I will answer the part of your question about these four specific names.

The Persian names for Holland and Germany are recent borrowings from French.

Lehestān is borrowed from Turkish and derives from the name of the Lendians, a Slavic tribe who once lived in what is now Poland.

Hend is an Arabicised form of Middle Persian hindūg, Old Persian hindū-, Sanskrit sindhu-, the ancient name of the province now known as Sindh.

There are many Geo political reasons for that.

Most of the other names are kept by other countries.

India is called India (from Indus) because British kept it.

Its called Hindustan (Land of Hindus) because Arabs kept it.

Germans call their country Deutschland

but internationally it is called as Germany.

It is the same as we have synonyms in any language for a word.

If you consider Japan, they call it Nippon meaning Land of rising sun.

So these different meanings give a country multiple names.

Historically, every country had many different names - what they called themselves, and what others called them.

Conquerors came and said "This is now SomethingLand" while the people who lived there were already calling it "OurIsland" in their language or

"LandOfTrees" in their language or whatever.

[There is a claim that "Canada" comes from an Iroquoian word for "the village" because someone asked a guide "what do you call all of this place?" - it might not be true though.]

Some folks called their neighbours Outsiders and their homes Outside, while those outsiders called themselves something different.

These days we're usually polite and call countries what they want to be called.

But even that can be complicated.

There is the province thing (this gives you not only Holland for the Netherlands, but England for the UK) but there is also the matter of abbreviations.

Do you say the US or the USA or America?

In the end, there are a number of different words for "the Netherlands" in 10 different languages for exactly the same reason there are a number of different words for "cat" or "contract.

" They are different languages.

Some countries have a "second" name that is derived from its most famous state or province.

For instance, "Holland" is the most famous province of the Netherlands, Farsi (Persia) of Iran, etc.

"Schweiz" or "Switzerland" is the most famous state of a country whose official name is the "Confederation of Helvetia."

"Germany," in its English form, was named after a group of "Germans," as was Aleman (Alemani).

But the country's "real" name, in its native language, is "Deutschland."

A lot of variation in country names is based on translations .

For instance, "Netherlands" means "Low Countries" and is called, in French, " Pays-Bas " which has the same meaning, but looks significantly different.

It shall be noted that the United Nations has six official languages into which most UN documents are translated; therefore, though each UN member decides on its own name, it has to provide (at least) six variants for these six languages.

Since these languages use widely different signs, one of them (Chinese) being non-alphabetic, a country cannot, logically, have a single official name valid worldwide.

Beyond translations, it so happens that countries may change names, and the new name is not necessarily adopted immediately and worldwide.

For instance, in 1989, Burma changed its name to "Republic of the Union of Myanmar", shortened to "Myanmar", but many countries refused to recognize the legitimacy of the government of Burma (a military dictatorship), hence its ability to change the formal name of the country.

As a UN member, the official English version of the country name is still "Myanmar", but "Burma" remains in wide usage in some other countries.

For instance, this official document from the Australian government can be seen to use both "Burma" and "Myanmar" as country name, sometimes switching within the same paragraph with no explanation.

Country names have a huge symbolic value and can lead to interferences with and from other countries.

Case in point: Macedonia (in the UN, Macedonia is known as "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", a name which is officially "provisional" and has been so for more than two decades).

Question: I know Persian Language, In persian (Farsi) that is an old language we call  Netherlands “ Holland ”  , call  Germany " Alman " , Call  Poland " Lahestan " , call  India " Hend "  and etc.  What is the reason and Why these countries have more than one name?

Why some countries have more than one name?

There are geopolitical reasons for countries having different names as well as translations for every name. A country might also change names which is not always reflected in its translation. Traditionally, a country will have the name it calls itself and the names that others call it.

There are many geopolitical reasons why countries might have more than name. Traditionally, countries often had a name for themselves but were called something else by other countries, largely due to translation. Additionally, some countries have a famous province which is more commonly used to refer to the country. Also, some countries change name, but this new name takes time to be adopted around the world.

There are many geopolitical reasons why countries might have more than one name.

Some countries have a second name which is more famous or more used by other countries.

A lot of variation in country names is due to translation into different languages.

Some countries change their name and the new name takes some time to acquire use around the rest of the world.

Historically, every country had different names depending on who was talking about them.


During World War II, the USSR used nearly 200,000 horses in active cavalry fighting.

The Russians' retention of large units of cavalry long after this ancient arm had been abandoned by other major armies gave the planners and the Red Army greater flexibility in operations over difficult terrain, and particularly in severe weather.

Horses could operate in mud, marshland, and in any sort of broken ground; they could filter through forests and negotiate watercourses and ravines that would halt motorized units.

The horses could survive at 22 degrees below zero ad keep moving in dust and sand that clogged and wore out engines.

Cavalrymen could fight as infantry after covering immense distances, and, like the motorized infantry, they could exploit breakthroughs punched by tanks.

In attack and defense their capability for concealment and rapid dispersal could catch an enemy off guard or force him to move with caution.

When operating over broad fronts, the abler Soviet commanders advanced their tanks and infantry over main roads and used the cavalry to cover the higher and more difficult terrain in between.

The Red Army's planners provided for expanding this arm, and by 1942 they were working towards 400,000 mounted cavalrymen organized into nearly 60 divisions.

My answer is the second world war as well, but in addition to the European front calvary was used by the US in the far east.

The US 26th Calvary Regiment actively engaged (charged) the Japanese during the first battle for the Philippines.

This charge was taught to us in school as the last cavalry charge (I am thinking the last US cavalry charge, but I could be wrong.)

The 26th Cavalry Regiment, consisting mostly of Philippine Scouts, was the last U.S. cavalry regiment to engage in horse-mounted warfare.

When Troop G encountered Japanese forces at the village of Morong on 16 January 1942, Lieutenant Edwin P. Ramsey ordered the last cavalry charge in American history" Lieutenant-Colonel Edwin Ramsey: Soldier who led the last cavalry charge by the US army In Kansas: Echoing Hoofbeats 26th Cavalry Regiment (Wikipedia) As the Japanese Imperial Army landed thousands of soldiers near Manila Bay in January 1942, the 26th Cavalry was ordered into the fray to delay the enemy's advance.

Ramsey, then a lieutenant, led 27 riders to the strategic coastal village of Morong.

The village was still as Ramsey entered, but a Japanese advance guard soon shattered the silence with guns blazing.

When Ramsey spied hundreds more Japanese troops wading across a river toward him, he knew his men had only one hope for survival.

He raised his pistol and, like a long line of cavalrymen since Custer's time, hollered, "Charge!"

WWII cavalry officer in the Philippines Update:

while researching this i found this interesting article that details several cavalry operations that happened in the later stages of WWII in Europe, including a story I had never heard about of a US cavalry detachment of the 10th Mountain where they engaged the Germans in Italy in April of 1945.

The Last Cavalry Charge in History?

One thing that is important to consider is the difference between cavalry and dragoons - cavalry fight on horseback, whereas dragoons are infantry who use horses to get around and then fight on foot like other infantry.

It's worth noting that both the Chinese and Indian armies still employ dragoon-like units today, who may well be used in low-intensity conflicts.

Of course, not only does the question need a definition of cavalry but also of major war - the Afghan civil war certainly seemed to include mounted troops.

Taking only traditional cavalry and really major wars however, the answer would be World War II where the US, Soviet and Polish armies all employed cavalry, with varying degrees of success.

So depending on exactly how you define the question, the answer could well be 75 years ago, or still ongoing and the last fight hasn't happened yet!

Consider Rhodesian civil war, 1976-1980.

This is a partial answer as I don't have full evidence to support it, but I suspect that the Chinese may have employed mounted infantry in wartime as late as the 1970s.

From page 15 of China's War Against Vietnam, 1979: A Military Analysis : Advancing rapidly at the outset, the Chinese forces soon met with difficulties.

The rugged terrain of the mountainous border area was substantially unfavorable to the movement of division-sized forces, trucks, and other motor vehicles.

The Chinese, lacking modern logistics equipment and being refrained from using air transportation, were forced to rely on old trucks, horses, donkeys, and laborers for logistics.

I will claim that it's plausible

the Chinese used mounted infantry in combat during this conflict, simply because it's a matter of record that they had the units available in their armed forces for use (with soldiers were trained to fire weapons from the saddle, not just use them for mobility in the fashion of dragoons), the difficult terrain could've made their use advantageous for the same reasons as in say Afghanistan, and as donkeys and horses were already being used as beasts of burden for logistics purposes, they obviously had the "meta-logistics" required to feed and care for animals set up for the war.

If I can find any solid references to support the claim, I will append this answer; it's a bit difficult as while there were nearly 60,000 soldiers KIA during about a month of fighting, which certainly fits my definition of a "major war", it's a bit of a "forgotten conflict" and there don't seem to be a huge number of primary sources to draw from (in the English language, at least.)

It would appear that the Chinese used mounted cavalry in the Korean conflict in 1952.

In Burke Davis's Marine!

: The Life of Chesty Puller , the author quotes Puller, describing action near the 38th Parallel: "Puller witnessed some bad moments for the First Cavalry while he was on the line: 'One night they were overrun by Chinese horse cavalry.

They had dug in tanks to use as guns, and after dark the Chinese came in, galloping fast, and overran them.

The First Cavalry broke, and the Chinese sabered them, hundreds of them, from horseback.'"

This book does not include explicit citations, but this appears to be a direct quote from Gen. Puller describing his experience in Korea.

Question: Which was the last  major  war in which horses were used for frequent fighting?  Why were these horses used, and about how many were there?  This is not a duplicate of the question ( When was the last cavalry charge? ) ; I simply would like more information about this somewhat muddled topic.

Which was the last major war in which horse mounted cavalry actually participated in active fighting?

During WWII, the US, Polish and Soviet armies all used cavalry. The Soviet army used cavalry long after others' abandoned it and this gave them greater flexibility in operations. They had nearly 200,000 horses in active fighting in WWII. The Chinese may have used cavalry until the 1970s.

The answer will depend on the definition of a 'major war'. However, it is widely considered that the Russians were the last to use cavalary in combat, deploying them in the Second World War. However, it is possible that China also used cavalry since then. Horses were used in combat because they were much more agile and effective in harsh terrain and weather conditions.

It is widely considered that the USSR were the last to use cavalry in a major war during the Second World War.

It is possible that the Chinese have used cavalry in combat since the end of the Second World War.

The answer to this question will depend on the definition of a 'major war'.

The Rhodesian Civil War in the 1970s may be the last time cavalry were used in combat.

It's possible that cavalry is still being used somewhere in combat depending on the definition of the question.

Horses were used because they were more agile in difficult terrain and weather conditions and could be manoeuvred more easily.


Trotsky, as the leader of the Fourth International , was a direct competitor to Stalin as the Leader of the World Worker Movement.

Stalin needed all the communists to be subservient to him, especially during the World War. Squabbles between Stalinists and Trotskyists inside the Spanish Republicans cost them dearly and demonstrated that Trotsky was still a force to be reckoned with.

Don't forget that Stalin had a vengeful personality and wanted to kill Trotsky out of pure spite too.

Stalin was concerned about Stalin and the fate of the Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist world revolution.

The success of a Marxist-Leninist-Trotskyist movement would have endangered both his physical survival and his political legacy.

Clarification:

I see Stalin as a paranoid tyrant who did take power by force, and was afraid that others would do the same to him.

He reacted forcefully to potential rivals, and even more forcefully to actual rivals, which Trotsky was.

Trotsky provided a slightly different interpretation of Marxism-Leninism, which was a threat for Stalin who derived his legitimacy from claiming Lenin's heritage.

I think you need to reverse your question: why not kill him?

When the death sentence was passed on Bukharin, Stalin's long-neutralised and powerless former rival, Bukharin was allowed to write a short note to his sometime friend.

Koba, why do you need me to die?

Stalin did not answer these pathetic words.

Unlike Trotsky, it would have been no trouble at all for Stalin to keep Bukharin quietly under house arrest.

However, Bukharin had to die.

Although Trotsky had absolutely no prospect of overthrowing Stalin as leader of the USSR, he could have made it much harder to galvanise foreign communists, and get sympathy and support from Western governments.

But mainly, Trotsky had crossed him, so

Trotsky had to go.

First of all, Trotsky had contested the succession to Lenin with Stalin.

If Lenin had been in better health in his last days, Trotsky might have won because Lenin preferred him.

So Trotsky was an existential threat to Stalin in the Soviet Union.

The second thing was that Communism was supposed to be a worldwide movement, not just for the Soviet Union.

So Trotsky was challenging Stalin's leadership on a global basis, after having lost a succession battle with him in the Soviet Union.

Other than Trotsky's succeeding to Lenin, the last thing Stalin wanted was to have say, a Mexican Communist movement challenging the Soviet Communist movement for global supremacy.

Stalin had Trotsky assassinated for personal reasons.

These can be seen if you read

The Revolution Betrayed and Stalin by Trotsky, and Stalin:

A biography by Robert Service which sums up Trotsky's demise in 1940.

Trotsky attacked Stalin politically and personally through his books and while Lenin was alive.

Trotsky was mocking Stalin about his physical appearance, shortcomings, and his political incompetence.

This greatly offended Stalin which made him take action against Trotsky.

Question: Leon Trotsky was killed with a mountaineering ice axe in Mexico. The method of murder chosen was interesting. If he was a political fugitive in far off Mexico, why bother dealing with him? What about Trotsky's communist ideology differed from Stalin's and caused the perceived threat to the Soviet state?

Why did Stalin and the Soviet leadership have Leon Trotsky assassinated?

Trotsky had a slightly different interpretation of Leninism and this was a threat to the legitimacy of Stalin. Trotsky had contested the succession of Stalin. He could have made it harder to galvanise foreign communists as he needed as communists to be subservient to him. Stalin had a vengeful personality and Trotsky had attacked him personally through his books.

There are many reasons that Stalin had Trotsky killed, but the most important is probably that Stalin saw Trotsky as a threat to his leadership since he had so much influence within the Communist movement. Communism was intended to be a global movement, and Stalin saw Trotsky as a destabilising influence on world communism. Additionally, it should be remembered that Stalin had a vengeful personality and may have simply killed Trotsky in retaliation for personal attacks on him.

Even though he was outside of the Soviet Union, Trotsky had contested Stalin's leadership and still wielded enough influence to be a threat to Stalin at home.

Stalin say Trotsky as a destabilising influence on the world Communism movement and needed all communists to be subservient to him.

Stalin was petty and had Trotsky murdered for personal reasons, Trotsky having insulted him through his writings.


It depends on the meaning you want to apply to investment .

If you mean in a speculative sense, that you would be buying and selling plots, then probably no.

If you mean in a future-proofing sense, then yes perhaps.

It is one less decision to put on your heirs and loved ones.

And if finances are tight for whoever is left, having that specific cost removed from the equation might be important.

That is at least one of the sales pitches for prepaid funerals.

While an equivalent amount of money in an investment account might grow faster, you are buying some freedom-from-complexity for those that have to deal with your passing.

Our family has purchased plots 1 already, some years ago, but for a personal reason rather than for any financial reasons: While the cemetery / funeral home's sales pitch was along the lines of "protect yourself from the rising cost" and "save your loved ones the hassle", the decision for us was easy:

we wanted to secure our own final resting places near my father's resting place (he had died earlier that year.)

So, sometimes it isn't a financial decision at all.

Note: They sell plots for cremated remains; these are much cheaper than a full burial plot.

UPDATE:

I just read a post at Consumerist called Wait Until You're Dead To Pay For Your Funeral .

I'm mentioning it here since it's relevant to this question.

In it, they refer to a Wall Street Journal article, When Prepaid Funeral Plans Are Wealth Killers .

I still stand by my own decision to buy a plot for personal reasons.

Fortunately, I didn't pre-pay any funeral services ; only the funeral plot .

Some great answers here.

I would never have thought to do so, but the thought of keeping things simple for those left behind to do the planning is a good one.

It can be such a difficult time, and too often nobody knows what the deceased person's wishes really were.

I also can understand the thought of a family buying plots together.

The only thing I would add is that I would hesitate to do so myself if only because we cannot see the future.

How do you know how many plots to buy and where?

In this day and age, where blended families are becoming more and more common, how could you decide where you might want your final resting place to be?

And if immediate family buy, what about their spouses later on?

Second marriages?

Their children?

I would say that unless you have a really strong urge to do so (ie, like Chris above) where a certain place has a special meaning, I would think that having an amount of life insurance and your wishes written out either informally or in a will would be better.

Prices do rise on this item, and if having a "family plot" area is important

it is tougher if you don't make the arrangements together.

(So if one family member passes, the others are more likely to be pre buying).

The other advantage is in simplicity, if your family has spread out (ie moved away)

having this done ahead means less chance that what you wish for isn't done.

It can also allow for budgeting if that's an issue, as many places have payment plans that can make it simpler.

(Unless of course one was planning on having life insurance pay it.)

I don't think that the plots are necessarily a good investment from a financial POV, but there are pre-paid funeral arrangements where the funds are investing in revocable trusts with tax benefits.

As others have said, the real value in pre-arranging funeral is to have arrangements consistent with your values without burdening your family and friends.

Even in a best case, it won't pay off until you're dead, so from your own perspective, it's probably not a great investment.

On the other hand, buying one for your spouse may be...

Question: At the risk of sounding morbid, is it worth looking into cemetery plots/mausoleum storage?  Is it correct to assume that these costs will increase over time?

Are funeral plots a good investment?

Buying a plot is not a great investment but it would remove that specific cost from whoever will be paying after you're gone.

The answer will depend on what is meant by the term 'investment'. However, in general, funeral plots are not considered to be a good 'investment'. That said, there could be benefits for future generations if they are hard up financially.

It is not generally considered that funeral plots are a good investment.

The benefit of investing in a funeral plot would be primarily for your relatives if they are hard up financially.

The answer depends on the defintion of 'investment'.


In general, Vanguard and Fidelity are both really popular places to open an IRA.

The only negative thing about Fidelity is that their Target-date funds are not as good as the equivalent offering from Vanguard.

However, if you manage your asset allocation manually, the difference is something of a moot point.

(My Roth IRA is with Fidelity.)

First of all, if Citibank is charging you a transaction fee of $100, you should really dig deeper on that.

That doesn't sound correct.

Are you sure it is $100?

Since it seems you want to invest very small amounts per month, I would suggest an account with Sharebuilder ( http://www.sharebuilder.com ).

You can set up monthly transactions for a very low fee and you can invest very small amounts.

You can buy $5 worth of APPL ( http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:AAPL ) stock.

This works by them buying fractional shares for you.

For larger investment amounts, Vanguard ( https://personal.vanguard.com/us/whatweoffer/ira/overview ) is a good bet as well.

Their mutual funds are very low load.

Pick a good stock index fund for growth and sit back and relax.

I am using Charles Schwab and I have no complaints.

Since Roth IRAs are long term investment accounts, choose a provider that'll be there for you when you retire.

There are a number of low cost new entrants, but you don't know long term if they'll be around.

That doesn't mean you should get ripped off with fees!

Here are some trusted IRA providers:Vangaurd, Fidelity, Schwab.

All of them let you trade commission-free if you trade their ETFs.

Fees are nominal for stocks.

If you have $25K or more, WellsTrade is an excellent choice since every trade is commission free.

You can read the reviews and walkthroughs on my site to get a feel of what each site offers.

Since someone took ShareBuilder already, I'll note that Zecco offers roth IRAs, and 10 free trades a month if you have $25,000 in assets ($4.50 otherwise).

Question: Currently, I have an Roth IRA account with Citi bank, but they moved my account to their affiliates. They won't allow me to buy stocks that are below $5 on their site, I have to call them and they will put the transaction for me, but the transaction fee costs more than $100. So Im thinking to swtich to another company, any suggestions ?

What are some of the best companies for Roth IRA account?

Vanguard and Fidelty are good choices, as well as Charles Schwab. Look for someone who will be there for you when you retire.

The answer to this question will be subjective, but some possible suggestions include Vanguard, Fidelity and Schwab.


Yes.

It may change the investment options you have available and almost certainly will change the fees that get charged to your account.

On the other hand, you probably don't have any say in the matter, so it isn't worth stressing about.

BTW:

Don't bother looking at your statements for these fees, they are usually hidden in the difference between the funds prices you pay and the market prices for those funds.

Personally, I think the lack of transparency on those fees is downright criminal.

There's probably nothing you can do about the company's decision to switch providers, but I'd watch out for a number of things: 1.

Fund mapping.

Say you have 30% of your balance in a large-cap US stock mutual fund with Provider A. Provider B has a large-cap US stock fund too, but a different one.

When the transfer takes place, they will sell your shares with Provider A and use the proceeds to buy shares with Provider B.

The new fund may be of about the same quality, worse or better.

It is definitely a good idea to revisit your 401(k) allocation, look at the new investment options - some may be good, some may be lemons - make sure you stay away from the lemons.

Timing of the transfer.

The transfers are often done by having Provider A sell all mutual fund shares held in the 401(k) plan, then Provider A wires

the money to Provider B, then - a few days later - Provider B uses the money to buy you shares in the new mutual funds.

If everything is not done in a single day, what happens if the market goes up/down?

If it goes down, the plan participants win, because the same amount of money buys more shares.

If it goes up, you lose.

By Murphy's Law, the market usually goes up on such days :-)

If the market goes up, let's say 2% in the middle of the transfer and your employer switches 401(k) providers every 3 years,

that's like adding 0.67% to your expense ratios.

This is something not to be taken lightly.

Ask your benefits administrator how the transfer will be handled, whether it will be done in one day, and if not, if Provider B has some kind of insurance that will make the participants whole in case the market goes up in the middle of the transfer.

As everyone has mentioned above, it does: 1.

investment options 2.

potential new fees.

Some of the worst cases I've seen is when an employer had used B share mutual funds (remember those nasty suckers?) or an annuity product.

In these cases the employee had to pay the surrender charge to switch.

Completely wrong, IMHO.

Yes it does matter and one very important place it matters is in the fee schedules for the investment funds.

In general the fee schedules from one place to another are comparable for index funds , however things are very different for managed funds .

Consider the fact that a difference of just 1% or 2% in the fee schedule could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost income before retirement.

Contrary to what you might think, you do have input to the situation.

Gather the data on the fee schedules.

If the new fee schedule is much higher than alternatives take this data to your HR rep in-charge of these decisions.

Explain the math to them and show them the numbers for what happens with a higher or lower fee schedule.

Remember they are in this with you since their 401k is affected just the same as yours by high fee schedules.

The provider DOES matter, but you don't have a lot of control over it

so I wouldn't worry too much.

However, for information and comparisons sake you may check Brightscope ( http://www.brightscope.com ) since they do an awesome job analyzing 401(k) plans from different companies and different providers and showing the impact of fees and investment policy changes by the different plans on your account.

Question: My company is about to change the 401k provider it uses from one major provider to another.  Does this matter to me, provided my company doesn't change any of it's benefits policies?

Does my company's 401k plan provider matter to me?

It will change the investment options available and the fees charged to you account. Make sure you look at the new investment options.

It is generally agreed that your company's 401k allocation is important.


Realize that some friends are a bad influence, and maybe aren't really "friends".

Don't be afraid to say "sorry, I can't make it tonight".

Don't be afraid to go out shopping and not buy anything.

Make sure they know why (Too much Credit Card Debit, saving for a house, etc).

If your habits suddenly change with no explanation, they may think you are dissing them.

But if you explain your reasons, they will probably support you (if they are real friends).

In fact, they probably have the same money issues.

Suggest lower-cost alternatives to hanging out.

Instead of going out, suggest they come over to your place and watch a movie, play board games, Wii, etc.

You can have snacks at your place.

Alcohol is a lot cheaper when you pour it yourself!

There are multiple strategies depending on the message you'd like to send.

As far as shopping goes, you can:Claim the spouse will kill you if you buy another X.

This works for either gender.

Say that you are saving for some expensive vacation or other item.

Go along but just seem lie nothing pleases you, be disinterested.

The restaurant thing is tougher, and you might want to just avoid it.

Key thing is to say you'd like to get together but after lunch, you don't want the friend(s) to think you are avoiding them.

Good luck!

money.stackexchange.com/users/187/JTP - Apologise to Monica

Shopping is easy, I don't want to buy it, carry it around, store it in my home or wear it.

It is just an opinion about whatever the shopping is for.

When I don't want to spend the money on dining out, I just say I am broke

and I will catch up next time.

Since they are my friends they understand and don't get too upset.

(like msemack says, if they get upset about it

I don't think I would really care to spend time with them anyway)

While I am a big fan or eating at home and being cheap, I also recognize that my desire to spend money and have fun can't be suppressed for too long: make a budget item for having fun and spend some of your money on a good time with your friends and family.

Make a date night with your spouse or friends and control when and where you go so your can control your budget.

Most of the fun in going out to eat with friends is in the socializing.

So if you want to skip the overpriced appetizers+dinner+drinks but don't want to miss the fun, you can always just do the "oh I already ate, but I'll come along and just hang out

/have a drink/snack/dessert!"

The best way is to not participate in the expensive habits at all.

Try to direct your friends to cheaper venues.

Rent movies and watch at home instead of going to the movies.

Cook at home and invite friend (though this can get out of hand too.

Play games.

Ten adults playing capture the flag can still be fun.

It's important to note that some hobbies are a large investment.

Shooting sports, model airplanes, and customizing vehicles are all examples of hobbies you might want to avoid when you're on a budget.

Question: How to avoid peer pressure from friends to spend money on shopping and at restaurants?

How to avoid friends' peer pressure to spend money on shopping & at restaurants?

Suggest activities that involve staying at home like watching movies or playing board games. Don't be afraid to go shopping and not spend anything. Tell your friends you are saving for something expensive.

There are many different strategies available to you. One way of addressing this situation could just simply be to be honest and explain that you can't participate in certain activities because you don't have enough money. You could also suggest that your friends spend more time hanging out at home or even direct them towards cheaper activities or restaurants. Finally, don't be afraid to go shopping and not buy anything.

Try suggesting to your friends that you spend more time together at home, such as dinner, playing games, watching a film, etc.

Try to suggest cheaper activities or restaurants.

When out shopping, simply don't buy anything or claim that nothing takes your fancy.

You may want to just avoid expensive activities and explain to your friends why you can't participate.


Kiva.org is a nonprofit organization and does not pay you (the lender) any interest.

From their website : Kiva does not guarantee repayment nor do we offer a financial return on your loan.

Therefore Kiva will not improve your yield, as there is no money to make.

It is intended you people who want to make "charitable" loans.

That said, I think Kiva is an awesome organization.

I'm not a financial guy.

That being said, I think you can make a couple of common sense points here:

The reason this site exists is because in some of these countries there just isn't an established way to create credit history.

Partly because the infrastructure is risky to build.

It may also be due to the corruption within a country.

The really cool part about Kiva and these other lending tools might be that they can be an end run around those governments and are a 21st century approach to building the infrastructure for credit worthiness.

That being said, you probably already realize, in this situation - you're the bank - and you really ought to be acting somewhat like a bank:

What factors can I look at in each situation to evaluate whether or not this loan will be paid back?

What unknown factors am I looking at?

Are they likely to be able to get their money back to the website in question?

I'm also curious whether or not the good loans and opportunities are snatched up so quickly that all you are left with is the really high risk stuff.

Anyway that's my non-expert 0.02.

A fair number of micro-finance organisations have been listing recently and appear to be offering good yields.

So you could simply buy their stock rather than investing directly.

SKS is an Indian micro-financier that went public just a few weeks ago.

The interest rates charged can be extremely high to match the low yield per lender.

As has been mentioned, Kiva doesn't return interest to the lender.

However, Kiva doesn't lend directly either.

They on-lend to local microfinanciers who will lend at whatever interest rate the local market will bear.

The range of interest rates applied to micro-credit loans can be chilling.

45% to 85% in Africa, 30% in India and a jaw-dropping 155% in Mexico.

However, these high rates of return have attracted an absolute stampede of investors.

In Mexico more than 300 micro-credit banks compete for business.

Chuck Waterfield, the founder of MicroFinance Transparency, is concerned that there is an unsupportable bubble.

Lenders are starting to take out more loans than they can afford and banks are doing little to curb that appetite for debt.

Sound familiar?

So, you may not want to lend directly, but definitely consider looking at listed microfinanciers in places like Brazil and India.

As usual, though, study the company carefully.

Here's a blog by a guy who is trying to do this: Personal Loan Portfolio

And here's another one: bobharris.com Do a quick search for "prosper loan" or "kiva" on blog search .

Even for those sites that do offer yields (i.e. not Kiva), there are much better ways to make money.

If you're not interested in it from a humanitarian standpoint then I would suggest you stay away from microlending.

Otherwise: Kiva is awesome.

I've lent through it for a couple years now and never lost any money, and they're helping a lot of people.

I'm not sure there is good data on Kiva, etc, but P2P microlending site Prosper has released their data.

The default rates are evidently fairly high.

For borrowers in the 'developed' world (the target audience of Prosper), other sources of credit are available (e.g. banks); one has to suspect, then, that borrowers on Prosper are considered too risky for bank loans.

High risk foreign debt is great until the bottom falls out of the market when the government default on debt or revalues currency.

If you do this, you should be able to sustain near total losses of principal and interest.

Question: Have you used Kiva.org, Microplace.com or any other microlending institutions?  Any positive or negative experiences?  Does this seem like a decent way to improve overall yield, assuming I'm willing to take the risk?

Are Kiva or other microlending institutions a decent way to improve overall yield?

Kiva is an awesome company but doesn't offer yields. A number of micro-finance organisations appear to be offering good yields.

Whilst Kiva has some fairly positive reviews, it is generally agreed that it will not improve yields. That said, some other microlending companies appear to be offering good yields. In general, you should study any company carefully before deciding to use their services.

It is generally agreed that Kiva will not provide improved yield.

You should study any company carefully before using their services.

Some microlending organisations appear to be offering good yields.


What you mentioned is good to put in there.

Putting a copy of your will (not the original) is also good.

The reason why you don't put the original in there is because the box will be sealed upon your death, and it will be a mess to get the will out.

It's good off-site storage for small stuff

you don't want lost.

A fireproof safe might work, or it might not.

I wouldn't do valuables, though.

Under certain conditions they can be confiscated if they're in a safety deposit box.

Saw this article yesterday and thought about asking it.

Copy of your last will and testament Deeds, titles and insurance papers for your house, car and other personal property Birth and adoption certificates Marriage and death certificates Custody agreement and divorce decrees Military service records Passports Copy of your health information (vaccinations, hospitalizations) Copy of power-of-attorney forms (if applicable) Social Security cards Contracts and other legal papers A videotape inventory of your household items Valuable heirlooms While government forms can be replaced, proving identity is an difficult problem in the digital age, and if you lost all pieces of identity in a fire you'd be in trouble.

A backup hard disk drive containing all your family pictures and movies.

Digital life is more and more precious.

Moreover, it is bigger, cheaper and safer than cloud storage.

Consumerist posted a list of items to go in your safe deposit box:

U.S. savings bonds.

While it's true that just about everything can be replaced, actually having to replace any of those things can be extremely difficult, time consuming, and/or expensive.

I was looking into a safe deposit box and decided not to get one

rather I bought a safe with a 2-hour fire rating and bolted it to the floor.

The safe was less than $300.

My rational: A small safe deposit box, smaller than the safe I bought, would run be $50 a year.

In 6 years I would pay more than the cost of the safe and over time I would pay more than the stuff thats in it is worth.

The contents of the safe deposit box are not insured by the bank.

If the bank is robbed and they take you valuables

you're out of luck.

Some banks have master keys and can open your box without you there, this was the case with my bank.

That means you're trusting all the employees who have access to that key with your stuff.

All banks can drill your lock and take your stuff if you stop paying for the safe deposit box.

Banks can be robbed, same as your house.

Banks can burn same as your house.

Safe deposit boxes are not necessarily fireproof.

You shouldn't store your will or any paperwork a person needs upon your death in a safe deposit box anyway as it can take months for them to gain access.

In your safe at home they can access it immediately.

(provided you told them how to) Some things you legally can't store in a safe deposit box (guns, ammunition, etc).

Where do you store your safe deposit box key?

In your house?

It can be stolen or lost.

You'll be charged an arm and a leg to have to bank drill the existing lock and replace it with a new one for you.

Some examples: SentrySafe SFW123DSB 1.23 Cubic Feet Combination Fire-Safe Steelwater

AMSWD-500 2-Hour Fireproof Home and Document Safe Steelwater

AMSWD-360 2-Hour Fireproof Home and Document Safe

This is what I have in my safe deposit box - Important documents like educational certificates, passports etc - Jewelery

Agreed, replaced your passport and birth certificate is a pain, why risk having it stolen in your house if you don't need it often.

You could also put foreign currency in there that you don't need any time soon.

A few things I've found a tremendous PITA to replace if they are lost: everything you need to be "authenticated" in the digital world: a list of bank account numbers, credit card numbers and PINs, drivers licence, birth certificate, government identity (

SSN/SIN/...) numbers usernames and passwords to internet sites, including email accounts, online banking etc -

as these are often remembered in a digital keychain on your computer, if your computer dies these can be onerous to reassemble.

Question: What items would an average person keep in a safe deposit box? Sounds like most of the documents (passports, birth certificates) can be restored.

Who uses safe deposit boxes?

It is a good idea to put educational certificates, deeds and titles, birth certificates and jewelry. You could also put in a hard disk drive with all your family pictures.

The answer to this question is subjective, but people would recommend using a safe deposit box to store important documents such as passports, birth certificates or wills. You may also wish to use one to store currency or savings bonds that you're unlikely to need to a while or any important digital storage. Most people would advise against using a safe deposit box to store valuables. You may want to consult the Consumerist list of things to store in a safe deposit box.

Important documents like passports or birth certificates would be sensible to store in a safe deposit box.

A copy of your will is a good thing to store in your safe deposit box.

A safe deposit box could also be used to store savings bonds or foreign currency that you're unlikely to use soon.

Any digital storage of importance might be worth storing in a safe deposit box.

Consumerist has shared a list of items that you might want to store in a safe deposit box.

Some people would recommend against storing valuables in a safe deposit box.


As a general premise: In most of the online transactions in case of dispute the benefit of doubt is given to the customer.

IE if the customer refuses to pay and claims that its not his transaction, the card company reverses the charges and does not pay the merchant (or recovers if its already paid).

There are many types of online vendors who use a variety of methods to ensure that they are not at loss.

Some of these are: Ensuring entry of 3-4 digit CVV indicating that if someone used the card, he was in possession of it.

However anyone at a POS while swiping the card can make a note of this and misuse the card.

Additional address/ZIP code validation.

This ensure slightly better protection that for a misuse, the card number, the CVV, the address need to be known.

In spite of this online merchants Factoring in the probable loss due to fraud and marking up the price of the product to that extent.

Certain merchants like say Netflix is not bothered about any validation as their service involves delivering a movie to the doorstep everyday and they would know the customer much better and can easily track down errant subscribers.

Plus the cost of fees is for a month of service recovered in advance.

This may hold good for one time occassioanal delivery by say Amazon as the cost of tracking and getting back the goods is high.

Even if the subscriber makes away with a DVD on the first go, the loss to Netflix is just the cost of DVD copy though the gain to thief may be the market price of such DVD .

Similar is the case with say Norton or other virus service providers, they would simply deactivate the product code (if paid by card and later refused) when you go online and the purchase would be of no use.

The online industry is also plagued with cases where the transactions are actually made by card owners, who after enjoying the services dispute the claim with the card providers.

Certain countries like India have now mandated that all online card transactions be validated by additional password apart from card number and CVV.

The password needs to be generated by contacting the merchant bank before online transactions are allowed.

Of course there is still a debate if the merchant is outside India, why should he comply with the additional norm.

If an card issued outside India is used in India, they may not have additional password issued by their card providers.

Given that the laws on consumer liability for unauthorized transactions mean no cost in most cases, the CVV is there to protect the merchant.

Typically a merchant will receive a lower cost from their bank to process the transaction with the CVV code versus without.

As far as the Netflix case goes, (or any other recurring billing for that matter) they wouldn't care as much about it because Visa/MC/Amex regulations prohibit storage of the CVV.

So if they collect it then it's only used for the first transaction and renewals just use the rest of the card info (name, expiration date, address).

Does the presence of CVV indicate the merchant has better security?

Maybe, maybe not.

It probably means they care about their costs and want to pay the bank as little as possible to process the transaction.

They may verify the card by ZIP code, address, etc.

They may accept additional risk for the sake of convenience/laziness.

Since if transaction is rolled back, the merchant is the one who suffers, credit card companies would allow some merchants to get away with relaxed checks.

There are different ways of credit card purchase authorizations.

if some choose less secure method

it's their problem.

Merchants are charged back if a stolen card is used.

Some businesses verify the shipping address with the credit card company, and refuse to ship to an alternate address without additional, offline verification.

Of course, this is only useful for physical goods.

@Jeremy Using CVV doesn't decrease the transaction cost.

I know this because I have quotes for CC transactions and the cost/transaction

doesn't depend on using CVV.

That said we don't plan to use CVV because we sell insurance and the likelihood that someone who steals CC will buy insurance is very low.

The truth is that Visa does not require a merchant to enter the cvv number before authorizing a transaction.

The only information that is really needed is the credit card number and expiration date.

money.stackexchange.com/users/29568/William Noah Alexis III

Question: How is it that some e-commerce stores are able to process credit card transactions without getting the 3 (or 4-) -digit security code from the back of my credit card?  What value does this code add if it's optional in the end?

Why do some online stores not ask for the 3-digit code on the back of my credit card?

The benefit of the doubt is given to the customer. The marchant's bank will charge them for processing without the CVV. In any case, a lot of credit card regulations prohibit CVV storage, so accounts like Netflix, this is a bonus.

The value of the CVV is mainly for the merchant as it provides them added protection and might reduce their transaction fees. However, the CVV is not required to process a transaction and indeed, some card providers prohibit the storage of the CVV by merchants, making its use less beneficial.

The CVV exists primarily to protect the merchant not the customer.

Merchants receive a lower cost on transactions if they use the CVV.

Visa does not require the CVV in order to process a transaction.

Some card providers prohibit storage of the CVV, so it can be less convenient to use it in transactions.


IMO it's usually not worth it

and here's why.

There's a statistical distribution of how likely a unit may fail depending on its age.

Probability is high for a short period after the unit comes into use because there are parts that were not thoroughly tested and manufacturing defects.

Then all those defective parts fail and get replaces and the unit likely functions without faults for years.

Then it reaches it lifetime end and again probability becomes

much higher - parts wear out and start failing one by one.

Every unit comes with a manufacturer warranty of one to two years already and that warranty will likely cover any defect causes by materials and manufacturing defects - the period when fault probability is initially high.

"Extended warranty" only covers the unit for two-to-five years and most units have lifetime of about ten years.

This means that the "extended warranty" is in effect when it is least useful .

Generally, a polite decline.

However, I have dealt with sales people who take first refusal as a "test" response, and decide to go into the details anyway.

The longer they talk the more robust my responses.

See this Telegraph article that discusses why their experts think it's a ripoff, and why you should check your credit cards and home insurance policies as they may already have you covered (possibly UK/Europe only).

On a different note, see this list of questions to ask if you are considering going with the extended warranty.

The source doesn't rule for or against the idea, leaving it at caveat emptor: http://www.choice.com.au/reviews-and-tests/technology/home-entertainment/accessories/extended-warranties/page/questions%20to%20ask.aspx

On most of the consumer electronics it would not make much sense to get Insurance.

Mostly these are not priced right [are typically priced higher].

IE there is no study to arrive at equivalent claim rates as in motor vehicle.

Further on most of the items there is adequate manufacturing warranty to take care of initial defects.

And on most it would make sense to buy a newer model as in todays world consumer electronics are not only getting cheaper by the day, but are also have more function & features.

I politely decline.

Insurance is there to protect me against catastrophic financial loss (huge medical bills, owing a mortgage on a house that burned down, etc.)

not a way to game the system and pay for routine expenses or repairs.

I decline politely.

The cost of the insurance policy has two components: The actual cost of a likely repair + profit.

If I set aside the cost of a likely repair myself, then I get to keep the profit.

If the item doesn't break, I get to keep the "repair" money too :)

Most of the consumer products that you buy at retail these days are commodity priced, and have been for a long time.

Margins are thin, so if there are retail salespeople milling about, their compensation isn't coming from the TV or computer with a 6% gross margin.

It comes from the extended warranty programs (which are not insurance and do not have regulated underwriting standards), which are typically sold at a 65-95% gross margin.

So that $200 warranty most likely costs the retailer $50.

The salesman gets $15-25.

I paid for my college education working at a CompUSA selling these things, along with other high margin items that paid commission.

In most cases, you aren't getting much coverage anyway.

Most products carry a 1 year warranty, and using most "gold" or "platinum" credit cards doubles a manufacturer's warranty by up to 1 year.

So with most transactions, you are already walking away with a 2 year warranty.

Warranties or service plans make sense for durable goods that cost alot and are expected to last a long time and/or require regular maintenance.

I think they especially make sense if your budget is really tight -- a fixed maintenance cost can be an asset to some people because they can plan around it.

Examples of this include: service plans for a furnace, boiler or water heater or a car if you're buying a manufacturer-endorsed service/maintenance plan from a dealer.

I usually say "no thank you", but if the salesperson gets pushy I say "if I need insurance, I guess I won't buy the product because I only want to buy quality that will last a good long while" I have never actually walked away from a purchase because I generally research these things ahead of time, but I think I mean it when I say it.

One important issue that has yet to be covered is the cost (to you) in terms of paperwork, lost time, and phone calls that you have to make to claim the insurance.

Such insurance claims often are very low priority on their customer service queues (for obvious reasons, since they have already made the sale).

Therefore, you might have to spend up to a few hours of your time calling or writing emails to claim the warranty, which may often not be much

( Therefore, many people end up not claiming the warranty during the hassle.

Much like non-scam mail-in rebates , more often than not you would either forget to or decide it is not worth your time to claim the warranty.

Before buying such policies, other than the obvious cost-benefit calculations, you should also take this additional factor into account.

Question: I have a practice of never buying insurance except when the law demands, such as car insurance, or when the loss would be too great to bear, such as house insurance, and this policy has saved me a lot of money over the years.  How do you react when the salesman offers you an extended 5 year guarantee on your new washing machine?

Buying insurance (extended warranty or guarantee) on everyday goods / appliances?

Most people politely decline such offers.


There are certain companies that will let you pay a flat fee per month instead of billing you for consumption.

You should call your providers and ask them if they have such an option available; this way budgeting will be easy. :)

If you are just starting out, my tactic would be to go way high and then consider any different play money.

So guess $90 and when it comes in at $60, buy a new shirt or go on a date.

Even if they did publish historical usage rates, those numbers might not be relevant.

The previous resident may have been an energy hog who left appliances on 24x7, or a luddite who sweated out the summers rather than turning on the A/C. Beyond that, I've lived in Kansas my whole life, and have never found a good method for estimating utility costs.

The best I've been able to do is track expenses month by month to get an average.

But one year we have a mild winter, then the next we'll have a week of sub-freezing temperatures, and the estimates from the previous year are worthless.

Hmmm.

I hadn't considered that energy usage would be considered confidential.

How about asking a nearby neighbor to share their next bill.

If it's higher or lower than yours, just scale the history up or down accordingly.

Other than that, the utility company might offer its own level billing plan where they handle the estimate and offer you the same payment each month.

money.stackexchange.com/users/187/JTP - Apologise to Monica

Here in Upstate NY, in a house with no air conditioning, my peak winter electric/gas bill is roughly 3x a summer bill more typically, it's about double.

A typical bill outside of heating season is $125.

We basically set aside $200/mo for electric & gas, and keep the balance in a separate account at ING Direct (We like ING, as you can easily create and name accounts for specific purposes).

We own a house, so usually we rebalance the account in September when the school taxes arrive.

Question: I'm revisiting my budget and the amount I have slated for electricity was off by roughly 30 dollars or 50 percent. I live in an all electric apartment, no gas or fireplace. Here in Kansas we get cold winters and hot summers, but I've always had a hard time estimating the kwh and total cost.  Given that my utility company doesn't publish historical usage rates from past occupants, is there any hope of building an accurate budget?

How do I budget for heating & cooling?

You could track your expenses month by month and get an average. You could also ask the utility company to handle the estimate and offer you the same payment each month.

If you're just starting to make your budget, you could set your budget very high and then adjust it as the months go on. You could also ask a neighbour to share their bill with you to give you a rough idea. Additionally, some utility companies may be able to help you estimate your usage.

You could start by setting a very high budget in the hope that your bill comes in lower.

You could track your bill over a few months to get a rough idea.

You could ask a neighbour to share their next bill with you to give you an idea of what to expect.

Some utility companies will help you estimate your usage.


For the sake of sanity, pay off your debt maybe not all but some part of it.

You never know what the monster, the stock market may turn out to be.

It may gobble up all your money without belching or it may gift you with a bounty.

But if you pay off all your debt and the stock market monster is rewarding everybody else, you may rue your decision.

So put some part of it the markets too, but a more safer one would be a good bet.

The proportions of money for loan repayment and for investing in markets is your decision, after you evaluate all your future predictions.

2.47% is a really, really good rate, doubly so if it's a fixed rate, and quadruply so if the interest is tax-deductible.

That's about as close to "free money" as you're ever going to get.

Heck, depending on what inflation does over the next few years, it might even be cheaper than free.

So if you have the risk tolerance for it, it's probably more effective to invest the money in the stock market than to accelerate your student loan payoff.

You can even do better in the bond market (my go-to intermediate-term corporate bond fund is yielding nearly 4% right now.)

Just remember the old banker's aphorism: Assets shrink.

Liabilities never shrink.

You can lose the money you've invested in stocks or bonds, and you'll still have to pay back the loan.

And, when in doubt, you can usually assume you're underestimating your risks.

If you're feeling up for it, I'd say: make sure you have a good emergency fund outside of your investment money - something you could live on for six months or so and pay your bills while looking for a job, and sock the rest into something like the Vanguard LifeStrategy Moderate Growth fund or a similar instrument (Vanguard's just my personal preference, since I like their style - and by style

, I mean low fees - but definitely feel free to consider alternatives).

You could also pad your retirement accounts and avoid taxes on any gains instead, but remember that it's easier to put money into those than take it out, so be sure to double-check the state of your emergency fund.

I'd recommend hitting the loan the hardest, but getting something invested as well.

It's tempting to see these decisions as binary, so it's good to see you wondering if a "mix" is best.

I admit to being a spreadsheet junky, but I think this is a good candidate for working up various scenarios to see where the pain/pleasure point is

and once you've identified it, move forward with it (e.g., let's say it's a 10K lump sum you're dealing with

, what does 5k on the loan and 5k invested look like over the next 6 months, 12 months, 24 months (requires assumptions on investment performance)?

What about 6K loan, 4K invested?

7K loan, 3K invested?

etc)

I read your question that you have a comfortable amount toward retirement.

If not, pad your retirement accounts if possible.

If your loan rate is locked at 2.67%, invest that money in the market and pay the loan as agreed.

So long as you feel comfortable in your employment and income status for the next few years, I would bet you will get a lot more out of your cash investing in diversified, low cost funds or ETFs that you will save in interest on that loan.

Finally, if you decide to lower your debt instead of increasing investments (based on your tolerance for risk) why not pay more on the mortgage?

If you owe most of your mortgage and it is typically long term, you might cut many years off of the mortgage with a large payment.

The fact that you are planning to sell the property does not make paying down the mortgage a bad idea.

Reducing the principal immediately reduces the amount of interest you are paying every month.

Run the numbers to see how much money that actually saves you over the time you expect to hold the loan.

Question: I currently have a Student loan at a 2.47% interest rate, I owe most of my home mortgage and have a minimal amount invested in the stock market (not counting retirement).  I have some money that can reduce my student loan by 58% or add 46% to my stock portfolio.  My stock portfolio has been giving decent returns but at this point is almost all unrealized gains (other than dividends).  Should I put that extra money in the student loan or towards my stock portfolio or a mix?

Should I pay my Education Loan or Put it in the Stock Market?

You should pay off some of the loan with that money, but keep the rest of it invested.

Most people would probably recommend paying off at least part of your loan early. However, if your interest rate is low and locked for the loan, then you might want to leave it as it is and invest instead.

Many people would recommend paying off your loan at least in part, if not as much as possible.

If your interest rate is locked at 2.67%, you may want to leave it alone and continue to invest.


My insurer will let me suspend my insurance and park the car.

It costs about $1/month, but I am still covered if it gets stolen from where it sits.

I guess I can call and change it from suspended to not suspended once a month in their system, but I really only do it a couple of times a year for a second car.

Call your carrier and see if they have such a solution, perhaps it will be the best of both worlds for you.

If you go a period of time without car insurance, when you want to get it again you are treated as a higher risk insuree.

I had that happen too me when I went back to school.

I got rid of the car while in school and after finally graduating, getting a job and a new car my insurance rates were quite high despite having a safe driving record.

They said it was because I wasn't insured for a few years.

I don't recall how long it took for me to get reclassified as a safe driver.

If you're expecting to not use that car for a long time (several months or more), and it does not have enormous sentimental value, you should think about just selling it.

Cars depreciate something like 1% per month, and can degrade if they're not driven reasonably regularly, so I think the break-even is at about 6 months disuse.

If you are driving a roommate's car, you still need liability coverage.

If you injure someone, you are personally liable regardless of the car's ownership.

Talk to your insurance agent, they can help walk you through the options in your state.

You need to be meticulous about following the rules -- the DMV looks unkindly upon insurance lapses.

Depending upon the insurance company they might want to charge you a bit extra for not having had coverage in a given amount of time.

But beyond that, when it comes time to get insurance again there should not be any extra fees.

However, if you are canceling the insurance in the middle of the period there might be some sort of fee.

Depending on your state (NY is one), if you cancel your insurance, you must also turn-in your plates.

Question: I own my car outright and just moved to a large city. Public transportation and access to a roommate's car makes transportation easy. I am thinking about storing my car at my parents house and cancelling my car insurance. The car will not be driven unless I reactivate my insurance.  Are there any pitfalls involved in this I should be aware of? Will there be any reactivation fees or higher insurance fees in the future?

I am thinking about cancelling my car insurance. Will there be any hidden costs down the road?

Your insurer might let you suspend your insurance. If you cancel it completely then you might be considered a high risk driver when you reactivate it. There also might be a fee for canceling in the middle of the period. In some states, if you cancel insurance, you also need to turn in your plates.

Some insurers let you suspend your insurance and park the car.  On the other hand, if you go a period of time without car insurance, when you want to get it again you are treated as a higher risk or some insurance companies might want to charge you a bit extra for not having had coverage in a given amount of time.  Also if you are canceling the insurance in the middle of the period there might be a fee. Bear in mind that if you are driving someone else’s car, you still need liability coverage, as if you injure someone, you are personally liable regardless of the car's ownership.

If you go a period of time without car insurance, when you want to get it again you are treated as a higher risk or some insurance companies might want to charge you a bit extra for not having had coverage in a given amount of time.  Also if you are canceling the insurance in the middle of the period there might be some sort of fee.

Depending on your state (NY is one), if you cancel your insurance, you  must  also turn-in your plates.


It's a bad idea but not because of the reasons you list...

You can dispute a charge and get it reversed, that has nothing to do with whether it has been paid or not.

I wouldn't put a credit card payment on auto payment for a different reason - manually making a payment forces me to see the statement for fraudulent charges.

Imagine someone made a fraudulent purchase using your card and the amount was automatically taken away from your account - your bank balance won't be what you think it should be!

I've been doing this for years, and haven't had a problem (yet).

Since I pay of the entire balance every month, this ensures that I never have to pay interest because I forgot to send in a payment.

As MoneyCone said, it does require discipline on your part to check your statement each month, prior to the autopay.

Remember, that even with autopay, you can override it for particular statements.

So if there is a fraudulent charge, you can dispute it with the credit card company, and manually pay the card whatever amount you want.

The one thing I do worry about is the credit card making an error and withdrawing more than they should.

This is why I have the autopay tied to my local credit union account, which I only keep enough to pay the credit card bills and the occasional paper check, limiting the damage.

Most of my money are in an ING account, where I use online billpay to take care of the rest of my expenses.

Whether this is a good idea or not really depends on how active you are with your money management or how lazy you are about it.

If you are careful with your credit card spending, and always keep within your budget, automatic payment can reduce the time you need to spend managing your credit card account and paying bills.

If you occasionally splurge and need to keep a balance on your credit card (usually a very expensive form of credit) then paying off in full could lead to more money being taken from your current/checking account than you might expect, which could cause other debits to be refused.

However, depending on where you are located, you may have another option.

In the UK, most banks offer the option to pay off the minimum amount automatically by direct debit , rather than paying off the full amount.

For instance: You must pay us £5 or 2.5%,

whichever is higher, of your statement balance, or if less than £5, your statement balance.

Paying at least this portion automatically can be very useful if your credit card company charge you a late payment fee.

E.g.: Default charges, Late payment, £12 In combination with a standing order , it can also make budgeting easier.

You guarantee to pay off the minimum charges every month using the minimum direct debit, and then pay off an affordable amount every month to cover interest and reducing your principal debt using the standing order.

This gives you finer control, but also ensures that you are never stung with late payment charges.

I used to live on a debit card, but switched over a year ago for the rewards.

I've been doing this for a while.

Works fine as long as you have the discipline to track all the expenses.

The standard ACH precautions apply: the company you let do this can be crazy hard to stop.

But I figure it's worse to incur the penalty fees and interest because I was sick/busy/traveling, as every dollar I spend on my CC

I intend to pay.

While it's easy to set up autopay and never actually look at your spending, it's still dangerous to your wealth.

So I set up an easy system with GNUCash that constructs every transaction I anticipate 1 billing cycle out, and I record a transaction that pays the whole balance off, and when I get the bill adjust downwards to match the actual payment (some transactions get two months of grace period).

If it looks like I don't have the cash to cover the autopay for some reason, I've got time to re-arrange things before the four horsemen of the banking apocalypse arrive.

It also makes it dead simple to reconcile the credit card with what I've got planned: most transactions match up with an existing transaction so any unexpected charges will stand out in yellow as unmatched and uncategorized.

I only have 1 credit card that I use and make sure that they money in the bank is always higher than the card limit so having auto-pay means I don't have to worry about it.

As others have mentioned, it doesn't affect your ability to dispute fraudulent charges, so as long as you aren't concerned with not having enough in the bank to make the payment, it makes things a lot simpler.

Other answers have talked about fraud.

I've never had sizable fraud on my credit card, but I have had errors.

One in particular was a fat fingered entry by a doctor's office.

I authorized them to bill $540 or so, and they put in a charge for $5400.

It went through just fine (thanks Chase), and then immediately threw my whole account into a mess since that was over my limit.

I had overlimit fees plus the balance over the limit was immediately due.

It was a pain.

At a time like that, I was glad that I didn't have auto payment.

Also, I occasionally have large credit card payments that I need to rearrange money to pay for.

For instance, buying two airline tickets can easily be $1500, and I don't generally have that much in my interest-free checking account.

If you are nervous about that, why not just sign up to have the payments direct debited from your checking account WITHOUT using the credit card.

My house and car payments have been direct debiting for years with no issue whatsoever and it eliminates the risk of messing up your credit by accidentally missing a payment.

Bottom line: Don't bother with using the card as a middle man.

I wouldn't worry too much about the charges.

Worst case scenario is if there is fradulent behavior then I've never had issues getting it reversed.

Question: Many credit card companies offer customers to make their payments via automatic direct debit from their checking accounts. Is this potentially a bad idea for cardholders? One thing that concerns me is that I could lose the right (or at least, the leverage) to have fraudulent charges reversed and merchant disputes resolved.  Are my concerns warranted? Are there any other reasons to not allow credit card companies to automatically debit your checking account?

Auto-pay credit card from checking account: Bad idea?

Even with autopay, you can still override it for fraudulent payments. Make the payment manually means you are forced to check the statement every month.

Manually making a payment instead of putting a credit card payment on auto payment forces you to check the statement for fraudulent charges, rather than the amount for a fraudulent purchase with your card being automatically debited from your account. Choosing not to set up automatic payments requires discipline to check your statement each month, prior to the autopay. But even with autopay, you can override the payment for particular statements.

S2: As MoneyCone said, it does require discipline on your part to check your statement each month, prior to the autopay.

S3: Remember, that even with autopay, you can override it for particular statements.


Trading at the start of a session is by far higher than at any other time of the day.

This is mostly due to markets incorporating news into the prices of stocks.

In other words, there are a lot of factors that can affect a stock, 24 hours a day, but the market trades for only 6.5 hours a day.

So, a lot of news accumulates during the time when people cannot trade on that news.

Then when markets finally open, people are able to finally trade on that news, and there is a lot of "price discovery" going on between market participants.

In the last minutes of trading, volumes increase as well.

This can often be attributed to certain kinds of traders closing out their position before the end of the day.

For example, if you don't want to take the risk a large price movement at the start of the next day affecting you, you would need to completely close your position.

Trading at the start of the day is highest because of news flows that may have come after the close of the previous day.

And trading at the end of the day is highest because of expected news flows after closing hours.

Moreover, there are many day traders who buy in the morning without making any payment for purchase and such traders have to sell by evening or else they will have to make the payment for the purchases which they have made.

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.

The shift to trading at the close began in 2008.

Traders did not want to be caught off guard by surprise news and there was a lot of volatility during the financial crisis, so they would close their position in the evening.

Thats how it began.

There are two reasons why it sticks around.

First, there has been an increase usage of index funds or passive funds.

These funds tend to update their positions at the end of the day.

From the WSJ: Another factor behind the shift has been the proliferation of passively managed investments, such as index funds.

These funds aim to mimic an index, like the S&P 500, by owning the shares that comprise it.

Index funds don’t trade as often as active investors, but when they do, it is typically near the market close, traders say.

That is because buying or selling a stock at its closing price better aligns their performance with the index they are trying to emulate.

The second reason is simply that volume attracts volume.

As a result of whats mentioned above, you have a shift to end of day trading, and the corrolary to that is that there is a liquidity shortage from 10am to 3pm.

Thus, if you want to buy or sell a stock, but there are few buyers or sellers around, you will significant move the price when you enter your order.

Obviously this does not affect retail traders, but imagine hedge funds entering or closing a billion dollar position.

It can make a huge impact on price.

And one way to mitigate that is to wait until there are more market participants to take the other end of your trade, just as at the end of the day.

So this is a self-reinforcing trend that has begun in the markets and will likely stick around.

Trading volumes are higher at the end of the day as many traders close their open positions.

In the morning however, traders incorporate various factors like performance of worldwide markets overnight, any corporate or government announcements, global macro events, etc.

Question: Not related to  this  question, I am asking why stocks seem to be traded at very high volumes right at the start and end of the trading day. Is this because these graphs factor in all of the premarket and postmarket trades?

Why do stocks tend to trade at high volumes at the end of (or start) the trading day?

There are lost of factors that affect stock over 24 hours, while the market trades for only 6.5. In the morning, traders incorporate performance of the markets overnight. At the end of the day, they might try to anticipate news events overnight. Traders might also have to sell the stocks they bought in the morning to avoid paying for them.

In the US market early morning traders may be reacting to European market activities. Trading at the start of the day is highest because of news flow coming through after closure the day before. Trading volumes are higher at the end of the day because many traders are closing their open positions. Reaction to news and events is either in the morning when the market opens or in the late afternoon if news is being anticipated. There are also traders who buy in the morning without making payment for their purchases and therefore they need to sell by evening or they will have to make payment for the purchases they have made.

There are several factors that can affect stocks, 24 hours a day, but the market trades for only 6.5 hours a day.


In a simple statement, no doesn't matter.

Checked on my trade portal, everything lines up.

Same ISIN, same price(after factoring in FX conversions, if you were thinking about arbitrage those days are long gone).

But a unusual phenomenon I have observed is, if you aren't allowed to buy/sell a stock in one market and try to do that in a different market for the same stock you will still not be allowed to do it.

Tried it on French stocks as my current provider doesn't allow me to deal in French stocks.

Different exchanges sometimes offer different order types , and of course have different trading fees.

But once a trade is finished, it should not matter where it was executed.

Also important to keep in mind is the difference in liquidity.

The stock could be very liquid in 1 exchange but not in another.

When times get bad, liquidity could dry up 1 one exchange, which results in a trading discount.

Really arbitrage means that, currency risk aside, it shouldn't matter which exchange you buy on in price terms alone.

Arbitrage will always make sure that the prices are equivalent otherwise high frequency traders can make free money off the difference.

In practical terms liquidity and brokerage costs usually make trading on the "home" exchange more worthwhile as any limit orders etc will be filled at a better price as you will more easily find a counterparty to your trade.

Obviously that will only be an issue where your quantity is significant enough to move the market on a given exchange.

The volume needed to move a market is dependent upon the liquidity of the particular stock.

Yes, it does matter very much.

There's a thing called fungible instruments .

These are the instruments where it doesn't matter.

E.g. most options I ever dealt with in the US are fungible no matter

which US exchange you trade them on.

A fungible instrument is an instrument where you buy 1 lot on exchange A, then sell 1 lot on exchange B, and as a result you have 0 lots.

With another instrument, you can buy 1 lot on exchange A, sell 1 lot on exchange B, and even tough they are the exact same thing, you now own 1, and owe 1 - they don't cancel each other out.

Other than that, in different countries there are obviously different laws and regulations.

For a small at home trader who just gambles for fun and isn't interested in negative positions (sell what you don't have), there isn't much of a difference .

I think that's what the other answers are saying.

Question: Does it make a difference at which stock exchange I buy a special security(e.g. whether I buy at Frankfurt or New York)?  Yes, I have in mind that there are different currencies, but I mean just things regarding the security alone.

Buy securities at another stock exchange

There are different laws and regulations for each country. Prices will be equivalent thanks to arbitrage. Some exchanges offer different order types and trading fees.

It shouldn't really matter which exchange you buy on with respect to price terms. Arbitrage ensures that prices are equivalent to prevent high frequency trader making free money from the difference. Practically speaking, liquidity and brokerage costs usually make trading on the "home" exchange more worthwhile as limit orders for example will be filled at a better price as it will be easier to find a counterparty to your trade. Different exchanges sometimes offer different  order types , and of course have different trading fees.  Also, in different countries there are obviously different laws and regulations. But for small traders there isn't much of a difference.


That would be the ultimate in insider trading.

They made a stock transaction knowing in advance what was going to happen to the share price.

They could easily expect to face jail time, plus the CEO would still face lawsuits from the board of directors, the stockholders and the employees.

mhoran_psprep has answered the question well about "shorting" e.g. making a profit if the stock price goes down.

However a CEO can take out insurance (called hedging) against the stock price going down in relation to stocks they already own in some cases.

But is must be disclosed in public filings etc.

This may be done for example if most of the CEO’s money is in the stock of the company and they can’t sell for tax reasons.

Normally it would only be done for part of the CEO’s holding.

If we take only the title of the question "can the CEO short the stock": It was probably different before Enron, but nowadays a CEO can only make planned trades, that is trades that are registered a very long time before, and that cannot be avoided once registered.

So the CEO can say "I sell 100,000 shares in exactly six months time".

Then in six months time, the CEO can and must sell the shares.

Anything else will get him into trouble with the SEC quite automatically.

I don't know if shorting a stock or buying options can be done that way at all.

So it's possible only in the sense of "it's possible, but you'll be in deep trouble".

Selling shares or exercising share options may indicate that the company's business is in trouble.

If the sale makes that impression and everyone else starts selling because the CEO sold his shares, then the CEO may be in trouble with the board of directors.

Such a sale would be totally legal (if announced long time ahead), but just a bad move if it makes the company look bad.

Shorting sales is much worse in that respect.

If the CEO wants to buy a new car, he may have to sell some shares (there are people paid almost only in share options),

no matter where the share price is going.

But shorting shares means that you most definitely think the share price is going to drop.

You're betting your money on it.

That would tend to get a CEO fired, even if it was legal.

Yes.

It's called executive hedging , and it's a lot more common than most people know.

As long as it's properly disclosed and the decision is based on publicly available information, there's technically nothing wrong with it.

Krispy Kreme, Enron, MCI, and ImClone are the most notable companies that had executives

do it on a large scale, but almost every company has or had executives execute a complex form of hedging known as a prepaid variable forward (PVF) .

In a PVF, the executive gives his shares to an investment bank in exchange for a percentage of cash up front.

The bank then uses the executive shares to hedge in both directions for them.

This provides a proxy that technically isn't the executive that needs to disclose.

There's talk about it needing to be more public at the SEC right now. http://www.sec.gov/news/statement/020915-ps-claa.html

(yes, this should probably be a comment, not an answer ...

but it's a bit long).

I don't know what the laws are specifically about this, but my grandfather used to be on the board of a company that he helped to found ... and back in the 1980s, there was a period when the stock price suddenly quadrupled One of the officers in the company, knowing that the stock was over-valued, sold around a third of his shares ... and he got investigated for insider trading.

I don't recall if he was ever charged with anything, but there were some false rumors spreading about the company at the time

(one was that they had something that you could sprinkle on meat to reduce the cholesterol).

I don't know where the rumors came from, but I've always assumed it was some sort of pump-and-dump stock manipulation, as this was decades before they were on the S&P 500 small cap.

After that, the company had a policy where officers had to announce they were selling stock, and that it wouldn't execute for some time (1? 2 weeks?

something like that).

I don't know if that was the SEC's doing, or something that the company came up with on their own.

It seems also on some international markets this is allowed. http://www.businessinsider.com/li-hejun-shorting-hanergy-2015-5

Question: I'm just curious, it seems a CEO could make a lot of money by shorting a huge amount of shares on his company through a third party and then purposefully tanking the company before being fired. Surely this is illegal right?

Can a CEO short his own company?

This would be insider trading, which is illegal. A CEO can only make planned trades.

If it is all properly disclosed and the decision is based on publicly available information, then it is technically allowed and referred to as executive hedging , and is a lot more common than most people realize. So it may be possible and if legal would at a minimum get the CEO fired. It may also be classed as insider trading and the CEO could face jail time, as well as lawsuits from the board of directors, stockholders and employees. Since Enron, a CEO can only make planned trades.

It may be possible and if legal would at a minimum get the CEO fired. It would be classed as insider trading and the CEO could face jail time, as well as lawsuits from the board of directors, stockholders and employees.


If your goal is to pay off your loans early, you don't have to refinance.

You can simply pay extra on your student loans, making sure that any extra you send in is applied to the principal of your loans.

Refinancing the student loans into a new loan will save you money on interest, but over one year, it may not be a lot of interest.

Let's look at the numbers for taking two of these loans ($7k).

For the sake of discussion, we'll assume that the average interest rate for these "higher interest" loans is 8%.

If you left the loans where they are and paid off the $7k in a year, it would cost you $307 in total interest .

If, instead, you refinanced the $7k at 3% and paid them off in a year, you would only be charged $114 in total interest , a savings of $193.

Whether or not the refinancing paper work (and any fees) are worth the amount you will save is up to you.

The only other watchout I can think of when it comes to refinancing is that when you compare options, make sure that your new loan is paid off in the same time as the old loan would have been (or quicker).

If you refinance at a lower rate, but take longer to pay off the loan, you would likely pay more interest despite the lower rate.

money.stackexchange.com/users/10997/Ben Miller - Remember Monica

One drawback worth keeping in mind when you are doing the math to figure out if this is worth it or not is that the interest on a student loan is tax deductible whereas the interest on the loan from your credit union is probably not.

The potential drawback of paying off a long term loan with a short term loan is an increase in the required payments.

That means you build up savings slower and if you lose your job you burn your savings faster.

You say this loan is to be repaid over a year.

Thats a really short term.

If things go well you would save a little bit of money verses just making bigger payments on the high interest loan but if things go badly and you lose your job but still have to pay the loan your savings burn rate will be massively increased.

It does depend on the exact terms of the loan though, if it's like a credit card where failing to make required payments or running off the end of a teaser period results in a massive interest rate hike then don't touch it with a bargepole.

On the other hand if there are some terms in there allowing for defferal in the event of losing your job it may be more worthwhile.

If these are Federally subsidized student loans (Stafford, Perkins), then be aware that refinancing to a non-subsidized loan carries the risk of removing the flexibility you have to repay federally subsidized student loans, if something changes in your life (you lose your job, for example).

With Federally subsidized loans, you have options to modify your payment schedule substantially in order to avoid defaulting on your loan if your circumstances change.

Those are often not options for other kinds of loans.

For smaller amounts like this that may not be a high risk for you, but it's something to keep in mind; life circumstances change, health issues or job loss can make it harder to pay your loans off.

assuming that you don't lose your job, then this is probably a great idea.

however, if you run into financial trouble, it will be a lot harder to manage with the extra loan payments.

to make the right choice you will need to consider the odds of losing your job, the time it will take you to get a new job, and the size of your emergency fund.

another thing to consider is that student loans can usually be put into deferment fairly easily (especially federally subsidized loans).

basically, you tell the bank you lost your job, and they let you skip some payments without ruining your credit.

these 1-yr loans are almost certainly not going to be ok with that.

side notes:

student loan interest can be tax deductable (subject to income limits), but this won't cover the 4%+ gap in interest rates of your specific case.

a good rule of thumb is to multiply student loan interest rates by 0.75 when comparing to non-deductable interest rates.

instead of using a 3% loan to refinance part of your student loans, you might look into refinancing and/or consolidating all of your student loans.

even if you end up paying 4% interest, you save some interest on all the balance rather than just part of the balance, and the loan may still qualify as a student loan for tax purposes.

The main drawback, is that you will be increasing the size of your commitments over the repayment schedule of the short-term loan.

However you will be lowering the amount of interest you pay long-term on your student loan.

If you can afford to continue making the same payments on your student loan as you already do, and this short term loan, then I say go for it.

It will save you some money.

Question: I have about $30k in student loans. I graduated last May and have a steady income. Now, my company's credit union offers $3.5k loans at 3% to be repaid over a year (they automatically deduct from my check).  I am considering taking out one or two of these to knock out some of my higher interest loans, which can be between 7% - 9.5%. Is this a good idea? Are there any drawbacks?

Should I use short term loans to pay for student loans?

This is a good idea, assuming you don't lose your job. You would probably end up with higher payments and your student loan is tax deductible, while the credit union wouldn't be. You could also look into consolidating your student loans.

As long as you don't lose your job, then this is probably a great idea, as refinancing to a non-subsidized loan risks removing the flexibility you have to repay federally subsidized student loans if you lose your job for example. You will also need to ensure that your new loan is paid off in the same time as the old loan would have been or quicker.  You need to work out if this is worth it as the interest on a student loan is tax deductible whereas the interest on the loan from your credit union is probably not. Instead of using a 3% loan to refinance part of your student loans, a better option might be to consolidate all of your student loans

As long as you don't lose your job, then this is probably a great idea.

You will need to ensure that your new loan is paid off in the same time as the old loan would have been or quicker.

Refinancing to a non-subsidized loan risks removing the flexibility you have to repay federally subsidized student loans if you lose your job for example

Innstead of using a 3% loan to refinance part of your student loans, a better option might be to consolidate all of your student loans.