the loan. The mortgage is 3.9%, presumably for 30 years. The car loan is 1.9% for a lot less than that. Not sure how long; let's just pull a number out of a hat and say \"\"5 years.\"\" If you were given the option to invest at a guaranteed 3.9% for 30 years, or a guaranteed 1.9% for 5 years, which would you choose? It's a no-brainer when you look at it that way.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "26cbf718ff59fcc3d6dcab61bda540c0",
"text": "I just read through all of the answers to this question and there is an important point that no one has mentioned yet: Oftentimes, buying a house is actually cheaper than renting the identical house. I'm looking around my area (suburbs of Chicago, IL) in 2017 and seeing some houses that are both for sale and for rent, which makes for an easy comparison. If I buy the house with $0 down (you can't actually put $0 down but it makes the numerical comparison more accurate if you do), my monthly payment including mortgage (P+I), taxes, insurance, and HOA, is still $400 less than the monthly rent payment. (If I put 20% down it's an even bigger savings.) So, in addition to the the tax advantages of owning a home, the locked in price that helps you in an economy that experiences inflation, and the accumulated equity, you may even have extra cash flow too. If you were on the fence when you would have had to pay more per month in order to purchase, it should be a no-brainer to buy if your monthly cost is lower. From the original question: Get a loan and buy a house, or I can live for the rest of my life in rent and save the extra money (investing and stuff). Well, you may be able to buy a house and save even more money than if you rent. Of course, this is highly dependent on your location.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "51f771d0d68bec8d965bfb3b2a9ee24e",
"text": "avoid corporation tax There aren't many avenues to save on corporation tax legally. The best option you can try is paying into a generous pension for yourself, which will save some corporation tax. Buying a house You can claim deduction for the mortgage payments, but profits on selling the house will require paying capital gains tax on the profit. You can rent it out, this will be decided between your mortgage provider and your company, but the rent will go towards as income. Buying a car Not worth it. You will have to pay Class 1A NI contribution for benefits in kind. Any sane accountant will ask you to buy the car yourself and expense the mileage. Any income generated from the cash you have is taxable. Even the interest being paid on your money is taxable.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "204d55f8c36a9b2fff3dd7a5adc210d5",
"text": "Unless you have an actual hardship (bankruptcy or other emergency), you will be better off leaving that money alone. This excellent answer, gives more than enough reasons why a withdrawal or loan is not recommended. I would love some advice because I need to know if I should contribute more into my 401k or less. If your priority to purchase is high enough, it may be worth considering stopping 401k contributions for a short time to help pile up a down payment. I also encourage you to consider that if you cannot pool the money from non-retirement sources, then you cannot afford that much house at this time. This might mean looking for cheaper houses or delaying purchase for a number of years.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e60d0a15a835c2018ef1b5193889378",
"text": "First, as others have commented, the idea that getting a mortgage to buy a house is always a good idea is false. It depends on a number of factors including the current interest rate, what you think the future interest rate will do over the life of your mortgage, the relative cost of renting vs. buying, and how long you would stay in the house that you bought. To the extent that a mortgage for a house is more often recommended than buying other goods on credit, it is for these reasons: Except for #1 above, you could and can find other situations where taking a loan makes more sense than buying in cash. This more true if you have the resources and the skill to invest money at a rate that beats the interest rate you pay to the creditor. The general advice not to try this rests in the fact that most people don't have the resources or the skill to actually make this pay off, especially on high-interest rate loans or over short time periods.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9743f3922210ecab0091b939ba07c985",
"text": "A $500K mortgage at 4.5% is $2533, right near the $2500 in your example. Interest the first year would be less than $22K, and your tax benefit (taking littleadv's answer into account, of course) would be $5500, max. The tax benefit is the least of the reasons to get a mortgage. On your hypothetical $100K income, and too-high mortgage, a $5500 benefit is nothing. If one needs this tax benefit to make the numbers work, they are budgeted too tightly. If you are considering trading a $1000 rent for a $500K mortgage with a $2500 payment, I'd look very carefully at the numbers. Search this board for the associated expenses of homeownership.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f7401b537f198afe92983962fc9b3061",
"text": "My mortgage started out with an escrow, but it seemed like they were mismanaging it. They often over-collected it and locked up my money unnecessarily or under-collected and had to catch up later to pay the tax bill. Despite what Vitalik said, I told them I would pay my own taxes and insurance and to stop the escrow and they did without argument. Keep in mind, you should only do this if you are good about saving money. The banks know that many people aren't and will have trouble at the end of the year when a multi-thousand dollar tax or insurance bill comes due, hence the reason they try to get you to do the escrow. In my case, I just had the estimated tax/escrow amount automatically deposited from my paycheck into a special interest bearing savings account that I manage.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aabcf90498394c77e1ceb55cb3be9619",
"text": "If you withdraw money, even under a hardship clause like for purchasing a house, you'll still own taxes and a penalty on it. If you are talking about a 401K loan, a loan will have no taxes/penalty, but you'll repay the loan with after-tax reduction of your salary. Max is 50k or 50% of the balance. It maybe up to the 401K administrator whether all of the funds need to go to the down payment and closing costs or whether some can go towards renovations.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b291f8354948f68c47bf9b69785c6131",
"text": "The financial reasons, beyond simply owning your home outright, are: You're no longer paying interest. Yes, the interest is tax-deductible in the U.S. (though not in Canada), but the tax savings is a percentage of a percentage; if you paid, say, $8000 in interest last year, at the 25% marginal rate you effectively save $2000 off your taxes. But, if you paid off your home and had that $8000 in your pocket, you'd pay the $2000 in taxes but you'd have $6000 left over. Which is the better deal? In Canada, the decision gets even easier; you pay taxes on the interest money either way, so you're either spending the $8000 in interest, lost forever as cost of capital, or on other things. Whatever you're earning is going into your own pocket, not the bank's. Similar to the interest, but also including principal, a home you own outright is a mortgage payment you don't have to make. You can now use that money, principal and interest, for other things. Whether these advantages outweigh those of anything else you could do with a few hundred grand depends primarily on the rate of return. If you got in at the bottom of the mortgage crisis (which is pretty much right now) and got a rate in the 3-4% range, with no MIP or other payment on top, then almost anything you can do with the amount you'd need to pay off a mortgage principal would get you a better rate of return. However, you'll need some market savvy to avoid risks. In most cases when someone has pretty much any debt and a big wad of cash they're considering how to spend, I usually recommend paying off the debt, because that is, in effect, a risk-free way to increase the net rate of return on your total wealth and income. Balancing debt with investments always carries with it the risk that the investment will fail, leaving you stuck with the debt. Paying the debt on the other hand will guarantee that you don't have to pay interest on that outstanding amount anymore, so it's no longer offsetting whatever gains you are making in the market on your savings or future investments.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1021105f9b691a94f55193b46aa9d692",
"text": "Lets do the math, using your numbers. We start off with $100K, a desire to buy a house and invest, and 30 years to do it. Scenario #1 We buy a house for $100K mortgage at 5% interest over 30 years. Monthly payment ends up being $536.82/month. We then take the $100K we still have and invest it in stocks, earning an average of 9% annually and paying 15% taxes. Scenario #2 We buy a house for our $100K cash, and then, every month, we invest the $536.82 we would have paid for the mortgage. Again, investments make 9% annually long term, and we pay 15% taxes. How would it look in 30 years? Scenario #1 Results: 30 years later we would have a paid off house and $912,895 in investments Scenario #2 Results: 30 years later we would have a paid off house and $712,745 in investments Conclusion: NOT paying off your mortgage early results in an additional $200,120 in networth after 30 years. That's 28% more. Therefore, not paying off your mortgage is the superior scenario. Caveats/Notes/Things to consider Play with the numbers yourself:",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f6bb38a1b63cda5266a8e37025aa5406
|
Are online mortgage lenders as good as local brick-and-mortar ones?
|
[
{
"docid": "1562d113a58d1be0c38e839c2068a765",
"text": "I had a pretty good experience with Lending Tree, although they are a mortgage broker, not a lender themselves.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4ed3141d1ecdbd5a18ae6b853bebb70d",
"text": "At least five of my co-workers are currently re-financing through Amerisave. Four have had a wonderful experience. The fifth has been dealing with a representative who constantly misunderstands him, asks for duplicate paperwork, and is in general fairly annoying to deal with. He is willing to go through the hassle because he found the lowest rates through them. All five co-workers recommend Amerisave despite this one co-worker's difficulties. Another person I know has refinanced through mortgagefool.com twice with good results. In general I think online lenders are like brick and mortar lenders in that some will be good, some will be not-so-good.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e24bf7a39a85a27540fd6df3267e7eb0",
"text": "\"Excellent question. I'm not aware of one. I was going to say \"\"go visit some personal finance blogs\"\" but then I remembered that I write on one, and that I often get a commission if I talk about online accounts, so unless something is really bad I'm not going to post on it because I want to make money, not chase it away. This isn't to say that I'm biased by commissions, but among a bunch of online banks paying pretty much the same (crappy) interest rate and giving pretty much the same (often not crappy) service, I'm going to give air time to the ones that pay the best commissions. That, and some of the affiliate programs would kick me out if I trashed them on my blog. This also would taint any site, blog or not, that does not explicitly say that they do not have affiliate relationships with the banks they review. I suppose if you read enough blogs you can figure out the bad ones by their absence, but that takes a lot of time. Seems like you'd do all right by doing a \"\"--bank name-- sucks\"\" Google search to dig up the dirt. That, or call up / e-mail / post on their forum any questions you have about their services before sending them your money. If they're up front, they'll answer you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9d49fecd9c88546d2b3fd701e7d5f498",
"text": "\"Short answer: It depends :) It should generally be cheaper to get a loan directly from a bank, but often a mortgage broker can find you deals that you might not be able to get with a local bank. If you are refinancing, the cheapest option of all is usually to go through the bank that holds your existing mortgage. As for how mortgage brokers make their money, there are two ways. The first is on the \"\"front end\"\" through fees (origination fees especially) that go directly to them. The second and less obvious is on the \"\"back end\"\". This is where they make money by giving you a loan at a slightly higher rate than the lender was willing to give you. So, let's say they find a lender that will give you a loan at 5.25%. They offer that loan to you at 5.5% and pocket the extra .25% when the bank takes it over.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "77509b644e1d0e4ad5a936133c0a9d39",
"text": "Yes, maybe for themselves, but for you that depends on quite a number of things. But not all advisors are scum, but accept the fact that you are their cash cow and you are there for their takings. Some advisors are true to their professions and advise ethically, trying to get the best for their clients. So search for a good advisor rather than a cheap one. And regarding the mortgage you are talking about, the mortgage provider and the mortgage taker don't deal directly, but use their solicitors. Every party wants the least of legal hassles for their transactions and get the best legal help. The financial advisor maybe both rolled into one or he has legal practitioners in his firm who would do the legal job after he takes care of the financial matters. Seems a cost effective workshop.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d0fe3e6e7002ef41d8402ddc82e230d",
"text": "\"In practical terms, these days, a credit union IS a small \"\"savings and loan\"\" bank -- the kind of bank that used to exist before bankers started making money on everything but writing loans. They aren't always going to offer higher interest and/or cheaper loans than the bank-banks, but they're almost always going to be more pleasant to deal with since they consider the depositors and borrowers their stockholders, not just customers. There are minor legal differences (different insurance fund, for example), and you aren't necessarily eligible to open an account at a randomly-chosen credit union (depending on how they've defined the community they're serving), but they will rarely affect you as an account holder. The main downside of credit unions is that, like other small local banks, they will only have a few branches, usually within a limited geographic area. However, I've been using a credit union 200 miles away (and across two state lines on that route, one if I take a large detour) for decades now, and I've found that between bank-by-mail, bank-by-internet, ATM machines, and the \"\"branch exchange\"\" program (which lets you use branches of participating credit unions as if they were branches of your own) I really haven't felt a need to get to the branch. I did find that, due to network limitations of $50K/CU/day, drawing $200,000 worth of bank checks on a single day (when I purchased the house) required running around to four separate branch-exchange credit unions. But that's a weird situation where I was having trouble beating the actual numbers out of the real estate agents until a few days before the sale. And they may have relaxed those limitations since... though if I had to do it again, I'd consider taking a scenic drive to hit an actual branch of my own credit union. If you have the opportunity to join a credit union, I recommend doing so. Even if you don't wind up using it for your \"\"main\"\" accounts, they're likely to be people you want to talk to when you're shopping for a loan.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1707e391b50fb6601344bdb077f3ff93",
"text": "I think it's smart. It's the same game, just stiffer regulations, so your lender will ask more from you. Buy if you... If someone has been saving for years and years and still can't put 20% down, I think they're taking a significant risk. Buy something where your mortgage payment is around one week's salary at most. Try to buy only what you can afford to live in if you lost your job and couldn't find work for 3-6 months. You might want to do a 30-yr fixed instead of a 15-yr if you're worried about cash-flow.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "48de34f089ed41e9bfb95dfaa3c87636",
"text": "\"The mortgage broker makes money from the mortgage originator, and from closing fees. All the broker does is the grunt work, mostly paperwork and credit record evaluation. But there's a lot of it. They make their money by navigating the morass of regulations (federal, state, local) and finding you the best mortgage from the mortgage lender(s) they represent. They don't have any capital involved in the deal. Just sweat equity. Mortgage originator is the one who put up the capital for you to borrow. They're the ones who get most of the payments you send in. They sell the mortgage if they receive what they consider an equitable offer. Keep in mind that the mortgage, from the lender's point of view, is made up of three parts. The capital expenditure, the collateral, and the cashflow. The present value of the cashflow at the rate of the loan is greater than the capital expenditure. Any offer between those two numbers is 'in the money' for them, and the next owner, assuming no default. But the collateral makes up for the chance of default, to an extent. There's also a mortgage servicing company in many cases. This doesn't have to be the current holder of the loan. Study \"\"the time value of money\"\", and pay close attention to the parts about present value, future value, and cash flow and how to compare these.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6216c82a3e886b3a0bbedc9202cbea4a",
"text": "\"I experimented with Lending Club, lending a small amount of money in early 2008. (Nice timing right - the recession was December 2007 to June 2009.) I have a few loans still outstanding, but most have prepaid or defaulted by now. I did not reinvest as payments came in. Based on my experience, one \"\"catch\"\" is lack of liquidity. It's like buying individual bonds rather than a mutual fund. Your money is NOT just tied up for the 3-year loan term, because to get good returns you have to keep reinvesting as people pay off their loans. So you always have some just-reinvested money with the full 3 year term left, and that's how long it would take to get all your money back out. You can't just cash out when you feel like it. They have a trading platform (which I did not try out) if you want your money sooner, but I would guess the spreads are wide and you have to take a hit when you sell loans. Again though I did not try the trading platform. On the upside, the yields did seem fine. I got 19 eventual defaults from 81 loans, but many of the borrowers made a number of payments before defaulting so only part of the money was lost. The lower credit ratings default more often obviously, only one of 19 defaults had the top credit score. (I tried investing across a range of credit ratings.) The interest rates appear to cover the risk of default, at least on average. You can of course have varying luck. I made only a slight profit over the 3 years, but I did not reinvest after the first couple months, and it was during a recession. So the claimed yields look plausible to me if you reinvest. They do get people's credit scores, report nonpayment on people's credit reports, and even send people to collections. Seems like borrowers have a reason to pay the bill. In 2008 I think this was a difference compared to the other peer lending sites, but I don't know if that's still true. Anyway, for what it's worth the site seemed to work fine and \"\"as advertised\"\" for me. I probably will not invest more money there for a couple reasons: However as best I could tell from my experiment, it is a perfectly reasonable place to put a portion of your portfolio you might otherwise invest in something like high-yield bonds or some other sub-investment-grade fixed income. Update: here's a useful NY Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/05/your-money/05money.html\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0a8e98b568067901bf114c8c52a8bf27",
"text": "While it is possible, it's not a really good use of your time or theirs. Mortgage brokers have access to dozens of lenders, can assemble deals you can't even dream of, and are much more intimately acquainted with the latest lending rule changes than you are. They are paid by the lenders to bring them business, so there is no cost to you. A mortgage broker has the advantage of leverage because he can be placing 10 mortgages per day, while you will be placing one, once. Your mortgage broker is working on your behalf. Get out of his way and let him do his job so you can concentrate on other matters. If your concern is that you want the lowest rate, share that with your broker and let him find the best rate for you. If you want a deal where you can put a larger prepayment down, let him know that and he will find you what you're looking for.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4207706b7befff87a3e630d6454003ed",
"text": "\"The reason \"\"on-line\"\" savings accounts (Ally, CapitalOne, American Express, and many others) provide much higher rates than brick-and-mortar banks is because they're not brick-and-mortar. They do not need to pay for a huge amount of real estate, utilities, public-facing employees, inter-office mail, security, etc etc. All that - allows them to pay more for your money. The back office of these banks is the same as that of Chase, BOA or Wells Fargo. Its just that they don't have the enormous expense of having a branch in every neighborhood, while still reaching all the same population of depositors. So no, its not a scam, these are reputable banks. Some have physical offices (for example, I know that CapitalOne has some branches in New York), some don't (IIRC neither Ally nor American Express Federal Saving Bank have physical branches). But they're banks nonetheless, insured as required by FDIC (or NCUA, in case of credit unions), and provide all the same services for less (or all the same savings for more, if you will). IMHO, giving 0.01% APR is a scam. Not the other way around. The old-style banks want your money for free, and you're worried why would someone else treat you better... Well, that's why the US has one of the most retarded financial systems in the Western world...\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9f4963fce4cb631d814a5851479c5bf4",
"text": "\"Small community banks are absolutely vital to our economy. Plenty of people these days talk about \"\"buying local,\"\" but you never hear them talking about banking local. My friends, for the most part, lean left of center politically, so they constantly complain about Wal-Mart and other large brick and mortar chains, but when I called them out on their banking by asking them to pull out their debit cards, they all banked with larger banks; Chase, PNC, Key; the only person (beside myself) who didn't bank with a large national/multi - national bank uses Huntington, which is still a very large regional bank with over $100 billion in assets. They said they didn't want to have to pay ATM fees, to which I responded that many community banks will reimburse the customer for those fees up to a certain amount (like my bank does.) They just shrugged and said they liked the convenience of it, so I asked them why do they think people shop at Wal-Mart? I didn't really get a good answer to that; they just said \"\"it's different.\"\" The best way to invest in your community is to bank with a local community bank. Those mom and pop shops you love so much; the plumber who lives down the street; the micro brewery that just opened up all do their banking with the local community bank.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b9b6bd0da39b12ed4ac17e04daefd67",
"text": "\"Here are the issues, as I see them - It's not that I don't trust banks, but I just feel like throwing all of our money into intangible investments is unwise. Banks have virtually nothing to do with this. And intangible assets has a different meaning than you assume. You don't have to like the market, but try to understand it, and dislike it for a good reason. (Which I won't offer here). Do your 401(k) accounts offer company match? When people start with \"\"we'd like to reduce our deposits\"\" that's the first thing we need to know. Last - you plan to gain \"\"a few hundred dollars a month.\"\" I bet it's closer to zero or a loss. I'll return to edit, we have recent posts here that reviewed the expenses to consider, and I'd bet that if you review the numbers, you've ignored some of them. \"\"A few hundred\"\" - say it's $300. Or $4000/yr. It would take far less work and risk to simply save $100K in your retirement accounts to produce this sum each year. The investment may very well be excellent. I'm just offering the flip side, things you might have missed. Edit - please read the discussion at How much more than my mortgage should I charge for rent? The answers offer a good look at the list of expenses you need to consider. In my opinion, this is one of the most important things. I've seen too many new RE investors \"\"forget\"\" about so many expenses, a projected monthly income reverts to annual losses.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b46cd1cd828458b9853b605028dc8a9",
"text": "\"Your headline question \"\"How do you find best mortgage without damaging credit score?\"\" has a simple answer. If you have all your ducks in a row, and know what you are doing, you will get qualified. If you are like a recent client of mine, low FICO, low downpayment, random income, you might have issues. If your self-prequalification is good, you are in control, go find the best rate/ total cost, no need to put in multiple applications. If, for some reason you do, FICO sees that you are shopping for a single loan, and you are not dinged.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "88c45e03f8757aab8fc52372a58788df",
"text": "I had the same experience as Jeremy: made investments in both Prosper and Lending Club and got a much better returns with Lending Club, although in my cases both investments were ok: after 18 months i made 4-5% on prosper and 11-12% on Lending Club. I think they just have better underwriting standards.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "609c715b134b85f0951fb29bdb2469e5",
"text": "Most of these blogs/websites that you mention above promote banks that pay a commission and hence you never realize there are better banks out there that offer a higher rate. I went through the same exercise to find the bank that paid the best rate and realized the truth I mention above. I currently bank with Alliant Credit Union, which doesn't pay a commission or have affiliate fees. If you find a bank that pays a higher rate than ACU, let me know, I'd like to switch to that bank as well! To give an example, ACU's regular savings rate is equivalent to EverBank's 2 year CD! See what I mean when I say affiliate and commissions run the show? Disclosure: BTW, I'm a customer of this bank, not an employee. I do have a blog if you wish to read my experience with ACU.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dae929d5d91dec429b8b506947c43c09",
"text": "Applying for a mortgage is a bit of paperwork, but not too bad of an experience. Rates are pretty tight, if one lender were more that 1/4% lower than another, they'd be inundated with applications. Above a certain credit score, you get the 'best' rate, a search will show you the rates offered in your area. If you are a first time buyer, there are mortgages that might benefit you. If you are a vet (for non-native English readers, a veteran who served in the US armed forces, not a veterinarian, who is an animal doctor) there are mortgages that offer low-to-no down payment with attractive rates. Yes, avoid PMI, it's a crazy penalty on your overall expense of home purchase. If banks qualify you for different amounts, it shouldn't be a huge difference, a few percent variation. But, the standard ratios are pretty liberal even today, and getting the most you'd qualify for is probably too much. Using the standard 28/36% ratios, a bank will qualify you for 4X your income as a loan. e.g you make $50K, they'll lend you $200K. This is a bit too much in my opinion. If you come up short, you are really looking to borrow too much, and should probably wait. If you owe a bit on loans, it should squeeze in between those two ratios, 28/36. But I wouldn't borrow on a credit line to add to the purchase, that's asking for trouble.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a04081549f301bf14c9c0acc1ce704a1
|
Stock grant, taxes, and the IRS
|
[
{
"docid": "7f0fededa670a411cea1e495d339388f",
"text": "I went through this too. There's a safe-harbor provision. If you prepay as estimated tax payments, 110% of your previous year's tax liability, there's no penalty for underpayment of the big liquidity-event tax liability. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p17/ch04.html That's with the feds. Your state may have different rules. You would be very wise indeed to hire an accountant to prepare your return this year. If I were you I'd ask your company's CFO or finance chief to suggest somebody. Congratulations, by the way.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "04b3f704a8ebfdd049ca8774d1e03bd8",
"text": "If you have a one-time event, you are allowed to make a single estimated payment for that quarter on Form 1040-ES. People seem to fear that if they make one such payment they will need to do it forevermore, and that is not true. The IRS instructions do kind of read that way, but that's because most people who make estimated payment do so because of some repeating circumstance like being self-employed. In addition, you may qualify for one or more waivers on a potential underpayment penalty when you file your Form 1040 even if you don't make an estimated payment, and you may reduce or eliminate any penalty by annualizing your income - which is to say breaking it down by quarter rather than the full year. Check on the instructions for Form 2210 for more detail, including Schedule AI for annualizing income. This is some work, but it might be worthwhile depending on your situation. https://www.irs.gov/instructions/i2210/ch02.html",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "fe3a3f0caea8db6ae5875eb22f1bf99d",
"text": "Assuming you bought the stocks with after-tax money, you only pay tax on the difference. Had you bought he shares in a pretax retirement account, such as an IRA or 401(k), the taxation waits until you withdraw, at which point, it's all taxed as ordinary income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4c74688428cd21ef6eac74e3f0eefdf5",
"text": "No, you can not cheat the IRS. This question is also based on the assumption that the stock will return to $1 which isn't always a safe assumption and that it will continue to cycle like that repeatedly which is also likely a false assumption.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f2bee9d464e259fa7b7b4558c1080986",
"text": "I'm assuming this was a cashless exercise because you had income show up on your w-2. When I had a similar situation, I did the following: If you made $50,000 in salary and $10,000 in stock options then your W-2 now says $60,000. You'll record that on your taxes just like it was regular income. You'll also get a form that talks about your stock sale. But remember, you bought and sold the stock within seconds. Your forms will probably look like this: Bought stock: $10,000 Sold stock: $10,000 + $50 commission Total profit (loss): ($50) From the Turbotax/IRS view point, you lost $50 on the sale of the stock because you paid the commission, but the buy and sell prices were identical or nearly identical.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c5578afe7b8b8fea73e4f1a44aea7c7e",
"text": "To try to answer the three explicit questions: Every share of stock is treated proportionately: each share is assigned the same dollar amount of investment (1/176th part of the contribution in the example), and has the same discount amount (15% of $20 or $25, depending on when you sell, usually). So if you immediately sell 120 shares at $25, you have taxable income on the gain for those shares (120*($25-$17)). Either selling immediately or holding for the long term period (12-18 mo) can be advantageous, just in different ways. Selling immediately avoids a risk of a decline in the price of the stock, and allows you to invest elsewhere and earn income on the proceeds for the next 12-18 months that you would not otherwise have had. The downside is that all of your gain ($25-$17 per share) is taxed as ordinary income. Holding for the full period is advantageous in that only the discount (15% of $20 or $25) will be taxed as ordinary income and the rest of the gain (sell price minus $20 or $25) will be taxed at long-term capital gain tax rates, which generally are lower than ordinary rates (all taxes are due in the year you do sell). The catch is you will sell at different price, higher or lower, and thus have a risk of loss (or gain). You will never be (Federally) double taxed in any scenario. The $3000 you put in will not be taxed after all is sold, as it is a return of your capital investment. All money you receive in excess of the $3000 will be taxed, in all scenarios, just potentially at different rates, ordinary or capital gain. (All this ignores AMT considerations, which you likely are not subject to.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "175a9f550ec56623c289df7f2fe0dc18",
"text": "Here is how it should look: 100 shares of restricted stock (RSU) vest. 25 shares sold to pay for taxes. W2 (and probably paycheck) shows your income going up by 100 shares worth and your taxes withheld going up by 25 shares worth. Now you own 75 shares with after-tax money. If you stop here, there would be no stock sale and no tax issues. You'd have just earned W2 income and withheld taxes through your W2 job. Now, when you sell those 75 shares whether it is the same day or years later, the basis for those 75 shares is adjusted by the amount that went in to your W2. So if they were bought for $20, your adjusted basis would be 75*$20.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "56596fac5107f6f0af730a04194202f2",
"text": "\"A little terminology: Grant: you get a \"\"gift\"\" with strings attached. \"\"Grant\"\" refers to the plan (legal contract) under which you get the stock options. Vesting: these are the strings attached to the grant. As long as you're employed by the company, your options will vest every quarter, proportionally. You'll become an owner of 4687 or 4688 options every quarter. Each such vest event means you'd be getting an opportunity to buy the corresponding amount of stocks at the strike price (and not the current market price which may be higher). Buying is called exercising. Exercising a nonqualified option is a taxable event, and you'll be taxed on the value of the \"\"gift\"\" you got. The value is determined by the difference between the strike price (the price at which you have the option to buy the stock) and the actual fair market value of the stock at the time of vest (based on valuations). Options that are vested are yours (depending on the grant contract, read it carefully, leaving the company may lead to forfeiture). Options that are not vested will disappear once you leave the company. Exercised options become stocks, and are yours. Qualified vs Nonqualifed - refers to the tax treatment. Nonqualified options don't have any special treatment, qualified do. 3.02M stocks issued refers to the value of the options. Consider the total valuation of the company being $302M. With $302M value and 3.02M stocks issued, each stock is worth ~$100. Now, in a year, a new investor comes in, and another 3.02M stocks are issued (if, for example, the new investor wants a 50% stake). In this case, there will be 6.04M stocks issued, for 302M value - each stock is worth $50 now. That is called dilution. Your grant is in nominal options, so in case of dilution, the value of your options will go down. Additional points: If the company is not yet public, selling the stocks may be difficult, and you may own pieces of paper that no-one else wants to buy. You will still pay taxes based on the valuations and you may end up paying for these pieces of paper out of your own pocket. In California, it is illegal to not pay salary to regular employees. Unless you're a senior executive of the company (which I doubt), you should be paid at least $9/hour per the CA minimum wages law.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b9838f030c43ae7ef9cb5567a6f0bf48",
"text": "My understanding is that when you die, the stocks are sold and then the money is given to the beneficiary or the stock is repurchased in the beneficiaries name. This is wrong, and the conclusion you draw from michael's otherwise correct answer follows your false assumption. You seem to understand the Estate Tax federal threshold. Jersey would have its own, and I have no idea how it works there. If the decedent happened to trade in the tax year prior to passing, normal tax rules apply. Now, if the executor chooses to sell off and liquidate the estate to cash, there's no further taxable gain, a $5M portfolio can have millions in long term gain, but the step up basis pretty much negates all of it. If that's the case, the beneficiaries aren't likely to repurchase those shares, in fact, they might not even know what the list of stocks was, unless they sifted through the asset list. But, that sale was unnecessary, assets can be divvied up and distributed in-kind, each beneficiary getting their fraction of the number of shares of each stock. And then your share of the $5M has a stepped up basis, meaning if you sell that day, your gains are near zero. You might owe a few dollars for whatever the share move in the time passing between the step up date and date you sell. I hope that clarifies your misunderstanding. By the way, the IRS is just an intermediary. It's congress that writes the laws, including the tangled web of tax code. The IRS is the moral equivalent of a great customer service team working for a company we don't care for.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8bc7bbe92b183a48b4f7a4f92bece0b1",
"text": "\"Once again I offer some sage advice - \"\"Don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog.\"\" Michael offers an excellent method to decide what to do. Note, he doesn't base the decision on the tax implication. If you are truly indifferent to holding the stock, taxwise, you might consider selling just the profitable shares if that's enough cash. Then sell shares at a loss each year if you have no other gains. That will let you pay the long term gain rate on the shares sold this year, but offset regular income in years to come. But. I'm hard pressed to believe you are indifferent, and I'd use Michel's approach to decide. Updated - The New Law is simply a rule requiring brokers to track basis. Your situation doesn't change at all. When you sell the shares, you need to identify which shares you want to sell. For older shares, the tracking is your responsibility, that's all.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d090e456a27088b6844ae132bb20c829",
"text": "\"You mention \"\"early exercise\"\" in your title, but you seem to misunderstand what early exercise really means. Some companies offer stock options that vest over a number of years, but which can be exercised before they are vested. That is early exercise. You have vested stock options, so early exercise is not relevant. (It may or may not be the case that your stock options could have been early exercised before they vested, but regardless, you didn't exercise them, so the point is moot.) As littleadv said, 83(b) election is for restricted stocks, often from exercising unvested stock options. Your options are already vested, so they won't be restricted stock. So 83(b) election is not relevant for you. A taxable event happen when you exercise. The point of the 83(b) election is that exercising unvested stock options is not a taxable event, so 83(b) election allows you to force it to be a taxable event. But for you, with vested stock options, there is no need to do this. You mention that you want it not to be taxable upon exercise. But that's what Incentive Stock Options (ISOs) are for. ISOs were designed for the purpose of not being taxable for regular income tax purposes when you exercise (although it is still taxable upon exercise for AMT purposes), and it is only taxed when you sell. However, you have Non-qualified Stock Options. Were you given the option to get ISOs at the beginning? Why did your company give you NQSOs? I don't know the specifics of your situation, but since you mentioned \"\"early exercise\"\" and 83(b) elections, I have a hypothesis as to what might have happened. For people who early-exercise (for plans that allow early-exercise), there is a slight advantage to having NQSOs compared to ISOs. This is because if you early exercise immediately upon grant and do 83(b) election, you pay no taxes upon exercise (because the difference between strike price and FMV is 0), and there are no taxes upon vesting (for regular or AMT), and if you hold it for at least 1 year, upon sale it will be long-term capital gains. On the other hand, for ISOs, it's the same except that for long-term capital gains, you have to hold it 2 years after grant and 1 year after exercise, so the period for long-term capital gains is longer. So companies that allow early exercise will often offer employees either NQSOs or ISOs, where you would choose NQSO if you intend to early-exercise, or ISO otherwise. If (hypothetically) that's what happened, then you chose wrong because you got NQSOs and didn't early exercise.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3654d20ab2b1704565386801ebed97b",
"text": "\"Of course, but that's not relevant to my example. Let me clarify: say you hold a highly-appreciated $10M position in AAPL and you have good reason to believe the next iPhone is going to be a flop, causing the stock to decline 20%. You can sell now to avoid the (probable) decline, but by doing so you will be left with, let's say, $6.67M after paying $3.33M of state and federal LTCG taxes on the appreciation ($9M of the $10M, because you bought a long time ago). However, by simply doing nothing and \"\"eating\"\" the 20% decline, you'll end up with $8M instead of $6.67M. Many economists would criticize the tax in this example, as it has led to the investor rationally suffering a $2M loss, instead of reallocating all $10M of his/her capital to a more promising enterprise. Furthermore, if/when many investors act that way, they can create inefficiency in the equity markets (prices not declining by as much as they should to reflect a firm's reduced prospects).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "db96aca55b045235a2a64b26af02948f",
"text": "\"I don't think its a taxable event since no income has been constructively received (talking about the RSU shareholders here). I believe you're right with the IRC 1033, and the basis of the RSU is the basis of the original stock option (probably zero). Edit: see below. However, once the stock becomes vested - then it is a taxable event (not when the cash is received, but when the chance of forfeiture diminishes, even if the employee doesn't sell the stock), and is an ordinary income, not capital. That is my understanding of the situation, do not consider it as a tax advice in any way. I gave it a bit more though and I don't think IRC 1033 is relevant. You're not doing any exchange or conversion here, because you didn't have anything to convert to begin with, and don't have anything after the \"\"conversion\"\". Your ISO's are forfeited and no longer available, basically - you treat them as you've never had them. What happened is that you've received RSU's, and you treat them as a regular RSU grant, based on its vesting schedule. The tax consequences are exactly as I described in my original response: you recognize ordinary income on the vested stocks, as they vest. Your basis is zero (i.e.: the whole FMV of the stock at the time of vesting is your ordinary income). It should also be reflected in your W2 accordingly.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b3878fc1739e70bd1bd6b352da2cf21f",
"text": "A purchase of a stock is not a taxable event. No 1099 to worry about. Welcome to Money.SE",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5c6a8eb3d7260ce7cff353c73588f5f2",
"text": "\"Your assertion that you will not be selling anything is at odds with the idea that you will be doing tax loss harvesting. Tax loss harvesting always involves some selling (you sell stocks that have fallen in price and lock in the capital losses, which gives you a break on your taxes). If you absolutely prohibit your advisor from selling, then you will not be able to do tax loss harvesting (in that case, why are you using an advisor at all?). Tax loss harvesting has nothing to do with your horizon nor the active/passive difference, really. As a practical matter, a good tax loss harvesting plan involves mechanically selling losers and immediately putting the money in another stock with more-or-less similar risk so your portfolio doesn't change much. In this way you get a stable portfolio that performs just like a static portfolio but gives you a tax benefit each year. The IRS officially prohibits this practice via the \"\"wash sale rule\"\" that says you can't buy a substantially identical asset within a short period of time. However, though two stocks have similar risk, they are not generally substantially similar in a legal sense, so the IRS can't really beat you in court and they don't try. Basically you can't just buy the same stock again. The roboadvisor is advertising that they will perform this service, keeping your portfolio pretty much static in terms of risk, in such a way that your tax benefit is maximized and you don't run afoul of the IRS.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f02d14b3b88c6a19f10f13209e2455d",
"text": "I've talked to several very experienced accountants that deal with startup shares, stock 83(b)'s, etc. weekly (based in SF, CA) as this issue would have had a massive impact on me. The most important part of filing an 83(b) is notifying the IRS within 30 days. The law requires the written notification within the 30 day window. Adding it to that years tax return is an IRS procedure. Forgetting to include a copy of that years tax return is apparently a common occurrence when no tax was owed (0 spread, you actually paid the FMV). And the accepted method to resolve this is to simply file a blank amendment for that years return and include the copy of the 83(b) election.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "25faeedfce4fc9db142bcf1af0d49817",
"text": "Assuming that what you want to do is to counter the capital gains tax on the short term and long term gains, and that doing so will avoid any underpayment penalties, it is relatively simple to do so. Figure out the tax on the capital gains by determining your tax bracket. Lets say 25% short term and 15% long term or (0.25x7K) + (0.15*8K) or $2950. If you donate to charities an additional amount of items or money to cover that tax. So taking the numbers in step 1 divide by the marginal tax rate $2950/0.25 or $11,800. Money is easier to donate because you will be contributing enough value that the IRS may ask for proof of the value, and that proof needs to be gathered either before the donation is given or at the time the donation is given. Also don't wait until December 31st, if you miss the deadline and the donation is counted for next year, the purpose will have been missed. Now if the goal is just to avoid the underpayment penalty, you have two other options. The safe harbor is the easiest of the two to determine. Look at last years tax form. Look for the amount of tax you paid last year. Not what was withheld, but what you actually paid. If all your withholding this year, is greater than 110% of the total tax from last year, you have reached the safe harbor. There are a few more twists depending on AGI Special rules for farmers, fishermen, and higher income taxpayers. If at least two-thirds of your gross income for tax year 2014 or 2015 is from farming or fishing, substitute 662/3% for 90% in (2a) under the General rule, earlier. If your AGI for 2014 was more than $150,000 ($75,000 if your filing status for 2015 is married filing a separate return), substitute 110% for 100% in (2b) under General rule , earlier. See Figure 4-A and Publication 505, chapter 2 for more information.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
85c822184651c846c38c01f6dca9a3d5
|
Now that Microsoft Money is gone, what can I do? [duplicate]
|
[
{
"docid": "90b0557ba3649538e4ef1b972e18f484",
"text": "Mint.com is a fantastic free personal finance software that can assist you with managing your money, planning budgets and setting financial goals. I've found the features to be more than adequate with keeping me informed of my financial situation. The advantage with Mint over Microsoft Money is that all of your debit/credit transactions are automatically imported and categorized (imperfectly but good enough). Mint is capable of handling bank accounts, credit card accounts, loans, and assets (such as cars, houses, etc). The downsides are:",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "f0caf721b73d61349849ec09fa64db2f",
"text": "Uh, Quicken is virtually identical to MS Money. If you liked money and don't want to change, use that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4767150d12ae946f266ade3beae6a7b0",
"text": "You could keep an eye on BankSimple perhaps? I think it looks interesting at least... too bad I don't live in the US... They are planning to create an API where you can do everything you can do normally. So when that is released you could probably create your own command-line interface :)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d8bd50cfab7a7dfa28146c0fa17dbe77",
"text": "Based on my experience with OpenQuant, which is a development platform for automated trading strategies (and therefore can be easily be used for backtesting your personal strategy), I can give a little insight into what you might look for in such a platform. OpenQuant is a coding environment, which reads data feeds from a variety of sources (more on that in the second point), and runs the code for your strategy on that data and gives you the results. The data could be imported from a live data feed or from historical data, either through numerous API's, CSV/Excel, etc. You can write your own strategies using the custom C# libraries included with the software, which spares you from implementing your own code for technical indicators, basic statistical functions, etc. Getting the data is another issue. You could use joe's strategy and calculate option prices yourself, although you need to exercise caution when doing this to test a strategy. However, there is no substitute for backtesting a strategy on real data. Markets change over time, and depending on how far back you're interested in testing your strategy, you may run into problems. The reason there is no substitute for using real data is that attempting to replicate the data may fail in some circumstances, and you need a method of verifying that the data you're generating is correct and realistic. Calculating a few values, comparing them to the real values, and calibrating accordingly is a good idea, but you have to decide for yourself how many checks you want to do. More is better, but it may not be enough to realistically test your strategy. Disclaimer: Lest you interpret my post as a shameless plug for the OpenQuant platform, I'll state that I found the interface awful (it looked vaguely like Office 2000 but ten years too late) and the documentation woefully incomplete. I last used the software in 2010, so it may have improved in the intervening years, but your mileage may vary. I only use it as an example to give some insight into what you might look for in a backtesting platform. When you actually begin trading, a different platform is likely in order. That being said, it responded fairly quickly and the learning curve wasn't too steep. The platform wasn't too expensive at the time (about $700 for a license with no data feeds, I think) but I was happy that the cost wasn't coming out of my pocket. It's only gotten more expensive and I'm not sure it's worth it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "46651b3b3476d6ee2c361efaaa80b1bb",
"text": "It's difficult to compile free information because the large providers are not yet permitted to provide bulk data downloads by their sources. As better advertising revenue arrangements that mimic youtube become more prevalent, this will assuredly change, based upon the trend. The data is available at money.msn.com. Here's an example for ASX:TSE. You can compare that to shares outstanding here. They've been improving the site incrementally over time and have recently added extensive non-US data. Non-US listings weren't available until about 5 years ago. I haven't used their screener for some years because I've built my own custom tools, but I will tell you that with a little PHP knowledge, you can build a custom screener with just a few pages of code; besides, it wouldn't surprise me if their screener has increased in power. It may have the filter you seek already conveniently prepared. Based upon the trend, one day bulk data downloads will be available much like how they are for US equities on finviz.com. To do your part to hasten that wonderful day, I recommend turning off your adblocker on money.msn and clicking on a worthy advertisement. With enough revenue, a data provider may finally be seduced into entering into better arrangements. I'd much rather prefer downloading in bulk unadulterated than maintain a custom screener. money.msn has been my go to site for mult-year financials for more than a decade. They even provide limited 10-year data which also has been expanded slowly over the years.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a19279ffae2f4db056a53ee0f972eae",
"text": "\"You could buy options. I do not know what your time horizon is but it makes all the difference due to theta burn. There are weekly, monthly, quarterly, yearly and even longer duration options called leaps. You have decided how long of a time frame. You also have to see what the implied volatility is for the underlying because if you think hypothetically that the price of the spy is 100 dollars currently. Today is hypothetically a Thursday and you buy a weekly option expiring on Friday ( the next day) of strike 100.5 and the call option is priced at .55 cents and you buy it. This means that the underlying has to move .5 dollars in one day to be considered in the money but at time 0, the option should only be worth its intrinsic value which is the underlying, (Say the SPY moved 55 cents up from 100 to 100.55), (100.55) minus the strike (100.5) = 5 cents, so if you payed 55 cents and one day later at expiration its worth 5 cents ,you lost almost 91% of your money, rather with buying and holding you lose a lot less. The leverage is on a 10x scale typically. That is why timing is so important. Anyone can say x stock is going to go up in the future, but if you know ****when**** you can make a killing if it is not already priced into the market. Another thing you can do is figure out how much MSFT contributes to the SPX movement in terms of points. What does a 1% move in MSFT doto SPX. If you can calculate that and you think you know where MSFT is going, you can just trade the spy options synthetically as if it were microsoft. You could also buy msft stock on margin as a retail investor, but be careful. Like Rhaskett said, look into an etf that has microsoft. The nasdaq has a nasdaq-100 which microsoft is in called the triple Q. The ticker is qqq. PowerShares QQQ™, formerly known as \"\"QQQ\"\" or the \"\"NASDAQ- 100 Index Tracking Stock®\"\", is an exchange-traded fund based on the Nasdaq-100 Index®. Best of luck and always understand what you are buying before you buy it, JL\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f30604cdaf6d233b808313a4423f3974",
"text": "I currently use Moneydance on my Mac. Before that I had used Quicken on a PC until version 2007. It is pretty good, does most simple investment stuff just fine. It can automatically download prices for regular stocks. Mutual funds I have to input by hand.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9ebc43ac297c2c5d3bad28059236f170",
"text": "Check the Financial section in this list of Open Source Software",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "37bce082765fcc99df82f798839525d1",
"text": "I second the vote for GnuCash. It runs on Linux, Windows, and Mac. It is double-entry accounting, so there is a little bit of a learning curve, but it sounds like you should probably have something a little more powerful than Mint for your situation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd1d479b3ef0591db81ed22afc57b378",
"text": "\"I'm not personally familiar with this, but I had a look at the Companies House guidance. Unfortunately, it seems you've done things in the wrong order. You should have first got the funds out, distributed them to yourself as a dividend or salary, and then closed the account, and then wound up the company. Legally speaking, the remaining funds now belong to the government (\"\"bona vacantia\"\"). It's possible you could apply to have the company restored, but I think that might be difficult; I don't think the administrative restoration procedure applies in your situation. Given the amount involved, I'd suggest just forgetting about it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5551e1d6c53d78ac4f021ce3d5c4c4b4",
"text": "I traded futures for a brief period in school using the BrokersXpress platform (now part of OptionsXpress, which is in turn now part of Charles Schwab). They had a virtual trading platform, and apparently still do, and it was excellent. Since my main account was enabled for futures, this carried over to the virtual account, so I could trade a whole range of futures, options, stocks, etc. I spoke with OptionsXpress, and you don't need to fund your acount to use the virtual trading platform. However, they will cancel your account after an arbitrary period of time if you don't log in every few days. According to their customer service, there is no inactivity fee on your main account if you don't fund it and make no trades. I also used Stock-Trak for a class and despite finding the occasional bug or website performance issue, it provided a good experience. I received a discount because I used it through an educational institution, and customer service was quite good (probably for the same reason), but I don't know if those same benefits would apply to an individual signing up for it. I signed up for top10traders about seven years ago when I was in secondary school, and it's completely free. Unfortunately, you get what you pay for, and the interface was poorly designed and slow. Furthermore, at that time, there were no restrictions that limited the number of shares you could buy to the number of outstanding shares, so you could buy as many as you could afford, even if you exceeded the number that physically existed. While this isn't an issue for large companies, it meant you could earn a killing trading highly illiquid pink sheet stocks because you could purchase billions of shares of companies with only a few thousand shares actually outstanding. I don't know if these issues have been corrected or not, but at the time, I and several other users took advantage of these oversights to rack up hundreds of trillions of dollars in a matter of days, so if you want a realistic simulation, this isn't it. Investopedia also has a stock simulator that I've heard positive things about, although I haven't used it personally.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3c3eea13c7049f014f8e43e188fed63e",
"text": "Current Money users may want to take a look at this: http://sites.google.com/site/pocketsense/home/msmoneyfixp1 Pretty easy (and secure) way to continue getting online data into Money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b32304b701b8d58dafd682346da54418",
"text": "The short answer is that there are no great personal finance programs out there any more. In the past, I found Microsoft Money to be slick and feature rich but unfortunately it has been discontinued a few years ago. Your choices now are Quicken and Mint along with the several open-source programs that have been listed by others. In the past, I found the open source programs to be both clunky and not feature-complete for my every day use. It's possible they have improved significantly since I had last looked at them. The biggest limitation I saw with them is weakness of integration with financial service providers (banks, credit card companies, brokerage accounts, etc.) Let's start with Mint. Mint is a web-based tool (owned by the same company as Quicken) whose main feature is its ability to connect to nearly every financial institution you're likely to use. Mint aggregates that data for you and presents it on the homepage. This makes it very easy to see your net worth and changes to it over time, spending trends, track your progress on budgets and long-term goals, etc. Mint allows you to do all of this with little or no data entry. It has support for your investments but does not allow for deep analysis of them. Quicken is a desktop program. It is extremely feature rich in terms of supporting different types of accounts, transactions, reports, reconciliation, etc. One could use Quicken to do everything that I just described about Mint, but the power of Quicken is in its more manual features. For example, while Mint is centred on showing you your status, Quicken allows you to enter transactions in real-time (as you're writing a check, initiating a transfer, etc) and later reconciles them with data from your financial institutions. Link Mint, Quicken has good integration with financial companies so you can generally get away with as little or as much data entry as you want. For example, you can manually enter large checks and transfers (and later match to automatically-downloaded data) but allow small entries like credit card purchases to download automatically. Bottom line, if you're just looking to keep track of where you are at, try Mint. It's very simple and free. If you need more power and want to manage your finances on a more transactional level, try Quicken (though I believe they do not have a trial version, I don't understand why). The learning curve is steep although probably gentler than that of GnuCash. Last note on why Mint.com is free: it's the usual ad-supported model, plus Mint sells aggregated consumer behaviour reports to other institutions (since Mint has everyone's transactions, it can identify consumer trends). If you're not comfortable with that, or with the idea of giving a website passwords to all your financial accounts, you will find Quicken easier to accept. Hope this helps.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "32c8ff3e40906d3d4e67dae81f44f06b",
"text": "Billshrink offers some pretty neat analysis tools to help you pick a credit card. They focus more on rewards than the features you mention but it might be worth a look. If you use Mint, they offer a similar service, too. If you're not already using Mint, though, I'd look at Billshrink as Mint requires some extensive setup. MOD EDIT Looks like billshrink.com is shut down. From their site: Dear BillShrink customer, As you may have heard, BillShrink.com was shut down on July 31, 2013. While we’re sad to say goodbye, we hope we’ve been able to help you be better informed and save some money along the way! The good news is that much of the innovative award-winning BillShrink technology will still be available via our StatementRewards platform (made available to customers by our partnering financial institutions). Moreover, we expect to re-launch a new money-saving service in the future. To see more of what we’re up to, visit Truaxis.com. We have deleted your personal information as of July 31. We will retain your email address only to announce a preview of the new tool. If you do not want us to retain your email address, you can opt out in the form below. This opt out feature will be available until September 31, 2013. If you have already opted out previously, you do not need to opt out again. If you have any further questions, contact us at [email protected]. Thanks, The BillShrink/Truaxis Team",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a70f3bb1503144ad1c52173d8d7638ba",
"text": "I can't give you a detailed answer because I'm away from the computer where I use kMyMoney, but IIRC to add investments you have to create new transactions on the 'brokerage account' linked to your investment account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a471c4c58c07ed7ca866cff9414c8695",
"text": "There isn't one. I haven't been very happy with anything I've tried, commercial or open source. I've used Quicken for a while and been fairly happy with the user experience, but I hate the idea of their sunset policy (forced upgrades) and using proprietary format for the data files. Note that I wouldn't mind using proprietary and/or commercial software if it used a format that allowed me to easily migrate to another application. And no, QIF/OFX/CSV doesn't count. What I've found works well for me is to use Mint.com for pulling transactions from my accounts and categorizing them. I then export the transaction history as a CSV file and convert it to QIF/OFX using csv2ofx, and then import the resulting file into GNUCash. The hardest part is using categories (Mint.com) and accounts (GnuCash) properly. Not perfect by any means, but certainly better than manually exporting transactions from each account.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
0c479c743b38d9eddb2e1eb9630045f1
|
APR for a Loan Paid Off Monthly
|
[
{
"docid": "eeaaa8a25d877e0bee9104edeae47c39",
"text": "The periodic rate (here, the interest charged per month), as you would enter into a finance calculator is 9.05%. Multiply by 12 to get 108.6% or calculate APR at 182.8%. Either way it's far more than 68%. If the $1680 were paid after 365 days, it would be simple interest of 68%. For the fact that payment are made along the way, the numbers change. Edit - A finance calculator has 5 buttons to cover the calculations: N = number of periods or payments %i = the interest per period PV = present value PMT = Payment per period FV= Future value In your example, you've given us the number of periods, 12, present value, $1000, future value, 0, and payment, $140. The calculator tells me this is a monthly rate of 9%. As Dilip noted, you can compound as you wish, depending on what you are looking for, but the 9% isn't an opinion, it's the math. TI BA-35 Solar. Discontinued, but available on eBay. Worth every cent. Per mhoran's comment, I'll add the spreadsheet version. I literally copied and pasted his text into a open cell, and after entering the cell shows, which I rounded to 9.05%. Note, the $1000 is negative, it starts as an amount owed. And for Dilip - 1.0905^12 = 2.8281 or 182.8% effective rate. If I am the loanshark lending this money, charging 9% per month, my $1000 investment returns $2828 by the end of the year, assuming, of course, that the payment is reinvested immediately. The 108 >> 182 seems disturbing, but for lower numbers, even 12% per year, the monthly compounding only results in 12.68%",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4c6b9eb7fd9126ff2aad03854b5e0e6e",
"text": "If your APR is quoted as nominal rate compounded monthly, the APR is 108.6 %. Here is the calculation, (done in Mathematica ). The sum of the discounted future payments (p) are set equal to the present value (pv) of the loan, and solved for the periodic interest rate (r). Details of the effective interest rate calculation can be found here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_interest_rate#Calculation",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "2948912ab138ec2aeae9dace2c07d281",
"text": "You're looking for the amortization calculation. This calculation is essentially solving for the series of cash flows that will yield a zero balance after the specified term, at the given rate for a loan amount. Once you have solved for the payment amount, you can add additional principal amount to each payment period and see the interest payments and time to zero balance drop.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b5ce0e715bbecbe660d6f410a6281b97",
"text": "There is a way to get a reasonable estimate of what you still owe, and then the way to get the exact value. When the loan started they should have given you amortization table that laid out each payment including the principal, interest and balance for each payment. If there are any other fees included in the payment those also should have been detailed. Determine how may payments you have maid: did you make the first payment on day one, or the start of the next month? Was the last payment the 24th, or the next one? The table will then tell you what you owe after your most recent payment. To get the exact value call the lender. The amount grows between payment due to the interest that is accumulating. They will need to know when the payment will arrive so they can give you the correct value. To calculate how much you will save do the following calculation: payment = monthly payment for principal and interest paymentsmade =Number of payments made = 24 paymentsremaining = Number of payments remaining = 60 - paymentsmade = 60-24 = 36 instantpayoff = number from loan company savings = (payment * paymentsremaining ) - instantpayoff",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a2c3ce0ee077dc612687cf11c42424f",
"text": "Using the following loan equations where and With the balance b[n] in period n given by Applying the OP's figures Check & demonstration Switching to $96 payment every 10 days, with 365.2422 days per year Paying $96 every 10 days saves $326.85 and pays the loan down 2.68 months quicker.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0b79e739abfa7b6baaacb30fcb6c8a82",
"text": "Just to add: the 20% APR is the annualized interest rate, but applied monthly. So you'd be charged $0.50 of interest on your $30 balance, which gets capitalized on the next month. So if you were to miss the next payment for some reason, your new interest charge would be on $30.50 instead of $30 (actually, it'd be much more since there would be a fee for the late payment, but discounting that to illustrate the point).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "354869e879f074d72e1abac7d1351121",
"text": "A payment of $224 at 7.2% interest will pay off a $33000 mortgage in 30 years. Unfortunately, I'm on cold medicine so guessing was the only way I got to the answer, but I guessed right on the first try :). However, if you like algebra: The following formula is used to calculate the fixed monthly payment (P) required to fully amortize a loan of L dollars over a term of n months at a monthly interest rate of c. [If the quoted rate is 6%, for example, c is .06/12 or .005]. P = L[c(1 + c)n]/[(1 + c)n - 1]",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6a32ab6bf72d834302a6fca7bae388b3",
"text": "\"So with any debt, be it a loan or a bond or anything else, you have two parts, the principal and the interest. The interest payment is calculated by applying the interest % to the principal. Most bonds are \"\"bullet bonds\"\" which means that the principle remains completely outstanding for the life of the bond and thus your interest payments are constant throughout the life of the bond (usually paid semi-annually). Typically part of the purpose of these is to be indefinitely refinanced, so you never really pay the principal back, though it is theoretically due at expiration. What you are thinking of when you say a loan from a bank is an amortizing loan. With these you pay an increasing amount of the principal each period calculated such that your payments are all exactly the same (including the final payment). Bonds, just like bank loans, can be bullet, partially amortizing (you pay some of the principle but still have a smaller lump sum at the end) and fully amortizing. One really common bullet structure is \"\"5 non-call 3,\"\" which means you aren't allowed to pay the principle down for the first three years even if you want to! This is to protect investors who spend time and resources investing in you!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dec94b132f82bc2e4ffeb06c3e1b34f1",
"text": "\"Loan officer here. Yes. You pay the per diem. I'd recommend not paying it off for like 6 months. You can pay it down to basically nothing and then hold it for six months and pay it off. Better for credit. If it's a simple interest rate, most car loans are, multiply the current principal balance by the interest rate and divide it by 365. That's the per diem or daily interest. For example, \"\"10,000 dollar auto loan at 3%. 10000*0.03= 300. 300/365= 0.82. So each day the balance is 10k the loan cost 82 cents. So in a month, your first payment is 100 dollars, 24.65 goes to interest 75.35 goes to principal. Then the new principal is 9924.65. So the next month, another 30 days with the new per diem of 0.815, the 100 payment is 75.50 in principal 24.50 in interest and so on.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "91d7641faa256507c857e5aca1d56be4",
"text": "\"What you are looking for is the \"\"debt maturity profile\"\" (to make it easier to google. Most countries continuously roll over their debt, in effect just paying interest forever. So when your debt is due, you issue another loan for the same amount and use the new loan to pay off the old one.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "35a17764315ea36a8bfa9217ee3c244c",
"text": "From here The formula is M = P * ( J / (1 - (1 + J)^ -N)). M: monthly payment RESULT = 980.441... P: principal or amount of loan 63963 (71070 - 10% down * 71070) J: monthly interest; annual interest divided by 100, then divided by 12. .00275 (3.3% / 12) N: number of months of amortization, determined by length in years of loan. 72 months See this wikipedia page for the derivation of the formula",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "151cb4b3a1d1eebe302685ca1a4fa112",
"text": "Lower risk of having to fight to get their money back, obviously. That's what credit rating is supposed to predict. Paying your bills on time, and paying off the balance in full every month, are different questions. They want to know that you will make the minimum payments at least, and that you will eventually pay back the loan. Compare that with subprime and/or loan sharks, where the assumption is that being late or defaulting is more common, and interest rates are truly obscene in order to make a profit despite that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b43f330c145b3509335301b690bd3eb",
"text": "There is no interest outstanding, per se. There is only principal outstanding. Initially, principal outstanding is simply your initial loan amount. The first two sections discuss the math needed - just some arithmetic. The interest that you owe is typically calculated on a monthly basis. The interested owed formula is simply (p*I)/12, where p is the principal outstanding, I is your annual interest, and you're dividing by 12 to turn annual to monthly. With a monthly payment, take out interest owed. What you have left gets applied into lowering your principal outstanding. If your actual monthly payment is less than the interest owed, then you have negative amortization where your principal outstanding goes up instead of down. Regardless of how the monthly payment comes about (eg prepay, underpay, no payment), you just apply these two calculations above and you're set. The sections below will discuss these cases in differing payments in detail. For a standard 30 year fixed rate loan, the monthly payment is calculated to pay-off the entire loan in 30 years. If you pay exactly this amount every month, your loan will be paid off, including the principal, in 30 years. The breakdown of the initial payment will be almost all interest, as you have noticed. Of course, there is a little bit of principal in that payment or your principal outstanding would not decrease and you would never pay off the loan. If you pay any amount less than the monthly payment, you extend the duration of your loan to longer than 30 years. How much less than the monthly payment will determine how much longer you extend your loan. If it's a little less, you may extend your loan to 40 years. It's possible to extend the loan to any duration you like by paying less. Mathematically, this makes sense, but legally, the loan department will say you're in breach of your contract. Let's pay a little less and see what happens. If you pay exactly the interest owed = (p*I)/12, you would have an infinite duration loan where your principal outstanding would always be the same as your initial principal or the initial amount of your loan. If you pay less than the interest owed, you will actually owe more every month. In other words, your principal outstanding will increase every month!!! This is called negative amortization. Of course, this includes the case where you make zero payment. You will owe more money every month. Of course, for most loans, you cannot pay less than the required monthly payments. If you do, you are in default of the loan terms. If you pay more than the required monthly payment, you shorten the duration of your loan. Your principal outstanding will be less by the amount that you overpaid the required monthly payment by. For example, if your required monthly payment is $200 and you paid $300, $100 will go into reducing your principal outstanding (in addition to the bit in the $200 used to pay down your principal outstanding). Of course, if you hit the lottery and overpay by the entire principal outstanding amount, then you will have paid off the entire loan in one shot! When you get to non-standard contracts, a loan can be structured to have any kind of required monthly payments. They don't have to be fixed. For example, there are Balloon Loans where you have small monthly payments in the beginning and large monthly payments in the last year. Is the math any different? Not really - you still apply the one important formula, interest owed = (p*I)/12, on a monthly basis. Then you break down the amount you paid for the month into the interest owed you just calculated and principal. You apply that principal amount to lowering your principal outstanding for the next month. Supposing that what you have posted is accurate, the most likely scenario is that you have a structured 5 year car loan where your monthly payments are smaller than the required fixed monthly payment for a 5 year loan, so even after 2 years, you owe as much or more than you did in the beginning! That means you have some large balloon payments towards the end of your loan. All of this is just part of the contract and has nothing to do with your prepay. Maybe I'm incorrect in my thinking, but I have a question about prepaying a loan. When you take out a mortgage on a home or a car loan, it is my understanding that for the first years of payment you are paying mostly interest. Correct. So, let's take a mortgage loan that allows prepayment without penalty. If I have a 30 year mortgage and I have paid it for 15 years, by the 16th year almost all the interest on the 30 year loan has been paid to the bank and I'm only paying primarily principle for the remainder of the loan. Incorrect. It seems counter-intuitive, but even in year 16, about 53% of your monthly payment still goes to interest!!! It is hard to see this unless you try to do the calculations yourself in a spreadsheet. If suddenly I come into a large sum of money and decide I want to pay off the mortgage in the 16th year, but the bank has already received all the interest computed for 30 years, shouldn't the bank recompute the interest for 16 years and then recalculate what's actually owed in effect on a 16 year loan not a 30 year loan? It is my understanding that the bank doesn't do this. What they do is just tell you the balance owed under the 30 year agreement and that's your payoff amount. Your last sentence is correct. The payoff amount is simply the principal outstanding plus any interest from (p*I)/12 that you owe. In your example of trying to payoff the rest of your 30 year loan in year 16, you will owe around 68% of your original loan amount. That seems unfair. Shouldn't the loan be recalculated as a 16 year loan, which it actually has become? In fact, you do have the equivalent of a 15 year loan (30-15=15) at about 68% of your initial loan amount. If you refinanced, that's exactly what you would see. In other words, for a 30y loan at 5% for $10,000, you have monthly payments of $53.68, which is exactly the same as a 15y loan at 5% for $6,788.39 (your principal outstanding after 15 years of payments), which would also have monthly payments of $53.68. A few years ago I had a 5 year car loan. I wanted to prepay it after 2 years and I asked this question to the lender. I expected a reduction in the interest attached to the car loan since it didn't go the full 5 years. They basically told me I was crazy and the balance owed was the full amount of the 5 year car loan. I didn't prepay it because of this. That is the wrong reason for not prepaying. I suspect you have misunderstood the terms of the loan - look at the Variable Monthly Payments section above for a discussion. The best thing to do with all loans is to read the terms carefully and do the calculations yourself in a spreadsheet. If you are able to get the cashflows spelled out in the contract, then you have understood the loan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa2964de81eca81d7599394cdb34f979",
"text": "First of all any loan will have the last payment be slightly different than the rest. Even if the interest rate is zero it is hard to have a perfect monthly payment amount. By perfect I mean the amount of the loan divided by the number of months would be $ddd.cc0000... When looking at the amortization table the last payment will either be slightly higher or lower to adjust for the rounding that was done. My suspicion is that the rounding would have resulted in a left over 12 cents. It is also possible that you are paying it off slightly early and the computer is simply taking the leftover amount an spreading it over the remaining period of the loan. You could be paying it early because for the main part of the loan was paid to a company that rounds all payments to the higher dollar, or has a minimum monthly payment amount. I looked at the company you mentioned in the question, and searched the site for an amortization tool. I found it, and used the pre-filled in example. https://www.edfinancial.com/amortizationschedule?pmts=120&intr=6.8&prin=25000 If that last payment is not adjusted the borrower will still owe $0.12. The fact it equals your situation is a coincidence. But is does show what can happen.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "73162211768d136f87031dc72838e3b7",
"text": "If you have a 20,000 balance and a 8.75% interest rate, you should be paying between $145 and $150 in interest each month, with the balance going to principal. (0.0875/12=0.007292, and that times 20,000 is 145.83; as interest is compounded daily, it'll be a little higher than that.) If the minimum is below $145, then you are not covering the interest; I suspect that is what is happening here, and they're reporting interest paid that wasn't covered in a prior month (assuming you have some months where you only pay the statement minimum, which is less than the total accrued interest). Assuming you're in the US (or most other western countries), your loan servicer should be explaining the exact amount each payment that goes to principal and interest. I recommend calling them up and finding out exactly why it's not consistent; what should be happening, assuming you pay more than the amount of interest each month, is the interest should go down (very) slowly each month and the amount paying off principal should go up (also slowly). EG: Etc., until eventually the interest is zero and your loan is paid off. It probably won't go this quickly for this size of loan - you're only paying off a tiny percentage of principal each month, $50/$20000 or 1/400th - so you won't make too much headway at this rate. Even adding another $25 would make a huge difference to the length of the loan and the amount of interest paid, but that's another story. You will eventually at this rate pay off the loan (at $200 a month for all 12 months); this isn't dissimilar to a 30 year mortgage in terms of percent interest to principal (in fact, it's better!). $50 a month times twelve is $600; 400 payments would take care of it (so a bit over 30 years). However, as you go you pay more principal and less interest, so you will actually pay it off in 15 years if you continue paying $200 a month exactly. What you may be seeing in your case is a combination of things: In months you pay less (ie, $100, say), the extra $45 in interest needs to go somewhere. It effectively becomes part of the principal, but from what I've seen that doesn't always happen directly - ie, they account it differently at least for a short time (up to a year, in my experience). This is because of tax laws, if I understand correctly - the amount you pay in interest is tax-deductible, but not the amount of the principal - so it's important for you to have as much called 'interest' as possible. Thus, if you pay $100 this month and $200 next month, that total of $300 is paying ~$290 of interest and $10 of principal, just as if you'd paid it $150 each month. If you had any penalties, such as for late payments, those come out off the top before interest; they may sometimes take that out as well. All in all, I strongly suggest having an enforced minimum (on your end) of the interest amount at least; that prevents you from being in a situation where your loan grows. If you can't always hit $200, that's fine; but at least hit $150 every single month. Otherwise you have a never ending cycle of student loan debt that you really don't want to be in. Separately, on the $1000 payment: As long as you make sure it's not assigned in such a way that the lender only accepts a month's worth at a time (which shouldn't happen, but there are shady lenders), it shouldn't matter what is called 'principal' and what is called 'interest'. The interest won't go up just because you're making a separate payment (it'll go down!). The portion that goes to interest will go to paying off the amount of interest you owe from the time of your last payment, plus any accrued but unpaid interest, plus principal. You won't have the option of not paying that interest, and it doesn't really matter anyway - it's all something you owe and all accruing interest, it only really matters for accounting and taxes. Double check with your lender (on the phone AND on their website, if possible) that overpayments are not penalized and are applied to principal immediately (or within a few days anyway) and you should be fine.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "47fb00c8ef165134dc0c437bddc54ebf",
"text": "Ditto to Victor. The simple rule is: Pay the minimums on all so you don't get any late fees, etc, then pay off the highest interest rate loan first. A couple of special cases do come to mind: If one or more of these are credit cards, then, here in the U.S. at least, credit cards charge you interest on the average daily balance, unless you pay off the balance entirely, in which case you pay zero interest. So for example say you had two credit cards, both with 1% per month interest, with debt of $2000 and $1000. You have $1500 available. Ignoring minimum payments for the moment, if you put that $1500 against the larger balance, you would still pay interest on the full amount for the current month, or $30. But if you paid off the smaller and put the difference against the larger, then your interest for the current month would be only $15. (Either way, your interest for NEXT month would be the same -- 1% of the $1500 remaining balance or $15 -- assuming you couldn't pay off the other card.) If one or more of the loans are mortgage loans on which you are paying mortgage insurance, then when you get the balance below a certain point -- usually 80% of the original loan amount -- you no longer have to pay mortgage insurance premiums. Thus the amount you are paying on such premiums needs to be factored into the calculation. There may be other special cases. Those are the ones that I've run into.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "456a77712eae11ec6b49bbee70981064",
"text": "Yes, by paying double the amount each month you would have in effect paid the loan off in less than half the time. For $13000 at 3% over 60 months your monthly repayments would be $233.59. If you double your monthly repayments to $467.18 you would end up paying the loan off by the end of the 29th months, more than halving your loan term, as long as there are no penalties for paying the loan off early.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
884cd94df9a70408aa3c4ae41d727350
|
Does a budget comprise expenses, and/or revenue?
|
[
{
"docid": "127afca02f53cf42f86207b7eb1559a6",
"text": "Budget means both expenses and revenue. In quite a few cases, say personal finance, typically one refers to budget more from expenses point of view as the revenue is typically fixed/known [mostly salary]. The Operating budget and capital budget are laid out separately as Operating budget gives out day to day expenses that are typically essential, employee salaries, routine maintenance of infrastructure etc. The revenue is also tied in to match this. These are done within the same year. Where as capital budget is to build new infrastructure say a new bridge or other major expense that are done over period of years. The revenues to this are typically tied up differently and can even be linked to getting more funding from other agencies or loans.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "126fd13c67264c54eded0b947f3c655d",
"text": "It's the same result either way. Say the bills are $600, and you are reimbursed $400. You'd be able to write off $400 as part of the utilities that are common expenses, but then claim the $400 as income. I'd stick with that, and have contemporaneous records supporting all cash flow. You also can take 2/3 of any other maintenance costs that most homeowners can't. Like snow removal, lawn care, etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "47b2a64e7796e4c757219e9bdb8bbe0c",
"text": "So the budget is just a guess and the IT manager can ultimately spend whatever he wants? Are you really arguing that he should treat the spending constraints given to him by the heads of the company as mere suggestions? Do you actually work in an accounting department? I have to ask because you seem to have a fundemental misunderstanding about their role in all this. They are just score keepers, they don't get to decide how much money is allocated to each department. So the way they track the money has no bearing on this issue.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "133464c876056ea6f006d3b68d5352cd",
"text": "In the US there is no set date. If all goes well there are multiple dates of importance. If it doesn't go well the budget process also may include continuing resolutions, shutdowns, and sequestrations.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e1e8de1e86545e7b11ad859682abc36d",
"text": "\"What you are describing is a Chart of Accounts. It's a structure used by accountants to categorise accounts into sub-categories below the standard Asset/Liability/Income/Expense structure. The actual categories used will vary widely between different people and different companies. Every person and company is different, whilst you may be happy to have a single expense account called \"\"Lunch\"\", I may want lots of expense accounts to distinguish between all the different restaurants I eat at regularly. Companies will often change their chart of accounts over time as they decide they want to capture more (or less) detail on where a particular type of Expense is really being spent. All of this makes any attempt to create a standard (in the strict sense) rather futile. I have worked at a few places where discussions about how to structure the chart of accounts and what referencing scheme to use can be surprisingly heated! You'll have to come up with your own system, but I can provide a few common recommendations: If you're looking for some simple examples to get started with, most personal finance software (e.g. GnuCash) will offer to create an example chart of accounts when you first start a session.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6f001f812032181c7036b08d9fa31e68",
"text": "Well, if you were a business, and your food and rent and travel expenses were business expenses, and you paid out less money than you earned, you *would* get a refund. If you can prove that an expense is tax deductible, then that's just what it is. For businesses, a net operating loss is tax deductible.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "666921359e4699c451b11eee438b8f6d",
"text": "Your chart and your claim don't match. You're looking at one marginal tax rate and saying that its historical change doesn't impact overall federal revenues. This is true on the surface, but you're only looking at one aspect of the overall picture. Saying that federal revenue doesn't correlate with tax rates is disingenuous. An across the board cut or an across the board increase will both have significant effect. Likewise an increase to the top marginal tax rate by itself would have an impact as long as there were no corresponding cuts or increased expenditures to wipe out the impact. A budget is a budget whether it's a great big one like the federal government's or a small one like a household budget. Revenues and expenses need to match in order for the budget to balance. Increasing tax rates increases revenue from everyone within the affected tax bracket. It makes an impact.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a02042a8eb168692455334226a2f2b69",
"text": "This chart is full of shit. Iraq War costs barely register a blip. [From NYT article](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/us/politics/20budget.html) *WASHINGTON — For his first annual budget next week, President Obama has banned four accounting gimmicks that President George W. Bush used to make deficit projections look smaller. The price of more honest bookkeeping: A budget that is $2.7 trillion deeper in the red over the next decade than it would otherwise appear, according to administration officials.*",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "61de18f1f7c5f12ef51739de5e6f5d9a",
"text": "Expenses are where the catch is found. Not all expenditures are considered expenses for tax purposes. Good CPAs make a comfortable living untangling this sort of thing. Advice for both of your family members' businesses...consult with a CPA before making big purchases. They may need to adjust the way they buy, or the timing of it, or simply to set aside capital to pay the taxes for the profit used to purchase those items. CPA can help find the best path. That 10k in unallocated income can be used to redecorate your office, but there's still 3k in taxes due on it. Bottom Line: Can't label business income as profit until the taxes have been paid.",
"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": "4015a67ac8479112a93c6116fbb474bf",
"text": "However, we would also like to include on our budget the actual cost of the furniture when we buy it. That would be double-counting. When it's time to buy the new kit, just pay for it directly from savings and then deduct that amount from the Furniture Cash asset that you'd been adding to every month.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f8bff4246bf5e8c9e8ded7affa5caa8",
"text": "\"Gnucash is first and foremost just a general ledger system. It tracks money in accounts, and lets you make transactions to transfer money between the accounts, but it has no inherent concept of things like taxes. This gives you a large amount of flexibility to organize your account hierarchy the way you want, but also means that it sometimes can take a while to figure out what account hierarchy you want. The idea is that you keep track of where you get money from (the Income accounts), what you have as a result (the Asset accounts), and then track what you spent the money on (the Expense accounts). It sounds like you primarily think of expenses as each being for a particular property, so I think you want to use that as the basis of your hierarchy. You probably want something like this (obviously I'm making up the specifics): Now, when running transaction reports or income/expense reports, you can filter to the accounts (and subaccounts) of each property to get a report specific to that property. You mention that you also sometimes want to run a report on \"\"all gas expenses, regardless of property\"\", and that's a bit more annoying to do. You can run the report, and when selecting accounts you have to select all the Gas accounts individually. It sounds like you're really looking for a way to have each transaction classified in some kind of two-axis system, but the way a general ledger works is that it's just a tree, so you need to pick just one \"\"primary\"\" axis to organize your accounts by.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d8b78f45c8342b28a922582638a4e9e4",
"text": "\"Gail Vaz-Oxlade from the television show Til Debt Do Us Part has a great interactive budget worksheet that helps you set up a \"\"jar\"\" or envelope system for each month based on your income and fixed expenses. We have used this successfully in the past. What we found most useful was, as others have said, writing everything down, keeping receipts, and thus being accountable and aware of our spending.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa256573e6b5414fab97b4d43a17224c",
"text": "Revenue does not equal income. Income is, more or less, synonymous with profit. It is the amount of money earned after expenses. A corporation is taxed on its revenue after its deductible expenses have been removed, the same as a person is. It's kind of double taxation, but it's kind of the same argument as saying that payroll taxes in addition to income taxes are double taxation. Also of note: taxes on dividends are lower than normal taxes because of this double taxation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "08ce38aafaf9fbec87735e5eb5c28727",
"text": "\"I'm reminded of a conversation I had regarding food. I used the word 'diet' and got pushback, as I meant it in sense of 'what one eats'. That's what a diet is, what you eat in an average week, month, year. That list has no hidden agenda unless you want it to. If your finances are in good shape, debt under control, savings growing, etc, a budget is more of an observation than a constraint. In the same way that my bookshelf tells you a lot about who I am, books on finance, math, my religion, along with some on English and humor, my budget will also tell you what my values are. Edit - In a recent speech, regarding Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton said \"\"He has a saying: ‘Don’t tell me what you value. Show me your budget and I will tell you what you value.’ \"\" - nearly exactly my thoughts on this. For the average person, a budget helps to reign in the areas where spending is too high. $500/mo eating out? For the couple hacking away at $30k in credit card debt, that would be an obvious place to cut back. If this brings you happiness, there's little reason to cut back. The budget becomes a reflection of your priorities, and if, at some point in the future, you need to cut back, you'll have a good understanding of where the money is going.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ea1758db9e303c44c12f3fd0ebcf923",
"text": "\"I pay taxes on revenue. You do have the ability to deduct expenses, though it's not as comprehensive as what companies can do: These figures apply to everybody, so those that earn more get taxed more on thee additional income in each bracket (meaning the first $100,000 of taxable income is taxed the same for everybody at one rate, the next $100,000 at a different rate, etc.) So you do get to deduct personal expenses and get taxed on \"\"profit\"\" - but since the vast majority of people don't keep detailed records of what they spend, it's much simpler just to use blanket deduction amounts for everyone. Companies have much more detailed systems in place to track and categorize expenses, so it's easier to just tax on net profit. Plus, the corporate tax rate is much higher than the average individual tax rate - would you trade more deductions for a higher tax rate?\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
d5f7178561ef54ecc3f67384dc484339
|
How can a person with really bad credit history rent decent housing?
|
[
{
"docid": "ffb8bd6bf8c66369463193f0e40c7f18",
"text": "This tale makes me sad the more I learn of it. I am impressed with your dedication and caring for your ex-wife and particularly your kids; you seem like a good person from your questions. But you are tired and exasperated too. You have every right to be. The problem isn't how this woman can rent a new apartment (which there isn't a good way that won't screw over some unsuspecting landlord) but how to get this woman into conseling on a regular basis. Not just money, but personal or group therapy. She honestly needs help and must face this problem herself otherwise these questions will never stop. I know you mentioned this doesn't appear to be an option, anf maybe it isn't your job, but I. See your questions are much deeper than personal finance. I wish you the best and I really do admire your resolve to take care of your kids.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f50b7eb81cea05336eed2222ab9bb91",
"text": "She can find a landlord that doesn't do credit checks. Maybe on Craigslist? She may end up paying more, have a bigger security deposit, etc. She can get someone else (not you) to sit her down and explain to her frankly that she's messing things up for herself and her children by being a poor manager of her finances. As her credit score improves, more opportunities will open up for her. Co-signing the loan is an option, but I do think you're wise not to do that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "81cf56f84bb6073408c3075f0c5e99e4",
"text": "Having been recently evicted she is unlikely to find any one willing to rent to her at anything close to reasonable terms. Any landlord that would consider it is likely to require a huge deposit. Her best solution may be a hotel/motel with weekly/monthly rates. It is generally much easier to get someone out of a hotel/motel for non payment than it is an actual apartment with a lease and landlord-tenant laws. But when you pay they take care of all utilities, and you can receive mail and register them as your permanent address for finding employment. Any other place that is willing to take someone who they know is a high risk for nonpayment/eviction is probably not going to be the type of place you want your children.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d24058715dbda6f51062738f68df521",
"text": "\"I saw where you said \"\"I thought of co-signing is if a portion of child/spousal support goes directly to the landlord. I asked the Child Support Services (who deduct money from my paycheck monthly to pay support to my ex) and they told me that they are not authorized to do this.\"\" I know going back to court isn't a pleasant thought, but from the looks of things, your suggestion is the only way to accomplish this. It's ridiculous for anyone to suggest you keep up your payments and cosign, yet the ex has no obligation to use that income to actually pay her rent. From what you've said, she sounds irresponsible and self-destructive. As someone who has had bad tenants, I'd not go near her, even with a cosigner. It's just not worth the risk.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aef57fa4cc3eff2eaebc63a3feb09561",
"text": "\"I don't think you've mentioned which State you're in. Here in Ontario, a person who is financially incapable can have their financial responsibility and authority removed, and assigned to a trustee. The trustee might be a responsible next of kin (as her ex, you would appear unsuitable: that being a potential conflict of interest); otherwise, it can be the Public Guardian and Trustee. It that happens, then the trustee handles the money; and handles/makes any contracts on behalf of (in the name of) the incapable person. The incapable person might have income (e.g. spousal support payments) and money (e.g. bank accounts), which the trustee can document in order to demonstrate credit-worthiness (or at least solvency). For the time being, the kids see it as an adventure, but I suspect, it will get old very fast. I hope you have a counsellor to talk with about your personal relationships (I've had or tried several and at least one has been extraordinarily helpful). You're not actually expressing a worry about the children being abused or neglected. :/ Is your motive (for asking) that you want her to have a place, so that the children will like it (being there) better? As long as your kids see it as an adventure, perhaps you can be happy for them. Perhaps (I don't know: depending on the people) too it's a good (or at least a better) thing that they are visiting with friends and relatives; and, a better conversational topic with those people might be how they show your children a good time (instead of your ex's money). One possible way I thought of co-signing is if a portion of child/spousal support goes directly to the landlord. I asked the Child Support Services (who deduct money from my paycheck monthly to pay support to my ex) and they told me that they are not authorized to do this. Perhaps (I don't know) there is some way to do that, if you have your ex's cooperation and a lawyer (and perhaps a judge). You haven't said what portions of your payments are for Child support, versus Spousal support (nor, who has custody, etc). If a large part of the support is for the children, then perhaps the children can rent the place. (/wild idea) Note that, in Ontario, there are two trusteeship decisions to make: 1) financial; and 2) personal care, which includes housing and medical. Someone can retain their own 'self-care' authority even if they're judged financially incapable (or vice versa if there's a personal-care or medical decision which they cannot understand). The technical language is, \"\"Mentally Incapable of Managing Property\"\" This term applies to a person who is unable to understand information that is relevant to making a decision or is unable to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of a decision or lack of decision about his or her property. Processes for certifying an individual as being mentally incapable of managing property are prescribed in the SDA (Substitute Decisions Act), and in the Mental Health Act.\"\" The Mental Heath Act is for medical emergencies (only); but Ontario has a Substitute Decisions Act as well. An intent of the law is to protect vulnerable people. People may also acquire and/or name their own trustee and/or guardian voluntarily: via a power of attorney, a living will, etc. I don't know: how about offering the landlord a year's rent in advance, or in trust? I guess that 1) a court order can determine/override/guarantee the way in which the child support payments are directed 2) it's easier to get that order/agreement if you and your ex cooperate 3) there are housing specialists in your neighborhood: They can buy housing instead of renting it. Or be given (gifted) housing to live in.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1af82ecd5c9fe20d9396c3553107d157",
"text": "Explain the situation to a landlord and offer to prepay a few months of rent in advance as a guarantee. This may or may not work, but being honest and committed may just be the answer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "47e6d730dfcd7668dd5232bcb8d02edc",
"text": "Here's some ideas: Hope that helps.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7dde74392ae43418f5636c60a710d5c6",
"text": "\"I'm not aware that any US bank has any way to access your credit rating in France (especially as you basically don't have one!). In the US, banks are not the only way to get finance for a home. In many regions, there are plenty of \"\"owner financed\"\" or \"\"Owner will carry\"\" homes. For these, the previous owner will provide a private mortgage for the balance if you have a large (25%+) downpayment. No strict lending rules, no fancy credit scoring systems, just a large enough downpayment so they know they'll get their money back if they have to foreclose. For the seller, it's a way to shift a house that is hard to sell plus get a regular income. Often this mortgage is for only 3-10 years, but that gives you the time to establish more credit and then refinance. Maybe the interest rate is a little higher also, but again it's just until you can refinance to something better (or sell other assets then pay the loan off quick). For new homes, the builders/developers may offer similar finance. For both owner-will-carry and developer finance, a large deposit will trump any credit rating concerns. There is usually a simplified foreclosure process, so they're not really taking much of a risk, so can afford to be flexible. Make sure the owner mortgage is via a title company, trust company, or escrow company, so that there's a third party involved to ensure each party lives up to their obligations.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ea8d8ca2cbfd0d49d51c3f29710d3c41",
"text": "A landlord or any creditor can still put negative information in your credit report without your social security number - it just takes a bit more sleuthing on their part. If you want perfect credit, either 1. don't break your lease; 2. break it with the written permission of the landlord (by paying some compensation, for example); or 3. break it with legal permission by asking a court to vacate the terms of the lease.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2dd5be2dd8fe231b5ca85513873d09ec",
"text": "I would like to post a followup after almost a quarter. littleadv's advice was very good, and in retrospect exactly what I should have done to begin with. Qualifying for a secured credit card is no issue for people with blank credit history, or perhaps for anyone without any negative entries in their credit history. Perhaps, cash secured loans are only useful for those who really have so bad a credit history that they do not qualify for any other secured credit, but I am not sure. Right now, I have four cash secured credit cards and planning to maintain a 20% utilization ratio across all of them. Perhaps I should update this answer in 1.5 years!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "106ebc74dbde7657d49f9512ee46cacc",
"text": "THIS. That's why I'm fortunate enough to work a remote job where I live 3 hours north of NYC and have traveled 30 years back in time when it comes to prices of homes. I feel like even with shit credit, the hope of a dream home is much more attainable now that the cost/income ratio is where it should be.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b35e3d4c7fd82ef6e3ecfe25533e072",
"text": "I am a realtor. For our rental business, we use a service that offers a background check. It costs us about $25, and it is passed along in the form of an application fee. I suggest you contact a local real estate agent who you know does rentals. Have a conversation about what you are doing, and see if they will help process the application for you, for a fee of course. If you are truly concerned about your safety (The text you wrote can either read as true concern or sarcasm. Maybe we are really in a wild country?) It's worth even a couple hundred bucks to screen out a potential bad roommate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "450c8ae1359a23cf337b1a1817dd9c03",
"text": "What options do I have? Realistically? Get a regular full time job. Work at it for a year or so and then see about buying a house. That said, I recently purchased a decent home. I am self-employed and my income is highly erratic. Due to how my clients pay me, my business might go a couple months with absolutely no deposits. However, I've been at this for quite a few years. So, even though my business income is erratic, I pay myself regularly once a month. In order to close the deal with the mortgage company I had to provide 5 years worth of statements on my business AND my personal bank accounts. Also I had about a 30% down payment. This gave the bank enough info to realize that I could absolutely make the payments and we closed the deal. I'd say that if you have little to no actual financial history, don't have a solid personal income and don't have much of a down payment then you probably have no business buying a house at this point. The first time something goes wrong (water heater, ac, etc) you'll be in a world of trouble.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d33cfed182d3f8615b0308ee695e4067",
"text": "As a landlord for 14 years with 10 properties, I can give a few pointers: be able and skilled enough to perform the majority of maintenance because this is your biggest expense otherwise. it will shock you how much maintenance rental units require. don't invest in real estate where the locality/state favors the tenant (e.g., New York City) in disputes. A great state is Florida where you can have someone evicted very quickly. require a minimum credit score of 620 for all tenants over 21. This seems to be the magic number that keeps most of the nightmare tenants out makes sure they have a job nearby that pays at least three times their annual rent every renewal, adjust your tenant's rent to be approximately 5% less than going rates in your area. Use Zillow as a guide. Keeping just below market rates keeps tenants from moving to cheaper options. do not rent to anyone under 30 and single. Trust me trust me trust me. you can't legally do this officially, but do it while offering another acceptable reason for rejection; there's always something you could say that's legitimate (bad credit, or chose another tenant, etc.) charge a 5% late fee starting 10 days after the rent is due. 20 days late, file for eviction to let the tenant know you mean business. Don't sink yourself too much in debt, put enough money down so that you start profitable. I made the mistake of burying myself and I haven't barely been able to breathe for the entire 14 years. It's just now finally coming into profitability. Don't get adjustable rate or balloon loans under any circumstances. Fixed 30 only. You can pay it down in 20 years and get the same benefits as if you got a fixed 20, but you will want the option of paying less some months so get the 30 and treat it like a 20. don't even try to find your own tenants. Use a realtor and take the 10% cost hit. They actually save you money because they can show your place to a lot more prospective tenants and it will be rented much sooner. Empty place = empty wallet. Also, block out the part of the realtor's agreement-to-lease where it states they keep getting the 10% every year thereafter. Most realtors will go along with this just to get the first year, but if they don't, find another realtor. buy all in the same community if you can, then you can use the same vendor list, the same lease agreement, the same realtor, the same documentation, spreadsheets, etc. Much much easier to have everything a clone. They say don't put all your eggs in one basket, but the reality is, running a bunch of properties is a lot of work, and the more similar they are, the more you can duplicate your work for free. That's worth a lot more day-to-day than the remote chance your entire community goes up in flames",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "42105dd1d738a2743dd56cf9ac1ca628",
"text": "No, I really do. Things break at least once a month, and never get fixed. The worst one was the bathroom window that broke from opening it...3 weeks later, and several pieces of cardboard and duct tape later, it finally got replaced. And the slumlords I rent from now are no where near the neighborhood that I moved out of when I could no longer afford my house. The cost of living went up, and our pay went down. That is not the specific lending bank's fault, indeed. But the economy is crap, and crap runs downhill. I didn't know how bad the schools were in the place we lived formerly until she'd been there for a couple years. The schools here...despite the neighborhood...are excellent. Tldr: We were making more when we bought the house. But it was a 50,000 house that someone stuck a 100,000 price tag on. Lots of hidden problems that got glossed over in the home inspection.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "90957f9feffb976c60372bb12c704a74",
"text": "\"MY recommendation is simple. RENT The fact that you have to ask the question is a clear sign that you have no business buying a home. That's not to say that it's a bad question to ask though. Far more important then rather it's finically wise for you to buy a home, is the more important question of \"\"are you emotionally ready for the responsibility and permanence\"\" of a home. At best, you are tying your self to the same number of rooms, same location, and same set of circumstances for the next 5-7 years. In that time it will be very unlikely that you will be able to sell the house for a profit, get your minor equity back, or even get a second loan for any reason. You mentioned getting married soon, that means the possibility of more children, divorce, and who knows what else. You are in an emotionally and financially turblunt time in your life. Now is not the right time to buy anything large. Instead rent, and focus on improving your credit rating. In 5 years time you will have a much better credit rating, get much better rates and fees, and have a much better handle on where you want to be with your home/family situation. Buying a house is not something you do on a weekend. For most people it's the culmination of years of work, searching, researching, and preparation. Often times people that buy before they are ready, will end up in foreclosure, and generally have a crappy next 15 years, as they try to work themselves out of the issue.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6304a3dc84ceff4bac44f3ef2c9f8b4f",
"text": "Take the long term view. Build up the cash. Once you have enough cash in the bank, you don't need a credit score. With 6 months living expenses in the bank after paying 20% down on a small house, he should have no issues getting a reasonably priced mortgage. However, if he waited just a bit longer he might buy the same house outright with cash. When I ran the computations for myself many years ago, it would have taken me half as long to save the money and pay cash for my home as it did for me to take a mortgage and pay it off.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e0b589d58e89dc2487eaf6e429674240",
"text": "\"Americans are snapping, like crazy. And not only Americans, I know a lot of people from out of country are snapping as well, similarly to your Australian friend. The market is crazy hot. I'm not familiar with Cleveland, but I am familiar with Phoenix - the prices are up at least 20-30% from what they were a couple of years ago, and the trend is not changing. However, these are not something \"\"everyone\"\" can buy. It is very hard to get these properties financed. I found it impossible (as mentioned, I bought in Phoenix). That means you have to pay cash. Not everyone has tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash available for a real estate investment. For many Americans, 30-60K needed to buy a property in these markets is an amount they cannot afford to invest, even if they have it at hand. Also, keep in mind that investing in rental property requires being able to support it - pay taxes and expenses even if it is not rented, pay to property managers, utility bills, gardeners and plumbers, insurance and property taxes - all these can amount to quite a lot. So its not just the initial investment. Many times \"\"advertised\"\" rents are not the actual rents paid. If he indeed has it rented at $900 - then its good. But if he was told \"\"hey, buy it and you'll be able to rent it out at $900\"\" - wouldn't count on that. I know many foreigners who fell in these traps. Do your market research and see what the costs are at these neighborhoods. Keep in mind, that these are distressed neighborhoods, with a lot of foreclosed houses and a lot of unemployment. It is likely that there are houses empty as people are moving out being out of job. It may be tough to find a renter, and the renters you find may not be able to pay the rent. But all that said - yes, those who can - are snapping.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "60f197fcd24ac4a0004f929ef51fa4a2",
"text": "This strategy will have long lasting effects since negative items can persist for many years, making financing a home difficult, the primary source of household credit. It is also very risky. You can play hard, but then the creditor may choose you to be the one that they make an example out of by suing you for a judgement that allows them to empty your accounts and garnish your wages. If you have no record of late payments, or they are old and/or few, your credit score will quickly shoot up if you pay down to 10% of the balance, keep the cards, and maintain that balance rate. This strategy will have them begging you to take on more credit with offers of lower interest rates. The less credit you take on, the more they'll throw at you, and when it comes time to purchase a home, more home can be bought because your interest rates will be lower.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d0e118ffaf13ca5af91fa2d8b6b964a1",
"text": "\"It's a decision that only you can make. What are the chances that you'll want to take another loan (any loan - car, credit card, installment plan for new fridge, whatever else)? What are the chances that with the bad credit you'll find it hard to rent a place (and in Cali it's hard to rent a place right now, believe me, I bought a place just to save on the rent)? What are the chances that the prices will bounce and your \"\"on-paper\"\" loss will be recovered by the time you actually need/want to sell the house? You have to check all these and make a wise decision considering all the pros and cons in your personal case.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "faf1c125c044fb894968a194b24f552e",
"text": "Talk to the property manager and explain your situation. They may be more willing to work with you than you think. At the very least they will tell you if you should even bother filling out the application. In most cases they are obligated to do a background and credit check so you will have to provide them with the required information one way or another. What they are really looking for is your ability to pay the rent. Property managers take a lot more things into consideration than a mortgage company would for a loan. If you have a history of paying on time in the past (a reference from a previous landlord perhaps) and if you show proof of the ability to pay now and in the future they will usually take that into consideration regardless of what the credit check says. It all depends on how motivated they are to fill the rental and how willing they are to take on a potential risk. Keep in mind property managers don't make money on empty rentals.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a137feafa12e8c55808779a1912728fd",
"text": "\"It's probably important to understand what a credit score is. A credit score is your history of accruing debt and paying it back. It is supplemented by your age, time at current residence, time at previous residences, time at your job, etc. A person with zero debt history can still have a decent score - provided they are well established, a little older and have a good job. The top scores are reserved for those that manage what creditors consider an \"\"appropriate\"\" amount of debt and are well established. In other words, you're good with money and likely have long term roots in the community. After all, creditors don't normally like being the first one you try out... Being young and having recently moved you are basically a \"\"flight risk\"\". Meaning someone who is more likely to just pick up and move when the debt becomes too much. So, you have a couple options. The first is to simply wait. Keep going to work, keep living where you are, etc. As you establish yourself you become less of a risk. The second is to start incurring debt. Personally, I am not a fan of this one. Some people do well by getting a small credit card, using some portion of it each month and paying it off immediately. Others don't know how to control that very well and end up having a few months where they roll balances over etc which becomes a trap that costs them far more than before. If I were in your position, I'd likely do one of two things. Either buy the phone outright and sign up for a regular mobile plan OR take the cheaper phone for a couple years.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
8ad63cab57cd478d95e97f90824aa7aa
|
What would happen if I were to lose all equity in my condo when it's time to renew the mortgage?
|
[
{
"docid": "67a2ae48c781807568889aa87614e451",
"text": "It doesn't matter. You will just renew your mortgage at the prevailing rates. That's part of the mortgage contract. The problem that happens is if you want to move your mortgage to another bank for a better rate, they may not accept you. Your re-negotiating position is limited. Most mortgages have a portability option where you can even transfer the mortgage to another property, but you'd have to buy a cheaper house.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "623dfa0df8931700ed0fa255c994972d",
"text": "\"This seems to be a very emotional thing for people and there are a lot of conflicting answers. I agree with JoeTaxpayer in general but I think it's worth coming at it from a slightly different angle. You are in Canada and you don't get to deduct anything for your mortgage interest like in the US, so that simplifies things a bit. The next thing to consider is that in an amortized mortgage, the later payments include increasingly more principal. This matters because the extra payments you make earlier in the loan have much more impact on reducing your interest than those made at the end of the loan. Why does that matter? Let's say for example, your loan was for $100K and you will end up getting $150K for the sale after all the transaction costs. Consider two scenarios: If you do the math, you'll see that the total is the same in both scenarios. Nominally, $50K of equity is worth the same as $50K in the bank. \"\"But wait!\"\" you protest, \"\"what about the interest on the loan?\"\" For sure, you likely won't get 2.89% on money in a bank account in this environment. But there's a big difference between money in the bank and equity in your house: you can't withdraw part of your equity. You either have to sell the house (which takes time) or you have to take out a loan against your equity which is likely going to be more expensive than your current loan. This is the basic reasoning behind the advice to have a certain period of time covered. 4 months isn't terrible but you could have more of a cushion. Consider things like upcoming maintenance or improvements on the house. Are you going to need a new roof before you move? New driveway or landscape improvements? Having enough cash to make a down-payment on your next home can be a huge advantage because you can make a non-contingent offer which will often be accepted at a lower value than a contingent offer. By putting this money into your home equity, you essentially make it inaccessible and there's an opportunity cost to that. You will also earn exact 0% on that equity. The only benefit you get is to reduce a loan which is charging you a tiny rate that you are unlikely to get again any time soon. I would take that extra cash and build more cushion. I would also put as much money into any tax sheltered investments as you can. You should expect to earn more than 2.89% on your long-term investments. You really aren't in debt as far as the house goes as long as you are not underwater on the loan: the net value of that asset is positive on your balance sheet. Yes you need to keep making payments but a big account balance covers that. In fact if you hit on hard times and you've put all your extra cash into equity, you might ironically not being able to make your payments and lose the home. One thing I just realized is that since you are in Canada, you probably don't have a fixed-rate on your mortgage. A variable-rate loan does make the calculation different. If you are concerned that rates may spike significantly, I think you still want to increase your cushion but whether you want to increase long-term investments depends on your risk tolerance.\"",
"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": "8ec434e425fd0d68c3a814adb410779e",
"text": "One thing you may be missing is the possibility of a special assessment on the condo. If the foundation cracks, you may be looking at tens of thousands to cover it. This would largely depend on the condo board's reserve funds. Speaking of reserve funds, have you remembered to factor in condo fees? You may also be forgetting to factor in property taxes and closing costs (legal fees and realtor fees). The latter, you'll have to pay when buying and when selling. Now, ten years is a good length of time. If your mother really will live in the condo for ten years, there's a very good chance it does indeed make more sense to buy than to rent. It's very possible you already factored in everything I mentioned above.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f4de4e7e1fe2560de52070ed9cfb67a0",
"text": "but the flat would be occupied all the time. Famous last words. Are you prepared to have a tenant move in, and stop paying rent? In the US, it can take 6 months to get a tenant out of the apartment and little chance of collecting back rent. I don't know how your laws work, but here, they do not favor the landlord. The tiny sub 1% profit you make while funding principal payments is a risky proposition. It seems to me that even normal repairs (heater, appliances, etc) will put you to the negative. On the other hand, if this property has bottomed in terms of price and it rises in value, you may have a nice profit. But if you are just renting it out, it feels like it's too close to call. By the way, if you can go with a 30yr fixed, I'd suggest that. This would get you to a better cash flow sooner. A shorter mortgage simply means more money to principal each month. EDIT - as far as equity goes, at the beginning it seems the equity build up is really from your pocket, definitely so by switching from the 30 to the 15. What is your goal? The assumption I may have made is you wish to be a real estate investor with multiple properties. Doing so means saving up for the next down payment. Given the payoff time even if the property ran a high profit, I imagine you'd want to focus on cash flow, minimize the monthly expense, maximize what you can take each month to save for the next down payment. It's your choice, years from now to have one paid property, or 3 properties each with that 30% down payment, and let time be your friend.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "59f914226dd7e84b5aec1724a3736b68",
"text": "You say you are underwater by $10k-15k. Does that include the 6% comission that selling will cost you? If you are underwater and have to sell anyway, why would you want to give the bank any extra money? A loss will be taken on the sale. Personally i would want the bank to take as much of that loss as possible, rather than myself. Depending on the locale the mortgage may or may not be non-recourse, ie the loan contract implies that the bank can take the house from you if you default, but if 'non-recourse' the bank has no legal way to demand more money from you. Getting the bank to cooperate on a short sale might be massively painful. If you have $ in your savings, you might have more leverage to nego with the bank on how much money you have to give them in the event the loan is not 'non-recourse'. Note that even if not 'non-recourse', it's not clear it would be worth the banks time and money to pursue any shortfall after a sale or if you just walk away and mail the keys to the bank. If you're not worried about your credit, the most financially beneficial action for you might be to simply stop paying the mortgage at all and bank the whole payments. It will take the bank some time to get you out of the house and you can live cost-free during that time. You may feel a moral obligation to the bank. I would not feel this way. The banks and bankers took a ton of money out of selling mortgages to buyers and then selling securities based on the mortgages to investors. They looted the whole system and pushed prices up greatly in the process, which burned most home buyers and home owners. It's all about business -my advice is to act like a business does and minimize your costs. The bank should have required a big enough downpayment to cover their risk. If they did not, then they are to blame for any loss they incur. This is the most basic rule of finance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "67e37fb7c1764ea2cbd3afd85b43eab5",
"text": "Better in terms of what? less taxes paid? or more money to save for retirement? In terms of retirement, it would be better for you to keep the condo you currently have for at least two reasons: You wouldn't incur the penalties and fees from buying and selling a home. Selling and buying a home comes with a multitude of fees and expenses that aren't included in your estimation. You aren't saddled with a mortgage payment again. You aren't paying a mortgage payment right now. If you set aside the amount you would be paying towards that, it more than covers your taxes, with plenty left over to put towards retirement.",
"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": "3937c9a5cc05445f0d86e3c2158e016c",
"text": "You could walk away from your mortgage. When you signed the mortgage you and the bank agreed that if you stopped making payments the bank would get the house. Give them the house. Of course this would be a huge hit to your credit score and you would probably not be able to obtain another mortgage at a decent rate for at least 7 years. You may have trouble obtaining other financing as well (i.e. auto loans). If you plan on moving to an apartment and don't need to finance car purchases this may be OK.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b2c1b4cf7165848bcc59d2356d58217a",
"text": "Every payment you make on your house will already be increasing your equity in it. For that reason alone, I'd recommend moving additional savings into other long-term funds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "73024bd68e9d96fd5a838935cfb82ed3",
"text": "You did borrow money for the downpayment. When you apply for a mortgage loan on your new home, you will be required to list all your assets and all your liabilities. You must disclose the first mortgage as well as the second mortgage on your current condo as well as the monthly payment on each of these loans. If you took out the second mortgage five years ago, you can truthfully say that you have not taken out any loans within the past year to get cash for the down payment when you apply for a mortgage for purchasing your new house. But, what the lender will be looking at is: Can the applicants' current income support monthly payments of $1000 for the first mortgage on the condo plus $300 for the second mortgage on the condo plus $1500 for the proposed mortgage on the new house? You might argue that you will be selling that condo soon, or will be renting it out and that the rental income will cover the mortgage payments on the condo, but will the lender give much credence to this? The condo may not sell easily, you might not be able to find a tenant right away, or be able to rent the condo at a high enough rental to cover the costs etc. If you simply save money from your current extra cash flow and use that to make the down payment, the lender will be pondering the question Can the applicants' current income support monthly payments of $1000 for the mortgage on the condo plus $1500 for the proposed mortgage on the new house? Which deal will the lender be happier with? If you are uncomfortable saving your extra cash flow in a savings account or CD or investing it in stocks and/or bonds until you need the money for the down-payment on your new house, put that money in a sock under your mattress (and don't smoke in bed!)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "64f48ba5412d255dff4eb0b9d7e4bfa3",
"text": "\"Your mortgage agreement probably gives you three options: Pay off your mortgage in full. Use the insurance company's deck-repair payment to fix your deck to be similar in quality to what it was when you took out the mortgage, allowing for normal wear-and-tear since you took out the mortgage. In other words, you can \"\"restore or repair the property to avoid lessening the Lender's security\"\". According to most American mortgages, if you can make the repairs for less than the insurance settlement, and the lender is happy with the work, you can keep the savings. Hand over the insurance company payment for the deck to your lender, and have them apply that amount toward the principal of your mortgage. If the repairs are not \"\"economically feasible\"\", and you are current with your payments, most American mortgages specify this use of the money. Here are some typical mortgage provisions in this regard. This is an excerpt from the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac form 3048, which is the form used by most banks for mortgages in the state of Washington. (I have added paragraph breaks and bolding for clarity.) Many states have different wording, but the intent is the same: In the event of loss, Borrower shall give prompt notice to the insurance carrier and Lender. Lender may make proof of loss if not made promptly by Borrower. Unless Lender and Borrower otherwise agree in writing, any insurance proceeds, whether or not the underlying insurance was required by Lender, shall be applied to restoration or repair of the Property, if the restoration or repair is economically feasible and Lender's security is not lessened. During such repair and restoration period, Lender shall have the right to hold such insurance proceeds until Lender has had an opportunity to inspect such Property to ensure the work has been completed to Lender's satisfaction, provided that such inspection shall be undertaken promptly. Lender may disburse proceeds for the repairs and restoration in a single payment or in a series of progress payments as the work is completed. Unless an agreement is made in writing or Applicable Law requires interest to be paid on such insurance proceeds, Lender shall not be required to pay Borrower any interest or earnings on such proceeds. Fees for public adjusters, or other third parties, retained by Borrower shall not be paid out of the insurance proceeds and shall be the sole obligation of Borrower. If the restoration or repair is not economically feasible or Lender's security would be lessened, the insurance proceeds shall be applied to the sums secured by this Security Instrument, whether or not then due, with the excess, if any, paid to Borrower. Such insurance proceeds shall be applied in the order provided for in Section 2.\"",
"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": "181f3b8463231927b92a460b4f3e114f",
"text": "\"Let's illustrate how typical mortgage and its insurance works, from the very beginning. few years pass You're at the last point now. The whole point of the insurance was to preserve value of bank's collateral, at least from its point of view. By making a claim you have testified that a damage has occurred and some value of the property was lost. It's only reasonable for the bank that it wants the value of the asset to be restored to the value of the loan. Or the other way around. Bank doesn't really care if your deck is repaired, it only cares to have right side equal left side in the books. By taking the mortgage you've agreed to preserve the value of the property. There are many ways out of this situation, but pocketing the money isn't one of them. There is no need to fight the mortgage company, because they're right. Talk with them in good faith and walk through available options. If you feel that you can live with the deck as it is, then paying back part of the loan might be a good idea. You don't \"\"lose\"\" the money this way, you're still 2k ahead - just not now, but in 20 years. Afterthought: it's possible that it would be \"\"enough\"\" to re-evaluate the house to ensure it's still worth its original value even with damaged deck (eg due to other improvements you've made over the years or general property prices rising in the area). I put quotes, because you have to count costs of reevaluation which may be too big to make it worth. AND it might turn out it's worth even less, eg if the prices dropped. Or add another collateral, but that means signing another lien which also costs money.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8c0ae77b1a0340e3d1a487b8965a81af",
"text": "Some options: See if the seller will sell to you on Contract. With a significant down payment the seller may be willing to sell you the condo on contract. This fill in the year or so you will probably need to go from contractor to full time employee with enough time on the job to get a mortgage. Keep Shopping. Be up front with the lenders with the problems you are running into and see if any of them can find you a solution. You may need to take a higher rate in the short term but hopefully you can refinance in a few years to a more reasonable rate. Check with a local bank or credit union. Many times local banks or CU's will finance high demand properties that may be out of favor with the super banks that have no ties to your community. These banks sometimes realize that just because the standard spreadsheet says this is a bad risk the reality is the specific property you are interested in is not the risk that it appears on paper. You will have to find a bank that actually retains its mortgages as many local banks have become agents that just sell mortgages to the mortgage market. Talk to a Realtor. If you are not using one now it may be time to engage one. They can help you navigate these bumps and steer you towards lenders that are more amenable to the loan you need.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "daacc68fccb25e3867e60abe88c3e851",
"text": "I know this is a little off the wall but I bought a rental property for my son's tuition. The tenants pay down the mortgage for the next 12 years and it (hopefully) also appreciates in value. Worst case scenario is I come out with a rental and a kid with no education. He doesn't go then there's no skin off my back.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
9af5ee4573bdfc40322c1eb171cacf99
|
Paying off student loan or using that money for a downpayment on a house
|
[
{
"docid": "8c153ea4b906a889e5d80fc7a3b0859f",
"text": "Two years ago, I wrote an article titled Student Loans and Your First Mortgage in response to this exact question posed by a fellow blogger. The bottom line is that the loan payment doesn't lower your borrowing power as it fits in the slice between 28% (total housing cost) and 38% (total monthly debt burden) when applying for a loan. But, the $20K is 20% down on $100K worth of house. With median home prices in the US in the mid-high $100Ks, you're halfway there. In the end, it's not about finance, it's a question of how badly you want to buy a house. If I got along with the parents, I'd stay as long as I was welcome, and save every dollar I could. Save for retirement, save for as large a downpayment as you can, and after you buy the house, pay the student loan aggressively. I moved out the week after I graduated.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5bc3cebe3c03ba3cac29b797150cbcd6",
"text": "\"I think there are two questions here: (a) Is it better to continue living with your parents while you save up for a bigger down payment on a house, or to move out as soon as possible? (b) Is it better to pay off a student loan and make a smaller down payment on the house, or to keep paying on the student loan and use the cash for a larger down payment on the house? Regarding (a), this is mostly a personal priorities question. You don't say if you're paying your parents anything, but even if you are, it's likely a lot less than the cost of your buying your own home. It is almost certainly ECONOMICALLY better to stay with your parents. But do you like living with your parents, and do they like having you around? Or are they pushing you to move out? Are you fighting with them regularly? Do you just like the idea of being more independent? If you'd prefer to have your own place, how important is it to you? Is it worth the additional cost? These are questions only you can answer. Regarding (b), you need to compare the cost of the student loan and the mortgage loan. Start with the interest rates of each. For the mortgage loan, if your down payment is below a certain threshold -- 20% last time I bought a house -- you have to pay for the lender's mortgage insurance, so add that in if applicable. If you are paying \"\"points\"\" to get a reduced interest rate, factor that in too. Then whichever is more expensive, that's the one that you want to make smaller. If one or both are variable rate loans (well, you say the student loan is fixed), than you have to guess what the rates might be in the future.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dcc3acd371bdd4deaee29dc8a8fd546a",
"text": "Yes, one is certainly better than the other. Which one depends on your priorities and the interest and tax rates on your student loan, your savings, and your (future) mortgage plus how much you can afford to save and still enjoy the lifestyle you want as well as how soon you want to move out. Basically, you havn't given enough information.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1021105f9b691a94f55193b46aa9d692",
"text": "Lets do the math, using your numbers. We start off with $100K, a desire to buy a house and invest, and 30 years to do it. Scenario #1 We buy a house for $100K mortgage at 5% interest over 30 years. Monthly payment ends up being $536.82/month. We then take the $100K we still have and invest it in stocks, earning an average of 9% annually and paying 15% taxes. Scenario #2 We buy a house for our $100K cash, and then, every month, we invest the $536.82 we would have paid for the mortgage. Again, investments make 9% annually long term, and we pay 15% taxes. How would it look in 30 years? Scenario #1 Results: 30 years later we would have a paid off house and $912,895 in investments Scenario #2 Results: 30 years later we would have a paid off house and $712,745 in investments Conclusion: NOT paying off your mortgage early results in an additional $200,120 in networth after 30 years. That's 28% more. Therefore, not paying off your mortgage is the superior scenario. Caveats/Notes/Things to consider Play with the numbers yourself:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c660aa77d34da2bf069924c305d831ea",
"text": "\"I am going to respond to a very thin sliver of what's going on. Skip ahead 4 years. When buying that house, is it better to have $48K in the bank but a $48K student loan, or to have neither? That $48K may very well be what it would take to put you over the 20% down payment threshhold thus avoiding PMI. Banks let you have a certain amount of non-mortgage debt before impacting your ability to borrow. It's the difference between the 28% for the mortgage, insurance and property tax, and the total 38% debt service. What I offer above is a bit counter-intuitive, and I only mention it as you said the house is a priority. I'm answering as if you asked \"\"how do I maximize my purchasing power if I wish to buy a house in the next few years?\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dbb1a5aaa7bc8c7f62db10fa77815473",
"text": "Based on your numbers, it sounds like you've got 12 years left in the private student loan, which just seems to be an annoyance to me. You have the cash to pay it off, but that may not be the optimal solution. You've got $85k in cash! That's way too much. So your options are: -Invest 40k -Pay 2.25% loan off -Prepay mortgage 40k Play around with this link: mortgage calculator Paying the student loan, and applying the $315 to the monthly mortgage reduces your mortgage by 8 years. It also reduces the nag factor of the student loan. Prepaying the mortgage (one time) reduces it by 6 years. (But, that reduces the total cost of the mortgage over it's lifetime the most) Prepaying the mortgage and re-amortizing it over thirty years (at the same rate) reduces your mortgage payment by $210, which you could apply to the student loan, but you'd need to come up with an extra $105 a month.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5be063c33bc17804eef1d4fe20d5f9c7",
"text": "\"Two things you should consider about paying off student loans ahead of the 10 year amortization schedule: What interest rate are you paying on your loans? What are you earning on your investments in a balanced mutual fund? When you pay off your student loans you are essentially guaranteed a return of the interest rate on your loan (future interest you would have had to pay). However if you are investing well and getting a good return on your investments you will get a greater return. Ex. Half of my student loans are at 6.8%, thr other half are at 2.5%. I make the minimum payments on the loans at 2.5% and invest my money in tax sheltered retirement accounts. The return on these funds has been 8% and that is on per-tax dollars so really closer to 11%. Now there is also downside risk when you invest in the market, but 2.5% guaranteed I will forgoe for 11% in low risk return. However my loans at 6.8% I repay in excess of the minimums because 6.8% guaranteed return is pretty good! So this decision is based on your confidence in your investments and your own risk tolerance. Once you pay your bank on your student loans that money is gone, out of your control. If you need it in the future you may need to pay higher interest on an unsecured loan, or you may not be able to borrow it. When you want to make large purchases (a car, house) that money you per-paid on your loans isn't available to you as a down payment. Banks should want you to have some of your own \"\"skin in the game\"\" on these purchases and the lending standards keep getting tougher. You are better off if you have money saved in your name rather than against the balance on your loan. Yes you can't bankrupt these loans, but the money you repay on them doesn't go toward housing you or paying your bills on a rainy day. I went through the same feeling when I completed my MBA with $50k in debt, you want to pay it off as soon as possible. But you need to step away and realize that it was an investment in your future and your future is long, you need time to make a financial foundation for it. And you will feel a lot more empowered when you have money saved and you can make the decision for how you want to deploy it to work for you. (Ex. I could pay down my student loans with the balance I have in the bank, but I am going to use it to invest in myself and open my own business).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c5bc0711405ab432376e6341472b7be2",
"text": "\"I would pay off the student loans first because they are unsecured. Mortgage debt is against an appreciating asset and is therefore \"\"better\"\" than unsecured debt. I recommend you pay both off, but start with the unsecured student loans.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9bcc0c9036c690555368b96512ef7ed8",
"text": "\"A Tweep friend asked me a similar question. In her case it was in the larger context of a marriage and house purchase. In reply I wrote a detail article Student Loans and Your First Mortgage. The loan payment easily fit between the generally accepted qualifying debt ratios, 28% for house/36 for all debt. If the loan payment has no effect on the mortgage one qualifies for, that's one thing, but taking say $20K to pay it off will impact the house you can buy. For a 20% down purchase, this multiplies up to $100k less house. Or worse, a lower down payment percent then requiring PMI. Clearly, I had a specific situation to address, which ultimately becomes part of the list for \"\"pay off student loan? Pro / Con\"\" Absent the scenario I offered, I'd line up debt, highest to lowest rate (tax adjusted of course) and hack away at it all. It's part of the big picture like any other debt, save for the cases where it can be cancelled. Personal finance is exactly that, personal. Advisors (the good ones) make their money by looking carefully at the big picture and not offering a cookie-cutter approach.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b0ae5cb151bdfd21a030de13d047c313",
"text": "We don't have all the relevant numbers to give you the perfect answer. Knowing your income is pretty important for this question, but, since you have 200K in student loans, I'm going to guess (and hope) you probably make more than 80K/yr which is the cutoff for deducting student loan interest. (It starts phasing out once you make over 65K and fully phases out at 80K, or 160K if you're married.) Even if you make less than 65K, you can only deduct a max of 2500/yr in student loan interest and you'll be maxing that out for at least the next 4 years. So, my take is: Throw it at the student loan. Your mortgage interest is (probably) fully deductible, which means your mortgage interest rate is effectively reduced by your tax bracket. E.g. if you are in the 28% tax bracket a 4% mortgage rate would effectively become 2.88%. Outside of that, if you were to make minimum payments on your mortgage and student loans starting now, as soon as your student loan is paid off I would start making that same student loan payment amount towards your mortgage. This way you won't have any change in cash flow, but it will significantly lower the term of your mortgage. (Which is what would happen if you choose to pay down the mortgage now, but then you don't get the tax advantage on the difference.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "773c2b2c6c846cdbc1f565ef59d3c5d9",
"text": "Quick pay off the student loans. You have 140K in savings with a combined salary of 170K. You are looking to make money with the 140K, so just pay off the loans. It will turn your monthly loan payments in to a stream of money that can be used to save money for the next house. Assume: The rest of the 700K needed for a 1.5 Million dollar house has to come from savings and the profit from selling the first house. If the house sells for loan balance +300K you still need 400K in savings. Turning 140K into 400K in 5 years will funneling a large amount of your income into savings or excellent returns. Of course there is no way to predict return or what will happen to the market. If you don't sell the first home, you can rent the house. You either hope that the rental you charge allows you a positive cash flow. Or you hope that the house appreciates in value, so you hold on to it even if the rental income is a little below break even. Of course some keep the house because they can't sell it. In your case the equity might be more important for you to purchase the next house.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1b2f77f6f2746a5125e75319fd7a577",
"text": "3 years ago I wrote Student Loans and Your First Mortgage in response to this exact question by a fellow blogger in my state. What I focused on was the way banks qualify you for a loan, a percentage for the housing cost, and a higher number that also comprises all other debt. If the goal is speed-to-purchase, you make minimum payments on the student loan, and save for the $100K downpayment as fast as you can. The question back to you is whether the purchase is your priority, and how debt averse you are. I'd caution, if you work for a company with a matched 401(k), I'd still deposit to the match, but no more. Personal finance is just that, personal. We don't know your entire situation, your current rental expenses vs your total condo cost when you buy. If you are in a location where renting costs far more than your cost of ownership, Ben might change his mind a bit. If the reverse is true, you're living a college student's lifestyle with a room costing $400/mo sharing a house with friends, I'll back off and say to pay the loan and save until you can't tolerate the situation. You'll find there are few situations that have a perfect answer without having all the details.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f4660e81b6cac0d44cedec2044272b9",
"text": "My recommendation would be to pay off your student loan debt as soon as possible. You mention that the difference between your student loan and the historical, long-term return on the stock market is one-half percent. The problem is, the 7% return that you are counting on from the stock market is not guaranteed. You might get 7% over the next few years, but you also might do much worse. The 6.4% interest that you will save by aggressively paying off your debt is guaranteed. You are concerned about the opportunity cost of paying your debt early. However, this cost is only temporary. By drawing out your debt payments, you have a long-term opportunity cost. By this, I mean that 4 years from now, you could still have 6 years of debt payments hanging over your head, or you could be debt free with all of your income available to save, spend, or invest as you see fit. In my opinion, prolonging debt just to try to come out 0.5% ahead is not worth the hassle or risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5b2d016c1627df5c6be74eaa6bc3075b",
"text": "It looks like with the sale of your current home you have enough liquidity to obtain credit on the best terms without tapping your wife's IRA. The biggest factor to consider is the deduction on mortgage interest which reduces the effective interest on your mortgage significantly, particularly as you jump into a higher tax bracket. Along these lines, deferred retirement savings should have a higher priority than paying down the mortgage or your student loans. Student loans should probably be your biggest priority to pay down. With the mortgage deduction, a 4% rate becomes effectively a 3.4% rate if you are in the 15% bracket, but as low as 2.6% effective rate if you are in the 35% bracket. Both of these are lower than the 3.5% rate that you can get on the student loans after refinancing. This also assumes you aren't hit with the AMT. This is probably worth the cost of a quick consultation with a tax professional to go over these options and how they affect your taxes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e6a05a201fa315f59ff8f24e7e0a57ce",
"text": "One of many things to consider is that in the United States student loan interest is tax deductible. That fact could change the math enough to make it worth putting A's money elsewhere depending on his interest rate and income bracket.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9cb0f6c838269bfc3c64b6fc3bc121c0",
"text": "Paying off your student loan before buying a house is certainly a great risk reduction move for you. It will lower your debt to income ratio allowing your mortgage approval to go easier and it will free up more of your dollars to pay for the many miscellaneous projects that come with buying a house. I think that if you are considering paying off your student loan before buying a house that means that your student loans are an amount you can fathom paying off and that you are motivated to be rid of your student loan debt. Go for it and pay off your student loan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8394b41dc5e16d17c616139c687e014c",
"text": "If it is US, you need to take tax implications into account. Profit taken from sale of your home is taxable. One approach would be to take the tax hit, pay down the student loans, rent, and focus any extra that you can on paying off the student loans quickly. The tax is on realized gains when you sell the property. I think that any equity under the original purchase price is taxed at a lower rate (or zero). Consult a tax pro in your area. Do not blindly assume buying is better than renting. Run the numbers. Rent Vs buy is not a question with a single answer. It depends greatly on the real estate market where you are, and to a lesser extent on your personal situation. Be sure to include maintenance and HOA fees, if any, on the ownership side. Breakeven time on a new roof or a new HVAC unit or an HOA assessment can be years, tipping the scales towards renting. Include the opportunity cost by including the rate of return on the 100k on the renting side (or subtracting it on the ownership side). Be sure to include the tax implications on the ownership side, especially taxes on any profits from the sale. If the numbers say ownership in your area is better, then try for as small of a mortgage as you can get in a growing area. Assuming that the numbers add up to buying: buy small and live frugally, focus on increasing discretionary spending, and using it to pay down debt and then build wealth. If they add up to renting, same thing but rent small.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0a4c5b8578830ea9dfae6c50ebb28187",
"text": "If you can find a tenant by networking -- co-worker, friend of a friend, etc. -- rather than openly advertising, that often gives you a better pool. Side advice: Check what local housing laws apply to renting a room rather than having a housemate. Once you start advertising this you may be subject to fair housing laws, additional code requirements, and so on.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
23356f49135f50168f428a8a8c43c90f
|
Should an IRA be disclaimed to allow it to be distributed according to a will?
|
[
{
"docid": "36dc4003aa8566c138d2964fa3226125",
"text": "There are two different possible taxes based on various scenarios proposed by the OP or the lawyer who drew up the OP's father's will or the OP's mother. First, there is the estate tax which is paid by the estate of the deceased, and the heirs get what is left. Most estates in the US pay no estate tax whatsoever because most estates are smaller than $5.4M lifetime gift and estate tax exemption. But, for the record, even though IRAs pass from owner to beneficiary independent of whatever the will might say about the disposition of the IRAs, the value of the deceased's IRAs is part of the estate, and if the estate is large enough that estate tax is due and there is not enough money in the rest of the estate to pay the estate tax (e.g. most of the estate value is IRA money and there are no other investments, just a bank account with a small balance), then the executor of the will can petition the probate court to claw back some of the IRA money from the IRA beneficiaries to pay the estate tax due. Second, there is income tax that the estate must pay on income received from the estate's assets, e.g. mutual fund dividends paid between the date of death and the distribution of the assets to the beneficiaries, or income from cashing in IRAs that have the estate as the beneficiary. Now, most of OP's father's estate is in IRAs which have the OP's mother as the primary beneficiary and there are no named secondary beneficiaries. Thus, by default, the estate is the IRA beneficiary should the OP's mother disclaim the IRAs as the lawyer has suggested. As @JoeTaxpayer says in a comment, if the OP's mother disclaims the IRA, then the estate must distribute all the IRA assets to the three beneficiaries by December 31 of the year in which the fifth anniversary of the death occurs. If the estate decides to do this by itself, then the distribution from the IRA to the estate is taxable income to the estate (best avoided if possible because of the high tax rates on trusts). What is commonly done is that before December 31 of the year following the year in which the death occurred, the estate (as the beneficiary) informs the IRA Custodian that the estate's beneficiaries are the surviving spouse (50%), and the two children (25% each) and requests the IRA custodian to divide the IRA assets accordingly and let each beneficiary be responsible for meeting the requirements of the 5-year rule for his/her share. Any assets not distributed in timely fashion are subject to a 50% excise tax as penalty each year until such time as these monies are actually withdrawn explicitly from the IRA (that is, the excise tax is not deducted from the remaining IRA assets; the beneficiary has to pay the excise tax out of pocket). As far as the IRS is concerned, there are no yearly distribution requirements to be met but the IRA Custodial Agreement might have its own rules, and so Publication 590b recommends discussing the distribution requirements for the 5-year rule with the IRA Custodian. The money distributed from the IRA is taxable income to the recipients. In particular, the children cannot roll the money over into another IRA so as to avoid immediate taxation; the spouse might be able to roll over the money into another IRA, but I am not sure about this; Publication 590b is very confusing on this point. All this is assuming that the deceased passed away before well before his 70.5th birthday so that there are no issues with RMDs (the interactions of all the rules in this case is an even bigger can of worms that I will leave to someone else to explicate). On the other hand, if the OP's mother does not disclaim the IRAs, then she, as the surviving spouse, has the option of treating the inherited IRAs as her own IRAs, and she could then name her two children as the beneficiaries of the inherited IRAs when she passes away. Of course, by the same token, she could opt to make someone else the beneficiary (e.g, her children from a previous marriage) or change her mind at any later time and make someone else the beneficiary (e.g. if she remarries, or becomes very fond of the person taking care of her in a nursing home and decides to leave all her assets to this person instead of her children, etc). But even if such disinheritances are unlikely and the children are perfectly happy to wait to inherit till Mom passes away, as JoeTaxpayer points out, by not disclaiming the IRAs, the OP's mother can delay taking distributions from the IRAs till age 70.5, etc. which is also a good option to have. The worst scenario is for the OP's mother to not disclaim the IRAs, cash them in right away (huge income tax whack on her) or at least 50% of them, and gift the OP and his sibling half of what she withdrew (or possibly after taking into account what she had to pay in income tax on the distribution). Gift tax need not be paid by the OP's mother if she files Form 709 and reduces her lifetime combined gift and estate tax exemption, and the OP and his sibling don't owe any tax (income or otherwise) on the gift amount. But, all that money has changed from tax-deferred assets to ordinary assets, and any additional earnings on these assets in the future will be taxable income. So, unless the OP and his sibling need the cash right away (pay off credit card debt, make a downpayment on a house, etc), this is not a good idea at all.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "62d87d57d8983cfcd5b6402e797eeef7",
"text": "She is very wrong. If the IRA is a traditional, i.e. A pretax IRA (not a Roth), all withdrawals are subject to tax at one's marginal rate. Read that to mean that a large sum can easily push her into higher brackets than normal. If it stayed with her, she'd take smaller withdrawals and be able to throttle her tax impact. Once she takes it all out, and gifts it to you, no gift tax is due, but there's form 709, where it's declared, and counts against her $5.5M lifetime estate exemption. There are a few things in the world of finance that offend me as much as lawyer malpractice, going into an area they are ignorant of.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "fb9d030ac35296ba5c9fae89e43b890a",
"text": "Once upon a time, money rolled over from a 401k or 403b plan into an IRA could not be rolled into another 401k or 403b unless the IRA account was properly titled as a Rollover IRA (instead of Traditional IRA - Roth IRAs were still in the future) and the money kept separate (not commingled) with contributions to Traditional IRAs. Much of that has fallen by the way side as the rules have become more relaxed. Also the desire to roll over money into a 401k plan at one's new job has decreased too -- far too many employer-sponsored retirement plans have large management fees and the investments are rarely the best available: one can generally do better keeping ex-401k money outside a new 401k, though of course new contributions from salary earned at the new employer perforce must be put into the employer's 401k. While consolidating one's IRA accounts at one brokerage or one fund family certainly saves on the paperwork, it is worth keeping in mind that putting all one's eggs in one basket might not be the best idea, especially for those concerned that an employee might, like Matilda, take me money and run Venezuela. Another issue is that while one may have diversified investments at the brokerage or fund family, the entire IRA must have the same set of beneficiaries: one cannot leave the money invested in GM stock (or Fund A) to one person and the money invested in Ford stock (or Fund B) to another if one so desires. Thinking far ahead into the future, if one is interested in making charitable bequests, it is the best strategy tax-wise to make these bequests from tax-deferred monies rather than from post-tax money. Since IRAs pass outside the will, one can keep separate IRA accounts with different companies, with, say, the Vanguard IRA having primary beneficiary United Way and the Fidelity IRA having primary beneficiary the American Cancer Society, etc. to achieve the appropriate charitable bequests.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "df4fa1cf349ebf78d37f57c8c81557e5",
"text": "\"> Who gets control of your wealth when you pass away then? If someone has no remaining heirs in his/her generation then he/she can leave the money to the charity/non-profit of choice. Of course, it would be illegal to set up the \"\"give lots of money to Mr. Burns descendants\"\" endowment.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "49f29b55b33e9105340e11bfb78539e9",
"text": "You also may want to consider how this interacts with the stepped up basis of estates. If you never sell the stock and it passes to your heirs with your estate, under current tax law the basis will increase from the purchase price to the market price at the time of transfer. In a comment, you proposed: Thinking more deeply though, I am a little skeptical that it's a free lunch: Say I buy stock A (a computer manufacturer) at $100 which I intend to hold long term. It ends up falling to $80 and the robo-advisor sells it for tax loss harvesting, buying stock B (a similar computer manufacturer) as a replacement. So I benefit from realizing those losses. HOWEVER, say both stocks then rise by 50% over 3 years. At this point, selling B gives me more capital gains tax than if I had held A through the losses, since A's rise from 80 back to 100 would have been free for me since I purchased at 100. And then later thought Although thinking even more (sorry, thinking out loud here), I guess I still come out ahead on taxes since I was able to deduct the $20 loss on A against ordinary income, and while I pay extra capital gains on B, that's a lower tax rate. So the free lunch is $20*[number of shares]*([my tax bracket] - [capital gains rates]) That's true. And in addition to that, if you never sell B, which continues to rise to $200 (was last at $120 after a 50% increase from $80), the basis steps up to $200 on transfer to your heirs. Of course, your estate may have to pay a 40% tax on the $200 before transferring the shares to your heirs. So this isn't exactly a free lunch either. But you have to pay that 40% tax regardless of the form in which the money is held. Cash, real estate, stocks, whatever. Whether you have a large or small capital gain on the stock is irrelevant to the estate tax. This type of planning may not matter to you personally, but it is another aspect of what wealth management can impact.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8459f004f4e0af10ecbb3300600c0704",
"text": "\"First - for anyone else reading - An IRA that has no beneficiary listed on the account itself passes through the will, and this eliminates the opportunity to take withdrawals over the beneficiaries' lifetimes. There's a five year distribution requirement. Also, with a proper beneficiary set up on the IRA account the will does not apply to the IRA. An IRA with me as sole beneficiary regardless of the will saying \"\"all my assets I leave to the ASPCA.\"\" This is also a warning to keep that beneficiary current. It's possible that one's ex-spouse is still on IRA or 401(k) accounts as beneficiary and new spouse is in for a surprise when hubby/wife passes. Sorry for the tangent, but this is all important to know. The funneling of a beneficiary IRA through a trust is not for amateurs. If set up incorrectly, the trust will not allow the stretch/lifetime withdrawals, but will result in a broken IRA. Trusts are not cheap, nor would I have any faith in any attorney setting it up. I would only use an attorney who specializes in Trusts and Estate planning. As littleadv suggested, they don't have to be minors. It turns out that the expense to set up the trust ($1K-2K depending on location) can help keep your adult child from blowing through a huge IRA quickly. I'd suggest that the trust distribute the RMDs in early years, and a higher amount, say 10% in years to follow, unless you want it to go just RMD for its entire life. Or greater flexibility releasing larger amounts based on life events. The tough part of that is you need a trustee who is willing to handle this and will do it at a low cost. If you go with Child's name only, I don't know many 18/21 year old kids who would either understand the RMD rules on IRAs or be willing to use the money over decades instead of blowing it. Edit - A WSJ article Inherited IRAs: a Sweet Deal and my own On my Death, Please, Take a Breath, an article that suggests for even an adult, education on how RMDs work is a great idea.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d1246ed1d6f0a9677726f03e26d78a8",
"text": "Because this is Money.SE and you're connecting it to offspring, I'd think about a discussion with them to get their agreements. From my perspective, anything (my wife and) I have will go to offspring in the end. As such, everything borrowed and not repaid simply reduces the estate by that much. Among multiple offspring, such reductions should be against the borrower rather than spreading it out. That should be accounted for in whatever will is created. This would be the discussion point. It might also be discussed how or even if any interest should accrue for unpaid amounts. If, for example, a 1% APR is agreed upon for unpaid loans, then the final principle+interest amount is taken off of the borrower's inheritance. Existing outstanding loans might (or might not!) be useful examples for sample calculations if desired or needed. (If nothing else, they might serve as reminders that loans were not forgotten.) By having such a discussion, you can show that you are trying to plan for a fair distribution of your estate, perhaps thereby sidestepping any concern about charging interest to offspring for repaid loans. At the same time, you're handing over some financial responsibility, giving them a power of personal choice, which seems to be a part of what you're concerned about. Once such a discussion is started, it's possible that any question of interest will resolve itself naturally. The discussion almost necessarily must include all offspring at once. One will find it harder to negotiate from a standpoint of pure self-interest without objection from another. Think beforehand about what will be said and about what responses might come. Think things through as much as you can.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a83b5dd0290b284fe4ca0d42b88cebfd",
"text": "\"All transactions within an IRA are irrelevant as far as the taxation of the distributions from the IRA are concerned. You can only take cash from an IRA, and a (cash) distribution from a Traditional IRA is taxable as ordinary income (same as interest from a bank, say) without the advantage of any of the special tax rates for long-term capital gains or qualified dividends even if that cash was generated within the IRA from sales of stock etc. In short, just as with what is alleged to occur with respect to Las Vegas, what happens within the IRA stays within the IRA. Note: some IRA custodians are willing to make a distribution of stock or mutual fund shares to you, so that ownership of the 100 shares of GE, say, that you hold within your IRA is transferred to you in your personal (non-IRA) brokerage account. But, as far as the IRS is concerned, your IRA custodian sold the stock as the closing price on the day of the distribution, gave you the cash, and you promptly bought the 100 shares (at the closing price) in your personal brokerage account with the cash that you received from the IRA. It is just that your custodian saved the transaction fees involved in selling 100 shares of GE stock inside the IRA and you saved the transaction fee for buying 100 shares of GE stock in your personal brokerage account. Your basis in the 100 shares of GE stock is the \"\"cash_ that you imputedly received as a distribution from the IRA, so that when you sell the shares at some future time, your capital gains (or losses) will be with respect to this basis. The capital gains that occurred within the IRA when the shares were imputedly sold by your IRA custodian remain within the IRA, and you don't get to pay taxes on that at capital gains rates. That being said, I would like to add to what NathanL told you in his answer. Your mother passed away in 2011 and you are now 60 years old (so 54 or 55 in 2011?). It is likely that your mother was over 70.5 years old when she passed away, and so she likely had started taking Required Minimum Distributions from her IRA before her death. So, You should have been taking RMDs from the Inherited IRA starting with Year 2012. (The RMD for 2011, if not taken already by your mother before she passed away, should have been taken by her estate, and distributed to her heirs in accordance with her will, or, if she died intestate, in accordance with state law and/or probate court directives). There would not have been any 10% penalty tax due on the RMDs taken by you on the grounds that you were not 59.5 years old as yet; that rule applies to owners (your mom in this case) and not to beneficiaries (you in this case). So, have you taken the RMDs for 2012-2016? Or were you waiting to turn 59.5 before taking distributions in the mistaken belief that you would have to pay a 10% penalty for early wthdrawal? The penalty for not taking a RMD is 50% of the amount not distributed; yes, 50%. If you didn't take RMDs from the Inherited IRA for years 2012-2016, I recommend that you consult a CPA with expertise in tax law. Ask the CPA if he/she is an Enrolled Agent with the IRS: Enrolled Agents have to pass an exam administered by the IRS to show that they really understand tax law and are not just blowing smoke, and can represent you in front of the IRS in cases of audit etc,\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d90d0c190348a1293aef06588932c858",
"text": "No. Disclaimer - As a US educated fellow, I needed to search a bit. I found an article 7 Common SMSF Pension Errors. It implied that there are minimum payments required each year as with our US retirement accounts. These minimums are unrelated to the assets within the account, just based on the total value. The way I read that, there would be a point where you'd have to sell a property or partial interest to be sure you have the cash to distribute each year. I also learned that unlike US rules, which permit a distribution of stock as part of a required minimum distribution, in Australia, the distribution must be in cash (or a deposited check, of course.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "65d0e65fc15b89d957ea8f4aacf84849",
"text": "Brokerages are supposed to keep your money separate from theirs. So, even if they fail as a company, your money and investments are still there, and can be transferred to another brokerage. It doesn't matter if it's an IRA or taxable account. Of course, as is the case with MF Global, if illegally take their client's money (i.e., steal), it may be a different story. In such cases, SIPC covers up to $500K, of which $250K can be cash, as JoeTaxpayer said. You may be interested in the following news item from the SEC. It's about some proposed changes, but to frame the proposal they lay out the way it is now: http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2011/2011-128.htm The most relevant quote: The Customer Protection Rule (Rule 15c3-3). This SEC rule requires a broker-dealer to segregate customer securities and cash from the firm’s proprietary business activities. If the broker-dealer fails, these customer assets should be readily available to be returned to customers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f77159e3b4d193b5e3b72e959ddf5cf",
"text": "You don't need to submit a K-1 form to anyone, but you will need to transcribe various entries on the K-1 form that you will receive onto the appropriate lines on your tax return. Broadly speaking, assets received as a bequest from someone are not taxable income to you but any money that was received by your grandmother's estate between the time of death and the time of distribution of the assets (e.g. interest, mutual fund distributions paid in cash, etc) might be passed on to you in full instead of the estate paying income tax on this income and sending you only the remainder. If so, this other money would be taxable income to you. The good news is that if the estate trust distributions include stock, your basis for the stock is the value as of the date of death (nitpickers: I am aware that the estate is allowed to pick a different date for the valuation but I am trying to keep it simple here). That is, if the stock has appreciated, your grandmother never paid capital gains on those unrealized capital gains, and you don't have to pay tax on those capital gains either; your basis is the appreciated value and if and when you sell the stock, you pay tax only on the gain, if any, between the day that Grandma passed away and the day you sell the stock.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "61bca5eaadfad484bdc2f9c3fa39eb81",
"text": "You should talk to a tax professional in your area. It seems like you should start filing your returns. In the US there are certain income thresholds that need to be attained before a return is required, though it's often thought of as best practice to file anyway. Also in the US there are programs designed to encourage delinquent filers to begin filing again, which may include penalty/fee reduction for voluntarily filing. Somehow I suspect Canada has similar programs. If you stand to inherit a sizable amount of money it seems that you should have a history of tax returns in order to minimize the number of questions that are asked should the money come your way. I'd talk to a tax person before consulting an attorney. From the tone of your question the Canadian tax authority hasn't initiated anything against you. You just want to understand the best course of action regarding your tax situation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bed338db9cdf1dd0f3be10e06e8adaf3",
"text": "\"Yes, this is restricted by law. In plain language, you can find it on the IRS website (under the heading \"\"When Can a Retirement Plan Distribute Benefits?\"\"): 401(k), profit-sharing, and stock bonus plans Employee elective deferrals (and earnings, except in a hardship distribution) -- the plan may permit a distribution when you: •terminate employment (by death, disability, retirement or other severance from employment); •reach age 59½; or •suffer a hardship. Employer profit-sharing or matching contributions -- the plan may permit a distribution of your vested accrued benefit when you: •terminate employment (by death, disability, retirement or other severance from employment); •reach the age specified in the plan (any age); or •suffer a hardship or experience another event specified in the plan. Form of benefit - the plan may pay benefits in a single lump-sum payment as well as offer other options, including payments over a set period of time (such as 5 or 10 years) or a purchased annuity with monthly lifetime payments. Source: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/plan-participant-employee/when-can-a-retirement-plan-distribute-benefits If you want to actually see it in the law, check out 26 USC 401(k)(2)(B)(i), which lists the circumstances under which a distribution can be made. You can get the full text, for example, here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/401 I'm not sure what to say about the practice of the company that you mentioned in your question. Maybe the law was different then?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a33bbdef2b4959cf73e8714d21e6725",
"text": "Is there a better vehicle for this than an index fund? Seems like a good choice to me, unless you want to protect it from market risk since it's in essence an emergency fund, in which case maybe you'd want to keep some of it in CD's. Are significant downsides to keeping the money in our name until he needs it? The main downside would be if you had need to dole out more than the maximum annual gift exclusion amount in a single year (currently $14,000), you'd have to report it as a taxable gift on your tax return and it'd count toward your lifetime gift exclusion. You and your wife can each give a gift, and if your brother were married you and your wife could each give to both he and his spouse, so 2-4x the annual gift limit before this becomes an issue. Additionally you can pay medical/education expenses directly and that is not counted toward the annual exclusion. Are there any other considerations that we are overlooking? There's always a risk that gift-giving can create expectation and/or resentment. I'd think you'd want to make instances of giving not sound like something you planned for, but something you are sacrificing for. Not sure what the best strategy is there, every family is different when it comes to dealing with finances.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd8357d402dd8084d8d89d0fc81cd792",
"text": "Of course, you've already realized that some of that is that smaller estates are more common than larger estates. But it seems unlikely that there are four times as many estates between $10 and $11 million as above that range. People who expect to die with an estate subject to inheritance tax tend to prepare. I don't know how common it is, but if the surviving member of a couple remarries, then the new spouse gets a separate exemption. And of course spouses inherit from spouses without tax. In theory this could last indefinitely. In practice, it is less likely. But if a married couple has $20 million, the first spouse could leave $15 million to the second and $5 million to other heirs. The second spouse could leave $10 million to a third spouse (after remarrying) and another $5 million to children with the first spouse. All without triggering the estate tax. People can put some of their estate into a trust. This can allow the heirs to continue to control the money while not paying inheritance tax. Supposedly Ford (of Ford Motor Company) took that route. Another common strategy is to give the maximum without gift tax each year. That's at least $14k per donor and recipient per year. So a married couple with two kids can transfer $56k per year. Plus $56k for the kids' spouses. And if there are four grandchildren, that's another $112k. Great-grandchildren count too. That's more than a million every five years. So given ten years to prepare, parents can transfer $2 million out of the estate and to the heirs without tax. Consider the case of two wealthy siblings. They've each maxed out their gifts to their own heirs. So they agree to max out their gifts to their sibling's heirs. This effectively doubles the transfer amount without tax implication. Also realize that they can pretransfer assets at the current market rate. So if a rich person has an asset that is currently undervalued, it may make sense to transfer it immediately as a gift. This will use up some of the estate exemption. But if you're going to transfer the asset eventually, you might as well do so when the value is optimal for your purpose. These are just the easy things to do. If someone wants, they can do more complicated things that make it harder for the IRS to track value. For example, the Bezos family invested in Amazon.com when Jeff Bezos was starting it. As a result, his company could survive capital losses that another company might not. The effect of this was to make him fabulously rich and his parents richer than they were. But he won't pay inheritance tax until his parents actually transfer the estate to him (and I believe they actually put it in a charitable trust). If his company had failed instead, he still would have been supported by the capital provided by his parents while it was open (e.g. his salary). But he wouldn't have paid inheritance tax on it. There are other examples of the same pattern: Fred Smith of FedEx; Donald Trump; Bill Gates of Microsoft; etc. The prime value of the estate was not in its transfer, but in working together while alive or through a family trust. The child's company became much more valuable as a result of a parent's wealth. And in two of those examples, the child was so successful that the parent became richer as a result. So the parent's estate does count. Meanwhile, another company might fail, leaving the estate below the threshold despite a great deal of parental support. And those aren't even fiddles. Those children started real companies and offered their parents real investment opportunities. A family that wants to do so can do a lot more with arrangements. Of course, the IRS may be looking for some of them. The point being that the estate might be more than $11 million earlier, but the parents can find ways to reduce it below the inheritance tax exemption by the time that they die.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "127a6a24cda39e7ef42bb5093636183c",
"text": "Yes. If the deceased owned the policy, the proceeds are considered part of the estate. In the specific case where the estate is worth (this year 2011) more than $5M, there may be estate taxes due and the insurance would be prorated to pay its portion of that estate tax bill. Keep in mind, the estate tax itself is subject to change. I recall when it was a simple $1M exemption, and if I had a $1M policy and just say $100K in assets, there would have been tax due on the $100K. In general, if there's any concern that one's estate would have the potential to owe estate tax, it's best to have the insurance owned by the beneficiary and gift them the premium cost each year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "18d1512abda4de57076a40fc825450fd",
"text": "You bring up a valid concern. IRAs are good retirement instruments as long as the rules don't change. History has shown that governments can change the rules regarding retirement accounts. As long as you have some of your retirement assets outside of an IRA I think IRAs are good ways to save for retirement. It's not possible to withdraw the money before retirement without penalty. Also, you will be penalized if you do not withdraw enough when you do retire.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
783e4add320625219c451c000df70235
|
Are long-term bonds risky assets?
|
[
{
"docid": "8d9ab81d5f86195c4cce1c5fd44ed92f",
"text": "Bonds have multiple points of risk: This is part of the time value of money chapter in any finance course. Disclaimer - Duff's answer popped up as I was still doing the bond calculations. Similar to mine but less nerdy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "9029326b9e5b19d848a42a55f34439f4",
"text": "AAA bonds are safe, as far as the principal goes. If you buy long term bonds today (at very low rates) and the interest rate goes up to 10% in 5 years, the current value of the bonds will decrease. But if you hold the bonds till maturity, you will almost certainly (barring MBS scenarios) get the expected principal and interest on the bonds. If you decide to sell a long-term bond before it matures, it will probably be worth less than you paid for it if interest rates have risen since you bought it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a4d404b665c8b0e41c2f6c8b514fbc9a",
"text": "\"In truth there is no such thing as a risk-free asset. That is why your textbook feels the need to add the qualifier \"\"for practical purposes,\"\" meaning that the risk of a money market account is so much lower than virtually any other asset class that it can reasonably be approximated as risk free. The main risk of any bond, short-term or long-term, is that its price may change before the maturity date. This could happen for one of many reasons, such as interest rate changes, creditworthiness, market risk tolerance, and so on. Thus you may lose money if you need to redeem your investment ahead of the scheduled maturity.\"",
"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": "67a8f8a83db55a5a110890deeebbdcf3",
"text": "\"You have a high risk tolerance? Then learn about exchange traded options, and futures. Or the variety of markets that governments have decided that people without high income are too stupid to invest in, not even kidding. It appears that a lot of this discussion about your risk profile and investing has centered around \"\"stocks\"\" and \"\"bonds\"\". The similarities being that they are assets issued by collections of humans (corporations), with risk profiles based on the collective decisions of those humans. That doesn't even scratch the surface of the different kinds of asset classes to invest in. Bonds? boring. Bond futures? craziness happening over there :) Also, there are potentially very favorable tax treatments for other asset classes. For instance, you mentioned your desire to hold an investment for over a year for tax reasons... well EVERY FUTURES TRADE gets that kind of tax treatment (partially), whether you hold it for one day or more, see the 60/40 rule. A rebuttal being that some of these asset classes should be left to professionals. Stocks are no different in that regards. Either educate yourself or stick with the managed 401k funds.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7dec0fda4f7e40dbdf163ab81de3f0b1",
"text": "\"Depends on your definition of \"\"secure\"\". The most \"\"secure\"\" investment from a preservation of principal point of view is a non-tradable, general obligation government bond. (Like a US or Canadian savings bond.) Why? There is no interest rate risk -- you can't lose money. The downside is that the rate is not so good. If you want returns and a reasonably high level of security, you need a diversified portfolio.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "488a2e2da0765eb148803ded8cdeccfb",
"text": "Like @littleadv, I don't consider a mortgage on a primary residence to be a low-risk investment. It is an asset, but one that can be rather illiquid, depending on the nature of the real estate market in your area. There are enough additional costs associated with home-ownership (down-payment, insurance, repairs) relative to more traditional investments to argue against a primary residence being an investment. Your question didn't indicate when and where you bought your home, the type of home (single-family, townhouse, or condo) the nature of your mortgage (fixed-rate or adjustable rate), or your interest rate, but since you're in your mid-20s, I'm guessing you bought after the crash. If that's the case, your odds of making a profit if/when you sell your home are higher than they would be if you bought in the 2006/2007 time-frame. This is no guarantee of course. Given the amount of housing stock still available, housing prices could still fall further. While it is possible to lose money in all sorts of investments, the illiquid nature of real estate makes it a lot more difficult to limit your losses by selling. If preserving principal is your objective, money market funds and treasury inflation protected securities are better choices than your home. The diversification your financial advisor is suggesting is a way to manage risk. Not all investments perform the same way in a given economic climate. When stocks increase in value, bonds tend to decrease (and vice versa). Too much money in a single investment means you could be wiped out in a downturn.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "95c440a3ea760230e65be9f6b8d00d70",
"text": "\"In general, yes. If interest rates go higher, then any existing fixed-rate bonds - and hence ETFs holding those bonds - become less valuable. The further each bond is from maturity, the larger the impact. As you suggest, once the bonds do mature, the fund can replace them at a market price, so the effect tails off. The bond market has a concept known as \"\"duration\"\" that helps reason about this effect. Roughly, it measures the average time from now to each payout of the bond, weighted by the payout. The longer the duration, the more the price will change for a given change in interest rates. The concept is just an approximation, and there are various slightly different ways of calculating it; but very roughly the price of a bond will reduce by a percentage equal to the duration times the increase in interest rates. So a bond with a duration of 5 years will lose 5% of its value for a 1% rise in interest rates (and of course vice-versa). For your second question, it really depends on what you're trying to achieve by diversifying - this might be best as a different question that gives more detail, as it's not very related to your first question. Short-term bonds are less risky. But both will lose value if the underlying company is in trouble. Gilts (government bonds) are less risky than corporate bonds.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1f844c3721d14b0eb0bbbb2963e0852d",
"text": "I researched quite a bit around this topic, and it seems that this is indeed false. Long ter asset growth does not converge to the compound interest rate of expected return. While it is true that standard deviations of annualized return decrease over time, because the asset value itself changes over time, the standard deviations of the total return actually increases. Thus, it is wrong to say that you can take increased risk because you have a longer time horizon. Source",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "f6a4b614e25fe764d2a329c2265444da",
"text": "\"Those who say a person should invest in riskier assets when young are those who equate higher returns with higher risk. I would argue that any investment you do not understand is risky and allows you to lose money at a more rapid rate than someone who understands the investment. The way to reduce risk is to learn about what you want to invest in before you invest in it. Learning afterward can be a very expensive proposition, possibly costing you your retirement. Warren Buffet told the story on Bloomberg Radio in late 2013 of how he read everything in his local library on investing as a teenager and when his family moved to Washington he realized he had the entire Library of Congress at his disposal. One of Mr. Buffett's famous quotes when asked why he doesn't invest in the tech sector was: \"\"I don't invest in what I do not understand.\"\". There are several major asset classes: Paper (stocks, bonds, mutual funds, currency), Commodities (silver, gold, oil), Businesses (creation, purchase or partnership as opposed to common stock ownership) and Real Estate (rental properties, flips, land development). Pick one that interests you and learn everything about it that you can before investing. This will allow you to minimize and mitigate risks while increasing the rewards.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "26319fad3c7c2643b6c4d66d4084a2d5",
"text": "1) The risks are that you investing in financial markets and therefore should be prepared for volatility in the value of your holdings. 2) You should only ever invest in financial markets with capital that you can reasonably afford to put aside and not touch for 5-10 years (as an investor not a trader). Even then you should be prepared to write this capital off completely. No one can offer you a guarantee of what will happen in the future, only speculation from what has happened in the past. 3) Don't invest. It is simple. Keep your money in cash. However this is not without its risks. Interest rates rarely keep up with inflation so the spending power of cash investments quickly diminishes in real terms over time. So what to do? Extended your time horizon as you have mentioned to say 30 years, reinvest all dividends as these have been proven to make up the bulk of long term returns and drip feed your money into these markets over time. This will benefit you from what is known in as 'dollar cost averaging' and will negate the need for you to time the market.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c372d42ad4cbdb97645e1f11384d9124",
"text": "\"Some investors worry about interest rate risk because they Additional reason is margin trading which is borrowing money to invest in capital markets. Since margin trading includes minimum margin requirements and maintenance margin to protect lender \"\"such as a broker\"\" , a decrease in the value of bonds might trigger a threat of a margin call There are other reasons why investors care about interest rate risk such as spread trade investors who benefit from difference in short term/ long term interest rates. Such investors borrow short term loans -which enables them to pay low interest- and lend long term loans - which enables them to gain high interest-. Any disturbance between the interest rate spread between short term and long term bonds might affect investor's profit and might even lead to losses. In summary , it all depends on you investment objective and financial condition. You should consult with your financial adviser to help plan for your financial goals.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1b807557ba137c1143736dc37981715b",
"text": "I think your premise is slightly flawed. Every investment can add or reduce risk, depending on how it's used. If your ordering above is intended to represent the probability you will lose your principal, then it's roughly right, with caveats. If you buy a long-term government bond and interest rates increase while you're holding it, its value will decrease on the secondary markets. If you need/want to sell it before maturity, you may not recover your principal, and if you hold it, you will probably be subject to erosion of value due to inflation (inflation and interest rates are correlated). Over the short-term, the stock market can be very volatile, and you can suffer large paper losses. But over the long-term (decades), the stock market has beaten inflation. But this is true in aggregate, so, if you want to decrease equity risk, you need to invest in a very diversified portfolio (index mutual funds) and hold the portfolio for a long time. With a strategy like this, the stock market is not that risky over time. Derivatives, if used for their original purpose, can actually reduce volatility (and therefore risk) by reducing both the upside and downside of your other investments. For example, if you sell covered calls on your equity investments, you get an income stream as long as the underlying equities have a value that stays below the strike price. The cost to you is that you are forced to sell the equity at the strike price if its value increases above that. The person on the other side of that transaction loses the price of the call if the equity price doesn't go up, but gets a benefit if it does. In the commodity markets, Southwest Airlines used derivatives (options to buy at a fixed price in the future) on fuel to hedge against increases in fuel prices for years. This way, they added predictability to their cost structure and were able to beat the competition when fuel prices rose. Even had fuel prices dropped to zero, their exposure was limited to the pre-negotiated price of the fuel, which they'd already planned for. On the other hand, if you start doing things like selling uncovered calls, you expose yourself to potentially infinite losses, since there are no caps on how high the price of a stock can go. So it's not possible to say that derivatives as a class of investment are risky per se, because they can be used to reduce risk. I would take hedge funds, as a class, out of your list. You can't generally invest in those unless you have quite a lot of money, and they use strategies that vary widely, many of which are quite risky.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c7b99052068ae7cb6abb83d7591cd932",
"text": "Theoretically there is limited demand for risky investments, so higher-risk asset classes should outperform lower-risk asset classes over sufficiently long time periods. In practice, I believe this is true, but it could be several decades before a risky portfolio starts to outperform a more conservative one. Stocks are considered more risky than most assets. Small-cap stocks and emerging market stocks are particularly high-risk. I would consider low-fee ETFs in these areas, like VB or VWO. If you want to seek out the absolute riskiest investments, you could pick individual stocks of companies in dire financial situations, as Bank of America was a couple years ago. Most importantly, if you don't expect to need the money soon, I would maximize your contribution to tax-advantaged accounts since they will grow exponentially faster than taxable accounts. Over 50 years, a 401(k) or IRA will generally grow at least 50% more than a taxable account, maybe more depending on the tax-efficiency of your investments. Try to contribute the maximum ($17,500 for most people in 2014) if you can. If you can save more than that, I'd suggest contributing a Roth 401k rather than a traditional 401(k) - since Roth contributions are post-tax, the effective contribution limit is higher. Also contribute to a Roth IRA (up to $5,500 in 2014), using a backdoor Roth if necessary.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5ae24f7eb0621e7c87284229bddaaa9f",
"text": "The Barclay's 20+ Year Treasury Bond inception date was July 21, 2002. You aren't going to find treasury bond information going back to 1900 because Treasury Bills have only been issued since 1929. The U.S. Department of the Treasury will give you data back to 1990. There's a good article in the Globe and Mail which covers why you may want to buy bonds as part of your portfolio. The key is diversification. Historically, stocks have done better than bonds long-term, but when stocks fall, bonds tend to (though do not always) go up. If you are investing for 30 years, the risk of putting money into bonds is that you will not make as much money as if you had put the money into stocks. Historically (in the US or Canada), you'd have seen positive returns, just not as high as investing in the stock market. There are many investment strategies. I live in Canada and personally favour the one described in the Canadian Couch Potato, a passive index investment strategy where I invest my money in Canadian, U.S. and International equity (stock market mutual funds) and also in a Canadian bond fund. There are, of course, plenty of people who will tell you to take a radically different strategy with your investments.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5d779cf9b522dace5934e0ee2a3dc591",
"text": "\"These days almost all risky assets move together, so the most difficult criterion to match from your 4 will be \"\"not strongly correlated to the U.S. economy.\"\" However, depending on how you define \"\"strongly,\"\" you may want to consider the following: Be careful, you are sort of asking for the impossible here, so these will all be caveat emptor type assets. EDIT: A recent WSJ article talks about what some professional investors are doing to find uncorrelated bets. Alfredo Viegas, an emerging-markets strategist for boutique brokerage Knight Capital Group, is encouraging clients to bet against Israeli bonds. His theory: Investors are so focused on Europe that they are misjudging risks in the Middle East, such as a flare-up in relations between Israel and Iran, or greater conflict in Egypt and Syria. Once they wake up to those risks, Israeli bonds are likely to tumble, Mr. Viegas reasons. In the meantime, the investment isn't likely to be pushed one way or another by the European crisis, he says.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7393244d6071c4d4a0a7a815cb8176b2",
"text": "\"Bonds still definitely have a place in many passive portfolios. While it is true that interest rates have been unusually low, yields on reasonable passive bond exposures are still around 2-4%. This is significantly better than both recent past inflation and expected inflation both of which are near zero. This is reasonable if not great return, but Bonds continue to have other nice properties like relatively low risk and diversification of stock portfolios (the \"\"offset[ing] losses\"\" you mention in the OP). So to say that bonds are \"\"no longer a good idea\"\" is certainly not correct. One could say bonds may no longer be a good idea for some people that have a particularly high risk tolerance and very high return requirements. However, to some extent, that has always been true. It is worth remembering also that there is some compelling evidence that global growth is starting to broadly slow down and many people believe that future stock returns and, in general, returns on all investments will be lower. This is much much harder to estimate than bond returns though. Depending on who you believe, bond returns may actually look relatively better than the have in the past. Edit in response to comment: Corporate bond correlation with stocks is positive but generally not very strong (except for high-yield junk bonds) so while they don't offset stock volatility (negative correlation) they do help diversify a stock portfolio. Government bonds have essentially zero correlation so they don't really offset volatility as much as just not add any. Negative correlation assets are generally called insurance and you tend to have to pay for them. So there is no free lunch here. Assets that reduce risk cost money, assets that add little risk give less return and assets that are more risky tend to give more return in the long run but you can feel the pain. The mix that is right for you depends on a lot of things, but for many people that mix involves some corporate and government bonds.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a3a90085114bcdc92d97809050fef1f2",
"text": "I'm going to diverge from most of the opinions expressed here. It is common for financial advisors to assume that your portfolio should become less risky as you get older. Explanations for this involve hand-waving and saying that you can afford to lose money when young because you have time to make up for it later. However, the idea that portfolios should become less risky as you get older is not well-grounded in finance theory. According to finance theory, regardless of your age and wealth, returns are desirable and risk is undesirable. Your risk aversion is the only factor that should decide how much risk you put in your portfolio. Do people become more risk averse as they get older? Sometimes. Not always. In fact, there are theoretical reasons why people might want more aggressive portfolios as they age. For example: As people become wealthier they generally become less risk averse. Young people are not normally very wealthy. When you are young, most of your wealth is tied up in the value of your human capital. This wealth shifts into your portfolio as you age. Depending on your field, human capital can be extremely risky--much riskier than the market. Therefore to maintain anything like a constant risk profile over your life, you may want very safe investments when young. You mention being a hedge fund manager. If we enter a recession, your human capital will take a huge hit because you will have a hard time raising money or getting/keeping a job. No one will value your skills and your future career prospects will fall. You will not want the double whammy of large losses in your portfolio. Hedge fund managers are clear examples of people who will want a very safe personal portfolio during their early working years and may be willing to invest very aggressively in their later working and early retirement years. In short, the received wisdom that portfolios should start out risky and get safer as we age is not always, and perhaps not even usually, true. A better guide to how much risk you should have in your portfolio is how you respond to questions that directly measure your risk aversion. This questions ask things like how much you would pay to avoid the possibility of a 20% loss in your portfolio with a certain probability.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
8f4ca521056060549adc9a7f2233c9a5
|
Stocks and bonds have yields, but what is a yield?
|
[
{
"docid": "564005dc162c72c98e107c637b036256",
"text": "For bonds bought at par (the face value of the bond, like buying a CD for $1000) the payment it makes is the same as yield. You pay $1000 and get say, $40 per year or 4%. If you buy it for more or less than that $1000, say $900, there's some math (not for me, I use a finance calculator) to tell you your return taking the growth to maturity into account, i.e. the extra $100 you get when you get the full $1000 back. Obviously, for bonds, you care about whether the comp[any or municipality will pay you back at all, and then you care about how much you'll make when then do. In that order. For stocks, the picture is abit different as some companies give no dividend but reinvest all profits, think Berkshire Hathaway. On the other hand, many people believe that the dividend is important, and choose to buy stocks that start with a nice yield, a $30 stock with a $1/yr dividend is 3.3% yield. Sounds like not much, but over time you expect the company to grow, increase in value and increase its dividend. 10 years hence you may have a $40 stock and the dividend has risen to $1.33. Now it's 4.4% of the original investment, and you sit on that gain as well.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "93bcdd1de92eb70460547ebbf25b8db0",
"text": "Yield can be thought of as the interest rate you would receive from that investment in the form of a dividend for stocks or interest payments on a bond. The yield takes into account the anticipated amount to be received per share/unit per year and the current price of the investment. Of course, the yield is not a guaranteed return like a savings account. If the investment yield is 4% when you buy, it can drop in value such that you actually lose money during your hold period, despite receiving income from the dividend or interest payments.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "0c6d9c87fc60a8c5f72ee0140b593d35",
"text": "\"A stock, at its most basic, is worth exactly what someone else will pay to buy it right now (or in the near future), just like anything else of value. However, what someone's willing to pay for it is typically based on what the person can get from it. There are a couple of ways to value a stock. The first way is on expected earnings per share, most of would normally (but not always) be paid in dividends. This is a metric that can be calculated based on the most recently reported earnings, and can be estimated based on news about the company or the industry its in (or those of suppliers, likely buyers, etc) to predict future earnings. Let's say the stock price is exactly $100 right now, and you buy one share. In one quarter, the company is expected to pay out $2 per share in dividends. That is a 2% ROI realized in 3 months. If you took that $2 and blew it on... coffee, maybe, or you stuffed it in your mattress, you'd realize a total gain of $8 in one year, or in ROI terms an annual rate of 8%. However, if you reinvested the money, you'd be making money on that money, and would have a little more. You can calculate the exact percentage using the \"\"future value\"\" formula. Conversely, if you wanted to know what you should pay, given this level of earnings per share, to realize a given rate of return, you can use the \"\"present value\"\" formula. If you wanted a 9% return on your money, you'd pay less for the stock than its current value, all other things being equal. Vice-versa if you were happy with a lesser rate of return. The current rate of return based on stock price and current earnings is what the market as a whole is willing to tolerate. This is how bonds are valued, based on a desired rate of return by the market, and it also works for stocks, with the caveat that the dividends, and what you'll get back at the \"\"end\"\", are no longer constant as they are with a bond. Now, in your case, the company doesn't pay dividends. Ever. It simply retains all the earnings it's ever made, reinvesting them into doing new things or more things. By the above method, the rate of return from dividends alone is zero, and so the future value of your investment is whatever you paid for it. People don't like it when the best case for their money is that it just sits there. However, there's another way to think of the stock's value, which is it's more core definition; a share of the company itself. If the company is profitable, and keeps all this profit, then a share of the company equals, in part, a share of that retained earnings. This is very simplistic, but if the company's assets are worth 1 billion dollars, and it has one hundred million shares of stock, each share of stock is worth $10, because that's the value of that fraction of the company as divided up among all outstanding shares. If the company then reports earnings of $100 million, the value of the company is now 1.1 billion, and its stock should go up to $11 per share, because that's the new value of one ten-millionth of the company's value. Your ROI on this stock is $1, in whatever time period the reporting happens (typically quarterly, giving this stock a roughly 4% APY). This is a totally valid way to value stocks and to shop for them; it's very similar to how commodities, for instance gold, are bought and sold. Gold never pays you dividends. Doesn't give you voting rights either. Its value at any given time is solely what someone else will pay to have it. That's just fine with a lot of people right now; gold's currently trading at around $1,700 an ounce, and it's been the biggest moneymaker in our economy since the bottom fell out of the housing market (if you'd bought gold in 2008, you would have more than doubled your money in 4 years; I challenge you to find anything else that's done nearly as well over the same time). In reality, a combination of both of these valuation methods are used to value stocks. If a stock pays dividends, then each person gets money now, but because there's less retained earnings and thus less change in the total asset value of the company, the actual share price doesn't move (much). If a stock doesn't pay dividends, then people only get money when they cash out the actual stock, but if the company is profitable (Apple, BH, etc) then one share should grow in value as the value of that small fraction of the company continues to grow. Both of these are sources of ROI, and both are seen in a company that will both retain some earnings and pay out dividends on the rest.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "00a21e3fbbce434ea8b663a7461818a9",
"text": "Who sets the required yield? Required yield by definition something that the investors want. Is It achieved through negotiation or is it more of “I am willing to loan out X at a interest rate of Z per year or X/2 semiannual rate”",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4049129d009f1eb1582c6b32f2e0fb45",
"text": "\"If you mean, If I invest, say, $1000 in a stock that is growing at 5% per year, versus investing $1000 in an account that pays compound interest of 5% per year, how does the amount I have after 5 years compare? Then the answer is, They would be exactly the same. As Kent Anderson says, \"\"compound interest\"\" simply means that as you accumulate interest, that for the next interest cycle, the amount that they pay interest on is based on the previous cycle balance PLUS the interest. For example, suppose you invest $1000 at 5% interest compounded annually. After one year you get 5% of $1000, or $50. You now have $1050. At the end of the second year, you get 5% of $1050 -- not 5% of the original $1000 -- or $52.50, so you now have $1102.50. Etc. Stocks tend to grow in the same way. But here's the big difference: If you get an interest-bearing account, the bank or investment company guarantees the interest rate. Unless they go bankrupt, you WILL get that percentage interest. But there is absolutely no guarantee when you buy stock. It may go up 5% this year, up 4% next year, and down 3% the year after. The company makes no promises about how much growth the stock will show. It may show a loss. It all depends on how well the company does.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b692f4e4eeeb8f983144d9d77026b05b",
"text": "\"Like all financial investments, the value of a bond is the present value of expected future cash flows. The Yield to Maturity is the annualized return you get on your initial investment, which is equivalent to the discount rate you'd use to discount future cash flows. So if you discount all future cashflows at 6% annually*, you can calculate the price of the bond: So the price of a $1,000 bond (which is how bond prices are typically quoted) would be $1,097.12. The current yield is just the current coupon payment divided by the current price, which is 70/1,097.12 or 6.38% Question 3 makes no sense, since the yield to maturity would be the same if you bought the bond at market price Question 4 talks about a \"\"sale\"\" date which makes me think that it assumes you sold the bond on the coupon date, but you'd have to know the sale price to calculate the rate of return.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "138dffcbb14d51c140e77c76bd629783",
"text": "The 1 month and 1 year columns show the percentage change over that period. Coupon (coupon rate) is the amount of interest paid on the bond each period (as specified on the coupon itself. Price is the normalised price of the bond; the price of taking a position of $100 worth of the principal in the bond. Yield is the interest rate that you would receive by buying at that price (this is the inverse of the price). The time is the time of the quote presented.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8eb15fd9cad42cbd62a7309b9306c4e1",
"text": "But the notes are always called at par, no? So you have a fixed yield which depends on the coupon and price you bought it at. I still don't see how the company doing better than expected changes the yield on your investment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e1153acc2c4b339189bdcf1f88d1b7e5",
"text": "When you buy a bond - you're giving a loan to the issuer. The interest rate on the bond is the interest rate on the loan. Usually (and this is also the case with the treasury bonds), the rate is fixed for the term of the loan. Thus, if the market rate for similar loans a year later is higher, the rate for the loan you gave - remains the same.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d5d4da8a355958c565267ad5a2005aa7",
"text": "\"Sure, stocks don't pay interest. I just looked up the word \"\"compound\"\" in a couple of dictionaries and the relevant definition in all of them just mentioned interest and not growth in the value of stock. So it may be technically inaccurate to talk about \"\"compound growth\"\" of a stock. I'll yield to someone more knowledgeable about the technical language of finance to answer that part. But regardless of whether the word strictly applies, the concept certainly does. Suppose you put $1000 into a mutual fund and the fund grows by 10%. You now have $1100. The next year the fund grows by 15%. So you gain 15% of what? Of your original $1000? No, of your present balance, $1100. The effect is the same as compound interest. There is the fundamental difference that interest is normally a fixed rate: you get such-and-such percent a year as spelled out in a contract. But change in the value of a stock depends on many factors, none of them guaranteed.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7be43a53ea4e13f8bec3d739b75d6b2e",
"text": "A bond has a duration that can be easily calculated. It's the time weighted average of all the payments you'll receive and helpful to understand the effect a change in rates will have on that instrument. The duration of a stock, on the other hand, is a forced construct to then use in other equations to help calculate, say, the summation of a dividend stream. I can calculate the duration of a bond and come up with an answer that's not up for discussion or dispute. The duration of a stock, on the other hand, isn't such a number. Will J&J last 50 more years? Will Apple? Who knows?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96cec02c99cd390afdf4af6154c169c1",
"text": "\"So after you've learned about bonds, you might find yourself learning about interest rates. You might, in fact, discover that there's no such thing as a \"\"correct\"\" interest rate, or even a true \"\"market\"\" interest rate. PS We already had the housing bubble. It has come, and gone. What *new* bubble are you referring to?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fb13206ea224b7582cf0d78ef5c3c875",
"text": "That's not what he's saying at all. Basically most of his argument (4 of 6 points) is the connection between bond prices and equity prices. It's not particularly interesting but it definitely doesn't always apply either. If bond yields fall, then so too should equity earnings yields if spreads remain relatively constant, i.e. higher equity prices. Additionally, if bond yields are low, then any future equity growth gets capitalized at a much higher value because discount rates are much lower. Again, not particularly insightful. The two interesting comments were about oil and cash as a % of assets at financial institutions. Both of these are likely linked to falling or low rates above, because banks can't invest profitably at low rates and hence hold cash and equivalents instead, and oil prices are more likely to fall in a low or falling inflation environment (implied by the low rates or Fed tightening). Really, I think hes's saying something more obvious but not necessarily trivial, which is if one asset class goes up, so too is another related one.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bff253c2835df67c70228c10c88ea019",
"text": "\"It is important to distinguish between cause and effect as well as the supply (saving) versus demand (borrowing) side of money to understand the relationship between interest rates, bond yields, and inflation. What is mean by \"\"interest rates\"\" is usually based on the officially published rates determined by the central bank and is referenced to the overnight lending rate for meeting reserve requirements. In practice, what the means is, (for example) in the United States the Federal Reserve will have periodic meetings to determine whether to leave this rate alone or to raise or lower the rate. The new rate is generally determined by their assessment of current and forecast national and global economic conditions and factors in the votes of the various Regional Federal Reserve Presidents. If the Fed anticipates economic weakness they will tend to lower and keep rates lower, while when the economy seems to be overheated the tendency will be to raise rates. Bond yields are also based on the expectation of future economic conditions, but as determined by market participants. At times the market will actually \"\"lead\"\" the Fed in bidding bond prices up or down, while at other times it will react after the Fed does. However, ignoring the varying time lag the two generally will track each other because they are really the same thing. The only difference is the participants which are collectively determining what the rates/yields are. The inverse relationship between interest rates and inflation is the main reason for fluctuating rates in the first place. The Fed will tend to raise rates to try to slow inflation, and lower rates when it feels inflation is too low and economic growth should be stimulated. Likewise, when the economy is doing poorly there is both little inflationary pressure (driving interest rates down both in terms of what savers can accept to keep ahead of inflation and at) and depressed levels of borrowing (reduced demand for money, driving down rates to try to balance supply and demand), and the opposite is true when the economy is booming. Bond yields are thus positively correlated to inflation because during periods of high inflation savers won't want to invest in bonds that don't provide them with an acceptable inflation adjusted yield. But high interest rates tend to have the effect or reining in inflation because it gets more costly for borrowers and thus puts a damper on new economic activity. So to summarize,\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "59f54cbaa67b1798e28fbcb031da4510",
"text": "\"The term \"\"stock\"\" here refers to a static number as contrasted to flows, e.g. population vs. population growth. Stock, in this context, is not at all related to an equity instrument. Yes, annual refinance costs, interest rate payments etc. are what we should be looking at when assessing debt burden. Those are flows. That was my point when cautioning against naive debt GDP comparisons. Also, keep in mind that by borrowing in it's sovereign currency, the US has an enormous amount of monetary tools to handle the debt if it ever became a problem. Greece, by comparison, is at the mercy of the ECB, so they only have fiscal levers to pull. The interest expense does not strike me as especially concerning, but I'd be happy to verify BIS or IMF reports if you would like.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2674e3dbb422406c13629b52b2e65c27",
"text": "This is a very common misconception. I've been studying equities and credits for a while now, and the simplest way to explain the difference is this: - Credit is about stable cash flows. Your investment in a bond has almost (read: almost) nothing to do with growth rate. It has everything to do with how stable the cash flows are and interest coverage. - Equity is about growth. No wonder companies with highly irregular cash flows (e.g., every single young tech company in the history of tech companies) can have the most in-demand equity while few bond investors would touch them with a ten foot pole.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc90066c325b79cf36693a24a8c901bf",
"text": "Dividend prices are per share, so the amount that you get for a dividend is determined by the number of shares that you own and the amount of the dividend per share. That's all. People like to look at dividend yield because it lets them compare different investments; that's done by dividing the dividend by the value of the stock, however determined. That's the percentage that the question mentions. A dividend of $1 per share when the share price is $10 gives a 10% dividend yield. A dividend of $2 per share when the share price is $40 gives a 5% dividend yield. If you're choosing an investment, the dividend yield gives you more information than the amount of the dividend.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
fd701532cbea38c484eb3986f21a6778
|
Which tax year does a bonus fall under?
|
[
{
"docid": "5ad774d144f61833b720a43b509ca992",
"text": "From HMRC Note that the rule is when a person becomes entitled to payment of earnings. This is not necessarily the same as the date on which an employee acquires a right to be paid. For example, an employee's terms of service may provide for the employee to receive a bonus for the year to 31 December 2004, payable on 30 June 2005 if the employee is still in the service of the employer on 31 December 2004. If the condition is satisfied the employee becomes entitled to a payment on 31 December 2004 but is only entitled to payment of it on 30 June 2005. So PAYE applies to it on 30 June 2005 and it is assessable for 2005/06. The date that matters is the date the employee is entitled to be paid the bonus. But why are you worried about paying tax. That is your employer's responsibility and they will do it for you. Ask you firm's finance department also for further clarification. HMRC are not an organization to mess with, they will tie up your life in knots.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "86645797bf5db511695605654ac08d4b",
"text": "\"Assuming U.S. law, there are \"\"safe harbor\"\" provisions for exactly this kind of situation. There are several possibilities, but the most likely one is that if your withholding and estimated tax payments for 2016 totaled at least as much as your tax bill for 2015 there's no penalty. For the full rules, see IRS Publication 17.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc9c200f6660dd9981ab887eb936190c",
"text": "I think the IRS doc you want is http://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2010_publink100010601 I believe the answers are:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2eb5e5bdd4912cf03a38d7a6987476bd",
"text": "\"Your real question, \"\"why is this not discussed more?\"\" is intriguing. I think the media are doing a better job bringing these things into the topics they like to ponder, just not enough, yet. You actually produced the answer to How are long-term capital gains taxed if the gain pushes income into a new tax bracket? so you understand how it works. I am a fan of bracket topping. e.g. A young couple should try to top off their 15% bracket by staying with Roth but then using pretax IRA/401(k) to not creep into 25% bracket. For this discussion, 2013 numbers, a blank return (i.e. no schedule A, no other income) shows a couple with a gross $92,500 being at the 15%/25% line. It happens that $20K is exactly the sum of their standard deduction, and 2 exemptions. The last clean Distribution of Income Data is from 2006, but since wages haven't exploded and inflation has been low, it's fair to say that from the $92,000 representing the top 20% of earners, it won't have many more than top 25% today. So, yes, this is a great opportunity for most people. Any married couple with under that $92,500 figure can use this strategy to exploit your observation, and step up their basis each year. To littleadv objection - I imagine an older couple grossing $75K, by selling stock with $10K in LT gains just getting rid of the potential 15% bill at retirement. No trading cost if a mutual fund, just $20 or so if stocks. The more important point, not yet mentioned - even in a low cost 401(k), a lifetime of savings results in all gains being turned in ordinary income. And the case is strong for 'deposit to the match but no no more' as this strategy would let 2/3 of us pay zero on those gains. (To try to address the rest of your questions a bit - the strategy applies to a small sliver of people. 25% have income too high, the bottom 50% or so, have virtually no savings. Much of the 25% that remain have savings in tax sheltered accounts. With the 2013 401(k) limit of $17,500, a 40 year old couple can save $35,000. This easily suck in most of one's long term retirement savings. We can discuss demographics all day, but I think this addresses your question.) If you add any comments, I'll probably address them via edits, avoiding a long dialog below.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "83b0ba3e5841488f99a591f1984b9dc7",
"text": "\"Your question does not say this explicitly, but I assume that you were once a W-2 employee. Each paycheck a certain amount was withheld from your check to pay income, social security, and medicare taxes. Just because you did not receive that amount of money earned does not mean it was immediately sent to the IRS. While I am not all that savvy on payroll procedures, I recall an article that indicated some companies only send in withheld taxes every quarter, much like you are doing now. They get a short term interest free loan. For example taxes withheld by a w-2 employee in the later months of the year may not be provided to the IRS until 15 January of the next year. You are correct in assuming that if you make 100K as a W-2 you will probably pay less in taxes than someone who is 100K self employed with 5K in expenses. However there are many factors. Provided you properly fill out a 1040ES, and pay the correct amount of quarterly payments, you will almost never owe taxes. In fact my experience has been the forms will probably allow you to receive a refund. Tax laws can change and one thing the form did not include last year was the .9% Medicare surcharge for high income earners catching some by surprise. As far as what you pay into is indicative of the games the politicians play. It all just goes into a big old bucket of money, and more is spent by congress than what is in the bucket. The notion of a \"\"social security lockbox\"\" is pure politics/fantasy as well as the notion of medicare and social security taxes. The latter were created to make the actual income tax rate more palatable. I'd recommend getting your taxes done as early as possible come 1 January 2017. While you may not have all the needed info, you could firm up an estimate by 15 Jan and modify the amount for your last estimated payment. Complete the taxes when all stuff comes in and even if you owe an amount you have time to save for anything additional. Keep in mind, between 1 Jan 17 and 15 Apr 17 you will earn and presumably save money to use towards taxes. You can always \"\"rob\"\" from that money to pay any owed tax for 2016 and make it up later. All that is to say you will be golden because you are showing concern and planning. When you hear horror stories of IRS dealings it is most often that people spent the money that should have been sent to the IRS.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "258557037cf6aec22906ee12d12e60cf",
"text": "If you had a retirement plan at any time in 2013 you are considered covered by an plan. Are You Covered by an Employer's Retirement Plan? You’re covered by an employer retirement plan for a tax year if your employer (or your spouse’s employer) has a: Defined contribution plan (profit-sharing, 401(k), stock bonus and money purchase pension plan) and any contributions or forfeitures were allocated to your account for the plan year ending with or within the tax year; IRA-based plan (SEP, SARSEP or SIMPLE IRA plan) and you had an amount contributed to your IRA for the plan year that ends with or within the tax year; or Defined benefit plan (pension plan that pays a retirement benefit spelled out in the plan) and you are eligible to participate for the plan year ending with or within the tax year. Box 13 on the Form W-2 you receive from your employer should contain a check in the “Retirement plan” box if you are covered. If you are still not certain, check with your (or your spouse’s) employer. The limits on the amount you can deduct don’t affect the amount you can contribute. However, you can never deduct more than you actually contribute. Additional Resources: Publication 590, Individual Retirement Arrangements (IRAs)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3aad9085a029b3c822a6c7058be0fc3",
"text": "There is one edge case that may be of value to you. If you declare a bonus (probably to yourself given a very small company) you can deduct it from your year and then have up to 6 months to actually write the cheque and give it to the person. Say your year end for the corporation is July 31st. You could declare the bonus July 30th and deduct it from that year, lowering your corporate tax. You could then wait until January 30th to actually write the bonus cheque. The person would then have that taxable income in a later calendar year, deferring paying the tax. Depending on the size of the bonus, this would possibly matter, although if you did large bonuses every year it would only matter the first time. The other issue is the availability of your bookkeeper or accountant. They are sometimes very busy during personal income tax season. They often like a vacation immediately after that. They may go away in the summer when their kids are out of school. The nice thing about a July 31st year end is that you can probably count on a quick turnaround from your accountant in September. The possible downside is that you won't enjoy reconciling your credit card statements and the like in August as part of getting your year end stuff together. You can avoid that by keeping your books in a decent shape all the time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "42491be125040c117b0ed28d837d1b74",
"text": "Form 1099-misc reports PAYMENTS, not earnings. This does not imply the EARNINGS are not taxable in the year they were earned.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c346c7abac1a0d675ef6fca16221815b",
"text": "In addition to the prior answer, talking from experience, you get into trouble if you surpass the contribution limit and your employer continues to deposit money above the IRS maximum allowed. When that happens, you have until April to take out the excess contribution and earned interest on that chunk of money and included in your tax return or else you get a steep tax penalty in addition to being double taxed ( for the current and next tax year). Also from experience, payroll departments will most likely get this wrong and it will end up in a compliance mess with you picking up the tab on your tax bill. Don't let it happen!!!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "30d26506281284eab2c895db7afc9247",
"text": "The IRA contribution for the year are allowed until the tax day of that year. I.e.: you can contribute for 2015 until April 15th, 2016 (or whatever the first business day is after that, if the 15th is a holiday). You'll have to explicitly designate your contribution for 2015, since some of the IRA providers may automatically designate the current year unless you explicitly say otherwise. If that happens - it will be very hard to fix later, so pay attention when you're making the contribution. You get a couple of things from your IRA provider: Form 5498 - details your contributions for the year, account FMV, and RMD details. You can see the actual form here. You don't always get this form, if you didn't contribute anything and no RMD is required for you. Since the last day to contribute is April 15th, these forms are usually being sent out around mid-May. But you should know how much you've contributed by the tax day without it, obviously, so this is only for the IRS matching and your record-tracking. Form 1099-R includes information about distributions (including withdrawals and roll-overs). You may not get this form if you didn't take any money out of your IRA. These come out around end of January.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9036427a7e173705638693fae915e13e",
"text": "I don't believe there exists a tax-advantage for paying employees a bonus instead of increased salary. It's all expense to the employer, it's all income to you, and it's taxed the same (bonus checks might have more withheld, but your end of year tax burden doesn't change). It does benefit your employer to delay a significant portion of your pay until the end of the year, delaying payment provides buffer in case of delays in getting paid by the client. Your employer could even put the extra money to work earning more money over the year. It would depend on your contract, but are you due your bonus if you were to leave your job before year-end? If not, that's a great reason to delay payment, because it makes you less likely to leave mid-year, and should you not work out they can keep the difference.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc7b333b1d11ea994accd1f8b78a8fdf",
"text": "\"Yes, the penalty is the tax you pay on it again when you withdraw the money. The withdrawal of the excess contribution is taxed as your wages (but no penalty). Excess contribution cannot be added to the basis or considered \"\"after-tax\"\" (hence the double taxation). Note that allowing you to keep the excess contribution in the plan may lead to disqualifying the plan, so it is likely that the plan administrator will force you to remove the excess contribution if they become aware of it. Otherwise you may end up forcing early 401(k) withdrawal on all of your co-workers. More on this IRS web page. And this one.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c3fc3676bcfce9f6180fd4bcae1ef59b",
"text": "Contributions are post-tax, so there's no direct tax benefit to choosing a year. I just made a 2010 contribution today, and the institution's form explicitly asks me if I want it on 2010 or 2011. The primary advantage of backdating like this is being able to contribute 5k more over your lifetime than otherwise possible, under the timing constraints. While there may be a year in the future which you don't contribute the max, contributing now lets you build up earnings tax free. For '10 vs '11, you're probably holding cash so it's not a big deal, but over five years is a long time to hold cash or invest with tax penalty.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca29b83a6547e42e4c143c3bb5a62b26",
"text": "\"In a Traditional IRA contributions are often tax-deductible. For instance, if a taxpayer contributes $4,000 to a traditional IRA and is in the twenty-five percent marginal tax bracket, then a $1,000 benefit ($1,000 reduced tax liability) will be realized for the year. So that's why they tax you as income, because they didn't tax that income before. If a taxpayer expects to be in a lower tax bracket in retirement than during the working years, then this is one advantage for using a Traditional IRA vs a Roth. Distributions are taxed as ordinary income. So it depends on your tax bracket UPDATE FOR COMMENT: Currently you may have heard on the news about \"\"the fiscal cliff\"\" - CNBC at the end of the year. This is due to the fact that the Bush tax-cuts are set to expire and if they expire. Many tax rates will change. But here is the info as of right now: Dividends: From 2003 to 2007, qualified dividends were taxed at 15% or 5% depending on the individual's ordinary income tax bracket, and from 2008 to 2012, the tax rate on qualified dividends was reduced to 0% for taxpayers in the 10% and 15% ordinary income tax brackets. After 2012, dividends will be taxed at the taxpayer's ordinary income tax rate, regardless of his or her tax bracket. - If the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire. - Reference - Wikipedia Capital Gains tax rates can be seen here - the Capital Gains tax rate is relative to your Ordinary Income tax rate For Example: this year long term gains will be 0% if you fall in the 15% ordinary tax bracket. NOTE: These rates can change every year so any future rates might be different from the current year.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ec21364d60e47dc92323262e60451433",
"text": "It's legal. In fact, they are required to do this, assuming you are in fact a HCE (highly compensated employee) to avoid getting in trouble with the IRS. I'm guessing they don't provide documentation for the same reason they don't explain to you explicitly what the income thresholds are for social security taxes, etc - that's a job for your personal accountant. Here's the definition of a HCE: An individual who: Owned more than 5% of the interest in the business at any time during the year or the preceding year, regardless of how much compensation that person earned or received, or For the preceding year, received compensation from the business of more than $115,000 (if the preceding year is 2014; $120,000 if the preceding year is 2015, 2016 or 2017), and, if the employer so chooses, was in the top 20% of employees when ranked by compensation. There are rules the restrict distributions from plans like 401ks. For example, treasury reg 1.401a(4)-5(b)(3) says that a plan cannot make a distribution to a HCE if that payment reduces the asset value of the plan to below 110% of the value of the plan's current liabilities. So, after taking account all distributions to be made to HCEs and the asset value of the plan, everyone likely gets proportionally reduced so that they don't run afoul of this rule. There are workarounds for this. But, these are options that the plan administrators may take, not you. I suppose if you were still employed there and at a high enough level, a company accountant would have discussed these options with you. Note, there's a chance there's some other limitation on HCEs that I'm missing which applies to your specific situation. Your best bet, to understand, is simply ask. Your money is still there, you just can't get it all this year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4fa0bd229711b0f4e8b6eea03667ce6f",
"text": "Overcontributions made after the calendar year are not usually a problem. This is because while contributions made in Jan and Feb can be counted towards the previous year, they do not have to be. This appears to be what has happened in your case. If you had an RRSP limit of $18,000 for 2015, and in Jan 2016 you contributed $22,000 to your RRSP, then it is perfectly legal to claim $18,000 of that in 2015 and $4000 in 2016. The extra $4000 is never counted against your 2015 limit and so is not an overcontribution. If your 2016 limit is going to be less than $4000 then you will eventually have an overcontribution problem in 2016, and if you think that's likely you should sort this out now. But for most people that's pretty unlikely.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
8e8f44621aa40e332c8b95606ce99593
|
Can the U.S. government retroactively tax gains made earlier in the fiscal year?
|
[
{
"docid": "beeb13e4fad464b199373e02a5d674ad",
"text": "\"You're certainly referring to \"\"Ex Post Facto\"\" laws, and while the US is constitutionally prohibited from passing criminal laws that are retroactive, the US Supreme Court has upheld many tax laws that apply tax code changes retroactively. You might ask a similar question on Law.SE for a more thorough treatment of the legalities of congress passing those laws, but I will stick to the personal finance portion of the question. What this means is that you can't expect that the current tax laws will be in force in the future, and your investment/retirement plans should be as flexible as possible. You may wish to have some money in both Roth and traditional 401(k) accounts. You might not want to have millions of dollars in Roth accounts, because if congress does act to limit the tax benefits of those accounts, it will probably be targeting the larger balances. If you are valuing tax deductions, you should put slightly more weight on deductions that you can take today than deductions that would apply in the future. If you do find yourself in trouble because of a retroactive change, be sure to consult a tax lawyer that specializes in dealing with the IRS to possibly negotiate a settlement for a lower amount than the full tax bill that results from the changes.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "8f710fd6dbc5785f5ee8dd817323e99c",
"text": "Yes, you would have to report the gain. It is not relevant that you traded the stock previously, you still made a profit on the trade-at-hand. Imagine if for some reason this type of trade were exempt. Investors could follow the short term swings of volatile stocks completely tax-free.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4c74688428cd21ef6eac74e3f0eefdf5",
"text": "No, you can not cheat the IRS. This question is also based on the assumption that the stock will return to $1 which isn't always a safe assumption and that it will continue to cycle like that repeatedly which is also likely a false assumption.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe3a3f0caea8db6ae5875eb22f1bf99d",
"text": "Assuming you bought the stocks with after-tax money, you only pay tax on the difference. Had you bought he shares in a pretax retirement account, such as an IRA or 401(k), the taxation waits until you withdraw, at which point, it's all taxed as ordinary income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e7e18992948f103e302b59bfe41d5930",
"text": "Does my prior answer here to a slightly different question help at all? Are there capital gains taxes or dividend taxes if I invest in the U.S. stock market from outside of the country?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d6dce7e75babce4387d2c27b5804c2d",
"text": "\"No, not really. This depends on the situation and the taxing jurisdiction. Different countries have different laws, and some countries have different laws for different situations. For example, in the US, some investments will be taxed as you described, others will be taxed as \"\"mark to market\"\", i.e.: based on the FMV difference between the end of the year and the beginning of the year, and without you actually making any transactions. Depends on the situation.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "81ab7c9d49e66e287f971b92d3c14a58",
"text": "?? Edit: that's what I thought. Unless there is some specific tax code that I don't know about, there's no way to pass through money to the next year. But if someone on Reddit is saying something and quoting a tax law, I'd at least like to see it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "03cd2798097762b25fb89bff28c5dde5",
"text": "\"The IRS rules are actually the same. 26 U.S. Code § 1091 - Loss from wash sales of stock or securities In the case of any loss claimed to have been sustained from any sale or other disposition of shares of stock or securities where it appears that, within a period beginning 30 days before the date of such sale or disposition and ending 30 days after such date, the taxpayer has acquired (by purchase or by an exchange on which the entire amount of gain or loss was recognized by law), or has entered into a contract or option so to acquire, substantially identical stock or securities, then no deduction shall be allowed... What you should take away from the quote above is \"\"substantially identical stock or securities.\"\" With stocks, one company may happen to have a high correlation, Exxon and Mobil come to mind, before their merger of course. With funds or ETFs, the story is different. The IRS has yet to issue rules regarding what level of overlap or correlation makes two funds or ETFs \"\"substantially identical.\"\" Last month, I wrote an article, Tax Loss Harvesting, which analyses the impact of taking losses each year. I study the 2000's which showed an average loss of 1% per year, a 9% loss for the decade. Tax loss harvesting made the decade slightly positive, i.e. an annual boost of approx 1%.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "31594816af776ae31246dff47b57b5a2",
"text": "Your 1&2 are the end of that chapter. You can't convert for that year again, and must wait 30 days to convert in the new tax year. For example, each year for over a decade, I've helped my mother in law with this. In May, we convert a chunk of money/stock to Roth. In April, I'll recharacterize just enough so she tops off her 15% bracket but doesn't hit 25%. 30 days later, the new conversion happens. All the Roth money is money now taxed at 15%, which, in an emergency, a need for a lot of cash, will avoid the potential of 25% or higher, tax. You see, your 3 never really happens.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1c7beebb3549c75c9dd76f80232f5e9c",
"text": "What you are looking for is a 1031 exchange. https://www.irs.gov/uac/like-kind-exchanges-under-irc-code-section-1031 Whenever you sell business or investment property and you have a gain, you generally have to pay tax on the gain at the time of sale. IRC Section 1031 provides an exception and allows you to postpone paying tax on the gain if you reinvest the proceeds in similar property as part of a qualifying like-kind exchange. Gain deferred in a like-kind exchange under IRC Section 1031 is tax-deferred, but it is not tax-free. You may also sell your house for bitcoin and record the sales price on the deed with an equal or lesser amount that you bought it for.",
"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": "1c02d9edf84b46abfcdefc0a836a5505",
"text": "\"Property sold at profit is taxed at capital gains rate (if you held it for more than a year, which you have based on your previous question). Thus deferring salary won't change the taxable amount or the tax rate on the property. It may save you the 3% difference on the salary, but I don't know how significant can that be. The 25% depreciation recapture rate (or whatever the current percentage is) is preset by your depreciation and cannot be changed, so you'll have to pay that first. Whatever is left above it is capital gains and will be taxed at discounted rates (20% IIRC). You need to make sure that you deduct everything, and capitalize everything else (all the non-deductible expenses and losses with regards to the property). For example, if you remodeled - its added to your basis (reduces the gains). If you did significant improvements and changes - the same. If you installed new appliances and carpets - they're depreciated faster (you can appropriate part of the sale proceeds to these and thus reduce the actual property related gain). Also, you need to see what gain you have on the land - the land cannot be depreciated, so all the gain on it is capital gain. Your CPA will help you investigating these, and maybe other ways to reduce your tax bill. Do make sure to have proper documentation and proofs for all your claims, don't make things up and don't allow your CPA \"\"cut corners\"\". It may cost you dearly on audit.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "569126cd4af4932b7a88ef978e388436",
"text": "The safe harbor provision is based on the tax you or the prior year. So in 2016 this helped you as your tax was substantially increased from 2015. However, by the same token in 2017 your safe harbor amount is going to be very high. Therefore if 2017 is similar you will owe penalties. The solution here is to make estimated tax payments in the quarters that you realize large gains. This is exactly what the estimated tax payments are for. Your estimate tax payments do not have to be the same. In fact if you have a sudden boost in earnings in quarter 3, then the IRS expects that quarter 3 estimated tax payment to be boosted.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2eb5e5bdd4912cf03a38d7a6987476bd",
"text": "\"Your real question, \"\"why is this not discussed more?\"\" is intriguing. I think the media are doing a better job bringing these things into the topics they like to ponder, just not enough, yet. You actually produced the answer to How are long-term capital gains taxed if the gain pushes income into a new tax bracket? so you understand how it works. I am a fan of bracket topping. e.g. A young couple should try to top off their 15% bracket by staying with Roth but then using pretax IRA/401(k) to not creep into 25% bracket. For this discussion, 2013 numbers, a blank return (i.e. no schedule A, no other income) shows a couple with a gross $92,500 being at the 15%/25% line. It happens that $20K is exactly the sum of their standard deduction, and 2 exemptions. The last clean Distribution of Income Data is from 2006, but since wages haven't exploded and inflation has been low, it's fair to say that from the $92,000 representing the top 20% of earners, it won't have many more than top 25% today. So, yes, this is a great opportunity for most people. Any married couple with under that $92,500 figure can use this strategy to exploit your observation, and step up their basis each year. To littleadv objection - I imagine an older couple grossing $75K, by selling stock with $10K in LT gains just getting rid of the potential 15% bill at retirement. No trading cost if a mutual fund, just $20 or so if stocks. The more important point, not yet mentioned - even in a low cost 401(k), a lifetime of savings results in all gains being turned in ordinary income. And the case is strong for 'deposit to the match but no no more' as this strategy would let 2/3 of us pay zero on those gains. (To try to address the rest of your questions a bit - the strategy applies to a small sliver of people. 25% have income too high, the bottom 50% or so, have virtually no savings. Much of the 25% that remain have savings in tax sheltered accounts. With the 2013 401(k) limit of $17,500, a 40 year old couple can save $35,000. This easily suck in most of one's long term retirement savings. We can discuss demographics all day, but I think this addresses your question.) If you add any comments, I'll probably address them via edits, avoiding a long dialog below.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "29072a5d38bc60ace3fc0fbba2e862b9",
"text": "You're asking whether the shares you sold while being a US tax resident are taxable in the US. The answer is yes, they are. How you acquired them or what were the circumstances of the sale is irrelevant. When you acquired them is relevant to the determination of the tax treatment - short or long term capital gains. You report this transaction on your Schedule D, follow the instructions. Make sure you can substantiate the cost basis properly based on how much you paid for the shares you sold (the taxable income recognized to you at vest).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2c1b9a33fd7245abb4e859e9da10396b",
"text": "You're partially correct, at least in my understanding of this. Yes, the tax credit can be carried forward to future years, but since it is non-refundable it will reduce your tax liability solely. Depending on your tax situation this may result in a bigger refund or it may not. In an example, If you've had $3K withheld from your paycheck toward your income tax and this is also an accurate reflection if your tax liability then taking the NRTC would reduce your tax liability enabling you to be eligible for a refund (due to having already pre-paid more tax than you're liable for).",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a8aeb969101237981d8148e245204112
|
Basic Info On Construction Loans
|
[
{
"docid": "3110b4b6766a0e1dac9a4b4944d29138",
"text": "\"Construction loans are typically short term that then get rolled into conventional mortgages at the end of the construction period. Since the actual construction loan is short term, you cannot combine it with a long-term land loan as well. You could do the two separate loans up front to buy the land and finance the construction, then at the end roll both into a conventional mortgage to close out the land and construction loans. This option will only work if you do all three through the same lender. Trying to engage various lenders will require a whole new refinance process, which I very much doubt you would want to go through. These are sometimes called combo loans, since they aggregate several different loan products in one \"\"transaction.\"\" Not a lot of places do land loans, so I would suggest first find a lender that will give you a land loan and set an appoint with a loan representative. Explain what you are trying to do and see what they can offer you. You might have better luck with credit unions as well instead of traditional banks.\"",
"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": "77d9180f70d0802c2ce787ee20f2097e",
"text": "\"In a domestic setting, Letters of Credit are often used to build public works needed to support a development. So if you're bulldozing a few 3 story buildings to build a 50 story tower, the municipality will build appropriate water/sewer/gas/road infrastructure, and draw from the developer's letter of credit to fund it. The 'catch' to the developer is that these things usually aren't revokable -- once the city/town/etc starts work, the developer cannot cut-off the funding, even if the project is cancelled. A letter of credit definitely isn't a consumer financing vehicle. The closest equivalent is a \"\"line of credit\"\" tied to an asset like a home.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "83b726abb06b3facfd6be7b430d842bc",
"text": "Good! The article says it was some kind of collateral protection insurance that customers were signed up for despite it being unrequired for the loan. The accusations is that WF racketeered about 800,000 loans by bundling in this bunk insurance cost as part of the loan structure. I'm glad you're not caught up in it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fb23853645f6035f0341f842728bc718",
"text": "Hmm well the methods used differ depending on the asset class. I've worked with a REIT and PE on a few different types of commercial projects. For a general overview though I would say look up courses at a local community college and purchase the text books on the syllabus. Some asset classes also have free industry updates which can give you an broad overview. Feel free to PM me if you want to talk specifics.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "19b4d2108fdfe04446fa062cd311a388",
"text": "So if it's a bridge loan they need a lot of money now to keep the trains running but expect to get the actual loan they need in the future at which point they pay off the bridge loan ideally after not having to make too many coupon payments. That's what it sounds like to me. Scenario: I am building a large development, my main funding source is kaput for whatever reason, I need money now to make payroll, buy fuel, pay for that shipment of supplies etc, I don't have time to secure the huge loan I need in the future for the rest of the project so I get a loan to cover me until I secure that deal and put my building site as collateral against it, I get the full funding, pay off the bond in full and move on with the project.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d63f6ae6bae90732a16246a96f07bac",
"text": "You would probably be best off checking through your loan documents to see if anything is listed in it in regards to tearing down the existing house. Likely it is not allowed. Thinking about it logically, the house is collateral for the mortgage, and you are wanting to destroy the collateral. I would expect the bank would not be pleased. Semi related question (answers have some good info) - Construction loan for new house replacing existing mortgaged house?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3091eda9cb4abbce57a1fd1559c2da15",
"text": "This is all answered in the prospectus. The money not yet invested (available/committed to a note but not yet funded) is held in pooled trust account insured by FDIC. Money funded is delivered to the borrower. Lending Club service their notes themselves. Read also my reviews on Lending Club.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5ff51bb08b4aeeae40dc724aa5bd53bf",
"text": "If you go traditional financing there is a chance it'd be syndicated amongst a bank group. That is going to add a little depth to your credit agreement id imagine. You thinking a term loan with a 7-10 amortization? I've never seen a LOC more than 5 years out.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d2e8aa4caff5531411d25c10c83ca508",
"text": "Basically isn't this like if they loaned a bank 400b with 401b due tomorrow, and then the bank took the same loan the next day? Gross exaggeration I know, but I just want to make sure that is the way this works.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "30c592d44c947ee13ed8d67dc292d154",
"text": "\"Here are some important things to think about. Alan and Denise Fields discuss them in more detail in Your New House. Permanent work. Where do you want to live? Are there suitable jobs nearby? How much do they pay? Emergency fund. Banks care that you have \"\"reserves\"\" (and/or an unsecured line of credit) in case you have a run of bad luck. This also helps with float the large expenses when closing a loan. Personal line of credit. Who are you building for? If you are not married, then you should consider whether building a home makes that easier, or harder. If you hope to have kids, you should consider whether your home will make it easier to have kids, or harder. If you are married (or seriously considering it), make sure that your spouse helps with the shopping, and is in agreement on the priorities and choices. If you are not married, then what will you do if/when you get married? Will you sell? expand? build another house on the same lot? rent the home out? Total budget. How much can the lot, utilities, permits, taxes, financing charges, building costs, and contingency allowance come to? Talk with a banker about how much you can afford. Talk with a build-on-your-lot builder about how much house you can get for that budget. Consider a new mobile or manufactured home. But if you do choose one, ask your banker how that affects what you can borrow, and how it affects your rates and terms. Talk with a good real estate agent about how much the resale value might be. Finished lot budget. How much can you budget for the lot, utilities, permits required to get zoning approval, fees, interest, and taxes before you start construction? Down payment. It sounds like you have a plan for this. Loan underwriting. Talk with a good bank loan officer about what their expectations are. Ask about the \"\"front-end\"\" and \"\"back-end\"\" Debt-To-Income ratios. In Oregon, I recommend Washington Federal for lot loans and construction loans. They keep all of their loans, and service the loans themselves. They use appraisers who are specially trained in evaluating new home construction. Their appraisers tend to appraise a bit low, but not ridiculously low like the incompetent appraisers used by some other banks in the area. (I know two banks with lots of Oregon branches that use an appraiser who ignores 40% of the finished, heated area of some to-be-built homes.) Avoid any institution (including USAA and NavyFed) that outsources their lending to PHH. Lot loan. In Oregon, Washington Federal offers lot loans with 30% down payments, 20-year amortization, and one point, on approved credit. The interest rate can be a fixed rate, but is typically a few percentage points per year higher than for a mortgage secured by a permanent house. If you have the financial wherewithal to start building within two years, Washington Federal also offers short-term lot loans. Ask about the costs of appraisals, points, and recording fees. Rent. How much will it cost to rent a place to live, between when you move back to Oregon, and when your new home is ready to move into? Commute. How much time will it take to get from your new home to work? How much will it cost? (E.g., car ownership, depreciation, maintenance, insurance, taxes, fuel? If public transportation is an option, how much will it cost?) Lot availability. How many are there to choose from? Can you talk a farmer into selling off a chunk of land? Can you homestead government land? How much does a lot cost? Is it worth getting a double lot (or an extra large lot)? Utilities. Do you want to live off the grid? Are you willing to make the choices needed to do that? (E.g., well, generator, septic system, satellite TV and telephony, fuel storage) If not, how much will it cost to connect to such systems? (For practical purposes, subtract twice the value of these installation costs from the cost of a finished lot, when comparing lot deals.) Easements. These provide access to your property, access for others through your property, and affect your rights. Utility companies often ask for far more rights than they need. Until you sign on the dotted line, you can negotiate them down to just what they need. Talk to a good real estate attorney. Zoning. How much will you be allowed to build? (In terms of home square footage, garage square footage, roof area, and impermeable surfaces.) How can the home be used? (As a business, as a farm, how many unrelated people can live there, etc.) What setbacks are required? How tall can the building(s) be? Are there setbacks from streams, swamps, ponds, wetlands, or steep slopes? Choosing a builder. For construction loans, banks want builders who will build what is agreed upon, in a timely fashion. If you want to build your own house, talk to your loan officer about what the bank expects in a builder. Plansets and permits. The construction loan process. If you hire a general contractor, and if you have difficulties with the contractor, you might be forced to refuse to accept some work as being complete. A good bank will back you up. Ask about points, appraisal charges, and inspection fees. Insurance during construction. Some companies have good plans -- if the construction takes 12 months or less. Some (but not all) auto insurance companies also offer good homeowners' insurance for homes under construction. Choose your auto insurance company accordingly. Property taxes. Don't forget to include them in your post-construction budget. Homeowners' insurance. Avoid properties that need flood insurance. Apply a sanity check to flood maps -- some of them are unrealistic. Strongly consider earthquake insurance. Don't forget to include these costs in your post-construction budget. Energy costs. Some jurisdictions require you to calculate how large a heating system you need. Do not trust their design temperatures -- they may not allow for enough heating during a cold snap, especially if you have a heat pump. (Some heat pumps work at -10°F -- but most lose their effectiveness between 10°F and 25°F.) You can use these calculations, in combination with the number of \"\"heating degree days\"\" and \"\"cooling degree days\"\" at your site, to accurately estimate your energy bills. If you choose a mobile or manufactured home, calculate how much extra its energy bills will be. Home design. Here are some good sources of ideas: A Pattern Language, by Christopher Alexander. Alexander emphasizes building homes and neighborhoods that can grow, and that have niches within niches within niches. The Not-So-Big House, by Sarah Susanka. This book applies many Alexander's design patterns to medium and large new houses. Before the Architect. The late Ralph Pressel emphasized the importance of plywood sheathing, flashing, pocket doors, wide hallways, wide stairways, attic trusses, and open-truss or I-joist floor systems. Lots of outlets and incandescent lighting are good too. (It is possible to have too much detail in a house plan, and too much room in a house. For examples, see any of his plans.) Tim Garrison, \"\"the builder's engineer\"\". Since Oregon is in earthquake country -- and the building codes do not fully reflect that risk -- emphasize that you want a building that would meet San Jose, California's earthquake code.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8143e59701da827051bb11538170aa2e",
"text": "Hi guys, have a question from my uni finance course but I’m unsure how to treat the initial loan (as a bond, or a bill or other, and what the face value of the loan is). I’ll post the question below, any help is appreciated. “Hi guys, I have a difficult university finance question that’s really been stressing me out.... “The amount borrowed is $300 million and the term of the debt credit facility is six years from today The facility requires minimum loan repayments of $9 million in each financial year except for the first year. The nominal rate for this form of debt is 5%. This intestest rate is compounded monthly and is fixed from the date the facility was initiated. Assume that a debt repayment of $10 million is payed on 31 August 2018 and $9million on April 30 2019. Following on monthly repayments of $9 million at the end of each month from May 31 2019 to June 30 2021. Given this information determine the outstanding value of the debt credit facility on the maturity date.” Can anyone help me out with the answer? I’ve been wracking my brain trying to decide if I treat it as a bond or a bill.” Thanks in advance,",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ffffed3d8a58994285be96defc1b39dc",
"text": "\"From the Op's comment below re: the \"\"audit\"\" http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11696.pdf, the first paragraph states that loans outstanding peaked at just over 1 trillion in 2008. So you'd look at the Fed's balance sheet of loans outstanding over time, and perhaps subtract amounts reported as more normal operations.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d33b179bbefc97278231c0d1b7069b84",
"text": "RMA Journal is good. You should search for more in depth articles if you really want a good handle on all of the recent regulations. Dodd-Frank, CFPB regs, Basel II and the new capital reserve requirements and how that's affecting the industry. The irony about much of the new regs is that they are driving smaller lenders into selling their company because it is simply too costly to carry the staff necessary to ensure compliance; thus making the too big to fails even bigger.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3303ff7feab704409a282dcd626fac88",
"text": "Presumably, the inverse of the advantages? You are guaranteed the interest rate that is written on your mortgage commitment as long as the first draw happens before the rate hold expiry date (typically 120 days from application date). In most cases, it takes at least 6 months or more to build a home from the ground up. That means that you are taking a chance at what the interest rates and qualifying criteria will be several months down the road. You can normally only lock in 120 days prior to possession with a 'Completion Mortgage'. Lenders are constantly changing their guidelines and rates are predicted to increase over the coming months. That means you are much better to obtain draw mortgage financing to avoid any of these uncertainties. You will know that you have your financing in place right away before construction even starts. This is a huge peace of mind so you can relax and get ready for the big move. So thus, if interest rates are lower 6 months or a year from now, that'd be the disadvantage -- a longer lock-in period.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f07714b5631bbd2a81f26cbd7e5f6a41",
"text": "\"The most succinct answer is \"\"Banks are in the Money business\"\". Not construction, not real estate, not any of the other things they may find find themselves sometimes being dragged (foreclosure) or tempted (construction) into. \"\"Money\"\" is their core competence, and as good business people they recognize that straying outside that just dilutes their focus.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "899ee181459f01fd2b3de956e0f38782",
"text": "\"Hi, I'm not sure what you're looking for, but I'll assume you are just looking for some distinguishing characteristics of an infra deal. Infra deals are typically: - Project financed meaning that a Special Purpose Company (SPC) is established to build and operate the asset. Project finance means that the SPC is quarantined from any party and is backed by the cashflows of the project and not by the balance sheet of some parent entity - The SPC's cashflows are backed by a lengthy concession agreement (e.g. a government body provides a concession to a private party to operate the infrastructure asset for *say* 30 years). The concession agreement can best be thought of as a form of guarantee provided by the government body. The exact terms of the agreement will vary but something like \"\"you can operate this toll road for 30 years and charge $x per vehicle, indexed at y% p.a.\"\" should give you the idea of what a concession agreement is. - Because the concession agreement acts a bit like a guarantee over the cashflows of the SPC it makes longer term and higher leveraged financing more plausible. Imagine a national tollroad asset where the AAA-credit rated government body guaranteed 20m cars a year for 30 years with a $5 toll charge. Your tollroad SPC now has $100m of cashflow every year for 30 years which is AAA-credit rated. This should enable you to get competitively priced long term capital and to gear the SPC at much higher rates than non-infra deals. - At the end of the concession period the SPC hands the asset back to the government completely unencumbered (debt-free) So in a nutshell, a government body grants a concession to a SPC that guarantees its cashflows over a long term. The SPC is then financed based purely on this guarantee. The SPC then Builds the asset, Operates it and then at the end of the concession period Transfers it back to the government (google Build-Operate-Transfer or BOT for more detail if curious). There are plenty of other distinguishing characteristics and a truck-load of detail that I have completely skipped/ignored so others may want to jump-in/ridicule me. Good luck with your interview. edit: formatting\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a59179715536bdf601cdb3dc9a77c3f8
|
How to approach building credit without a credit card
|
[
{
"docid": "6db3089f91d39270c2273289148ff738",
"text": "Ways to build credit without applying for credit cards: It takes some time for these types of actions to positively affect you. I'd say at the very least 6 months. You won't get the full benefit for several years. However, the earlier you get started, the better.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b851bd583388e8c77f603f437faa641",
"text": "Apply for a secured credit card (several financial institutions provide these, including most banks. WalletHub gives you a way to search/filter for these cards quite easily). You will need to deposit funds to cover your credit limit. Deposit as much as they allow, I believe it is 500.00. Pay for EVERYTHING with the card. Monitor your balance due and keep paying it off, to bring the balance due down so you can continue using your card. I know you mentioned your area requires you to be 19, not sure if that still applies if you are applying online, in another state. Also, there's no real reason to get a card with an annual fee in this case. The main reason for an annual fee would be a lower interest charge - simply don't get charged interest, and you'll be better off with not having to pay for a card annually. Good luck.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d9607f1a9dfa1b6ea84d973cf69918dd",
"text": "Keep in mind that credit takes time to build. Your best short-term solution is to save enough cash to put enough of a down-payment that the lower loan-to-value ratio outweighs the lack of credit history. If there's enough equity to ensure that the bank will get their money back if they have to foreclose, you will have a better chance of securing financing. In addition, the stability and consistency of your employment may also be a factor that makes it difficult for you to get a loan without a substantial down-payment. Finally, don't ignore the risk present in resting a property that you have a loan on. Make sure you have a plan in place to pay your payments if the other half goes unrented for several months, or you risk losing the entire property. My advice is to rent somewhere else for enough time that you can save up a lot of cash to purchase a duplex rather than getting in a rush and doing something unwise (like apply for a bunch of credit cards you don't need).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7864caf1005857e3ed49413804612b26",
"text": "One possible route is to try to have no credit. This is different than bad credit. If you build up a good downpayment (20%), a number of banks would do manual underwriting for you.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "12846ee71ec9c5769954964fdc8c2f01",
"text": "\"Patience has never been my strong suit Unfortunately this is what you need to build up credit. The activities that increase your credit score are paying your bills on time and not using too much of the available credit that you do have. The rest (age of accounts, recent pulls, etc.) are short-term indicators that indicate changes in behavior that will make lenders pause and understand what the reasons behind the events are. Also keep in mind that your credit score shouldn't run your life. It should be a passive indicator of your financial habits - not something that you actively manipulate. Is there anything I can do to raise my score without having to take out a loan with interest? Pay your bills on time, and don't take out more credit than you need. You're already in the \"\"excellent\"\" category, so there's no reason to panic or try to manipulate it. Even if you temporarily dip below, if you need to make a big purchase (house), your loan-to-value and debt/income ratio will be much bigger factors in what interest rate you can get. As far as the BofA card goes, if you don't need it, cancel it. It might cause a temporary dip in your credit, but it will go away quickly, and you're better off not having credit cards that you don't need.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f61e2fa0b51e154e19ee6efdffc99751",
"text": "\"No you do not need a credit card. They are convenient to have sometimes. But you do not \"\"need\"\" one. I know people who only have one for use when they travel for work and get reimbursed later. But most companies have other ways to pay for your travel if you tell them you do not have a credit card.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "429300aac743c8e517657e31c1bcb4e7",
"text": "I can't answer the question if you should or shouldn't get a credit card; after all, you seem to manage fine without one (which is good). I started using credit cards when I lived in the UK as the consumer protection you get from a credit card there tends to be better than from a debit card. I'd also treat it as a debit or charge card, ie pay it off in full every month. That way, because you're not carrying a balance the high interest rate doesn't matter and you avoid the trap of digging yourself deeper into the hole each month. Cashback or other perks offered by a credit card can be worth it, but (a) make sure that they're worth more than the yearly fee and (b) that they're perks you're actually using. For that reason, cashback tends to work best. I'd get a VISA or Mastercard, they seem to be the ones that pretty much everybody accepts. Amex can have better perks but tends to be more expensive and isn't accepted everywhere, especially not outside the US. But in the end, do you really need one if you're managing fine without one?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "57df0258a0afb33df7402a40ec2fc121",
"text": "In general, minors cannot enter into legally binding contracts -- which is what credit accounts are -- so an individually held card is probably not an option for you right now. You will not be approved for a credit card because you are minor. The only option credit card wise for you is for your parents to add you on as an authorized user onto their accounts. The upside is that you and your parents can work out a monthly payment for the amount you spend on your equipment, the downside is that if your parents don't pay their credit card bill, your credit score/report can be negatively affected. (This also depends on the bank, however, all the banks I bank with report monthly payment activities on authorized users' credit reports as well. There might be a bank that doesn't.) In terms of credit cards, there is nothing you can do. What you could do as the comments have suggested is either save up money for the equipment you want, or buy something cheaper.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba5e72b09d215ff8acab3310262b3c2c",
"text": "I just want to stress one point, which has been mentioned, but only in passing. The disadvantage of a credit card is that it makes it very easy to take on a credit. paying it off over time, which I know is the point of the card. Then you fell into the trap of the issuer of the card. They benefit if you pay off stuff over time; that's why taking up a credit seems to be so easy with a credit (sic) card. All the technical aspects aside, you are still in debt, and you never ever want to be so if you can avoid it. And, for any voluntary, non-essential, payment, you can avoid it. Buy furniture that you can pay off in full right now. If that means only buying a few pieces or used/junk stuff, then so be it. Save up money until you can buy more/better pieces.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22950e777b1e19bc74ba9f13cd706984",
"text": "\"There are services that deal specifically with these situations, boostcredit101.com is one I've personally had a good experience with though there are plenty out there. What they do is add you as an authorized user to a credit card with a high limit, low balance, and perfect payment history. This \"\"boosts\"\" for about 30 days while you remain listed as a user on that account, which allows you to qualify for your own card or other kind of loan in that time and helps you start rebuilding your credit. I've even heard of people doing this to qualify for a home loan, though the home loan industry is typically aware of this \"\"trick\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7fe7e49dc349ba94c9b49b1f71dfecdc",
"text": "Really basic Revolving credit for individuals. Use a credit card to pay for a purchase. You pay the card off completely before you pay interest and get 30 days free money. Your cash balance is for that 30 days doing you some good instead.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c7afccda4f53df1e4510720d6f68014f",
"text": "\"I want to recommend an exercise: Find all the people nearby who you can talk to in less than 24 hours about credit cards: Your family, whoever lives with you, and friends. Now, ask each of them \"\"what's the worst situation you've gotten yourself into with a credit card?\"\" Personally, the ratio of people who I asked who had credit cards to the ratio of people with horror stories about how credit cards screwed up their credit was nearly 1:1. Pretty much, only one of them had managed to avoid the trap that credit cards created (that sole exception had worked for the government at a high paying job and was now retired with adult children and a lucrative pension). Because it's trivially easy over-extend yourself, as a result of how credit cards work (if you had the cash at any second, you would have no need for the credit). But do your own straw poll, and then see what the experience of people around you has been. And if there's a lot more bad than good out there, then ask yourself \"\"am I somehow more fiscally responsible than all of these people?\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a47cc29f2e01747714734a1f3a1113ca",
"text": "Eventually you are going to need some sort of real credit history. It is possible that you will be able to evade this if you never buy a house, or if you pay cash for any house/condo/car/boat/etc that you buy. Even employers check credit history these days. I wouldn't be surprised if some medical professionals such as surgeons check it also. Obviously if you have a mortgage and car loan this doesn't apply, but I'd be curious how you acquired those unless you have substantial income and/or assets. Combine this with the fact that certain things like renting a car essentially require a credit card (because they need to put a hold on more money than they are actually going to take out of your card, so they can take that money if you don't bring the car back), and I think you should have a credit card unless you and your wife are individuals with zero impulse control, which sounds highly improbable. If your concern is the financial liability of the credit line, just keep the credit line low.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b0d57edd6481ac8cd3517bceeb8db84f",
"text": "Switch to cash for a few months. No debit. No credit. This will help for two reasons: Once you've broken the bad habits, you should be able to go back to cards for the convenience factor.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "30896bb83843311d354c67952e993188",
"text": "This is a good idea, but it will barely affect your credit score at all. Credit cards, while a good tool to use for giving a minor boost to your credit score and for purchasing things while also building up rewards with those purchases, aren't very good for building credit. This is because when banks calculate your credit report, they look at your long-term credit history, and weigh larger, longer-term debt much higher than short-term debt that you pay off right away. While having your credit card is better than nothing, it's a relatively small drop in the pond when it comes to credit. I would still recommend getting a credit card though - it will, if you haven't already started paying off a debt like a student or car loan, give you a credit identity and rewards depending on the credit card you choose. But if you do, do not ever let yourself fall into delinquency. Failing to pay off loans will damage your credit score. So if you do plan to get a credit card, it is much better to do as you've said and pay it all off as soon as possible. Edit: In addition to the above, using a credit card has the added benefit of having greater security over Debit cards, and ensures that your own money won't be stolen (though you will still have to report a fraudulent charge).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1bf43b55a55057cebd95e74979301a9a",
"text": "To get a credit history you need to use credit from someone that reports to the major credit agencies. I don't suppose you have to BUY anything. You could just get a cash loan and hold it for a long time, but it seems silly to pay interest only for the purpose of building credit. The student loan should help you build credit. Also, I'm assuming you buy things all the time like gas, groceries, etc. Why not put those on a credit card and pay the balance off every month? That way you aren't buying anything specifically to get credit. Also there are numerous other benefits: Another suggestion: Set up your cards so the full balance is drafted from your bank automatically on the due date. That will ensure that you always pay on time (helping your credit) and also make you think twice about putting things on the card that you can't afford with the cash you have in the bank.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "07b710be19ecd9d427a1c15c598c99b9",
"text": "Congratulations on seeing your situation clearly! That's half the battle. To prevent yourself from going back into debt, you should get rid of any credit cards you have and close the accounts. Just use your debit card. Your post indicates you're not the type to splurge and get stuff just because you want it, so saving for a larger purchase and paying cash for it is probably something you're willing to do. Contrary to popular belief, you can live just fine without a credit card and without a credit score. If you're never going back into debt, you don't need a credit score. Buying a house is possible without one, but is admittedly more work for you and for the underwriters because they can't just ask the FICO god to bless you -- they have to actually see your finances, and you have to actually have some. (I realize many folks will hate this advice, but I am actually living it, and life is pretty good.) If you're in school, look at how much you spend on food while on campus. $5-$10/day for lunch adds up to $100-$200 over a month (M-F, four weeks). Buy groceries and pack a lunch if you can. If your expenses cannot be reduced anymore, you're going to have to get a job. There is nothing wrong with slowing down your studies and working a job to get your income up above your expenses. It stinks being a poor student, but it stinks even more to be a poor student with a mountain of debt. You'll find that working a job doesn't slow you down all that much. Tons of students work their way through school and graduate in plenty of time to get a good job. Good luck to you! You can do it.",
"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": "fc57a8846bf46b3532091bea6df36a6c",
"text": "I would look for these features in the credit card: If there is some kind of reward option like cash back or points, you obviously deduct these from the total costs. Chances are the total costs are higher than the rewards, because generally people don't give you money for free. The reward has to be financed somehow. I would adivse against building up credit card debt. It typically has a high interest rate. So, use the credit card only as a method of payment and pay back the debt so quickly that the interest doesn't start to accumulate.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.